|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
7
   |
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:16:56 -
[1] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I can't be sure, but I think we're in agreement here. Just to make my opinion clearer, I think EHP grinds are good. If I had to pick between EHP and timers, anyway.
The time I spent on Sisi was just me getting a sense of how hard it is to ref a system. In terms of the number of dreads needed to ref the structures in one siege cycle, I found that each structure was:
Poco: 2 dreads
Ihub: 8-10 dreads
Outpost: 8-10 dreads
refining station service: 3-4 dreads
The reason I bring this up is to illuminate exactly how OP an entosis module is. For each objective, that's how many dreads are being replaced by one Entosis module. Counting the run-up cycle, those figures are cut in half.
That is, assuming all it will take is one effective Entosis cycle to reinforce something.
When the Entosis times are released, the number of five-minute Entosis cycles required is the number of times those dreads are being split in terms of DPS. I'm curious to see exactly how much DPS will be replaced per cycle.
Sure, we know how much EHP will be replaced, but Entosis is moving the EHP requirement over to a time requirement... which I disagree with, but whatever. I'll make do.
I'd rather see structure EHP increased 10x, 20x, 50x... whatever, as a buffer for the defenders. Enough EHP to get rid of timers. Basically the opposite of the Entosis direction.
I think SBUs should be the only timer in the process, perhaps 24 hours (and no more), with a huge EHP buffer. After that, there are no timers, only EHP buffers.
Well I sold all of my capitals and because of the sov grind. That is the most boring part of eve. I would rather get something in timer then have a race to fight for complexes and each other in sub caps then sit starring at my dread or carrier on structure over structure. Actually I would rather run missions or mine in high sec then do the sov grind. Capitals are dead except for transport and they should die. Make things smaller faster. The large alliances will still control null sec just make sov mechanics more fun. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:56:40 -
[2] - Quote
I think the Entosis link yes the boring part is the person running the link. However I think it should take a couple times for Sov structures then have complexes popup in the constellation then have a race to see who can get the most complexes done. So a 4 hour timer starts to claim complexes if no one gets enough complexes or the sov holder get the majority of complexes then they keep there sov. If an invader get the majority of complexes in 2 hour they get the sov. So more people can get it done faster with smaller groups doing more complexes. This will Also create conflict and fights as 2 or more groups race to fight for the complexes. This I think this would be a lot more fun then sitting in a dread hitting f1 every few minutes after your guns reload. This would also give the bonus to the sov holders since they would have ships and manpower available at close range in a fight. The invaders would have to have logistics and fleet replacement and be able to get back in the fight quickly so they would probably not go to far from home to start. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:48:02 -
[3] - Quote
The complex system in the consolation also makes an opertunity for the defenders at gate camps traping the invaders as the move out to get the complexes. I think it should take days to flip a system but it should be by fleet control of the constellation instead of who can do the most dps. Right now an invader puts down a sbu then reinforces the I hub then a timer starts. I don't see the difference if a fleet can control an entasis Link and capture complexes in the other systems of the constellation. I don't think these complexes should be just static if you can stay here for 30 minutes you win. They could be some type oh hack site that the fleet has to defend the hacker from the defending fleet and npc as well. maybe have the npc be like a vanguard incursion site. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 15:09:55 -
[4] - Quote
I think sov should be temporary and null sec alliances should be more nomadic. Getting stronger and moving farther out with less dependence on high sec. Most of sov null is empty except for the occasional jump freighter dropping off fuel and picking up moon goods. Moon materials should move Arround and not be static. I hope that ccp sov changes will work to Thant end. No matter what you do or how the sov works the large alliance will stay static in there regions and not move until you change the profit motive. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:38:15 -
[5] - Quote
I think it more like we have used up this area lets move. My thinking is if the moons dry up after while and have to search for new moons. Maybe make them take months to replenish there value so that is more like what would happen you mine some place after a while it is gone and you have to move. After reading the dev blog on structures that sounds like where ccp wants to head. I think the entosis link is where way of helping make it easier to flip systems that are not guarded. The static moons printing isk for null sec alliances is the main thing that is killing null for pilot in my view. One reason I hate sov grind is most of the time its about getting more sov to provide some director with more moons to make them more passive rich. If the moons ran out the alliance would have to move to find better moons. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:53:55 -
[6] - Quote
I don't think the new sov system will change much for the sov. The null sec alliances have there assets in place and can defend there sov no matter what type of system ccp throws at them. The only difference i see is there might be that they might get more concentrated to make defense easier for them selves.
If the null alliances kind of pull back and concentrate that might open up some areas for a smaller alliance to get take sov. Also it might change that renters will now hold sov since they will be living in the systems. And the larger alliance Allows them to be there and have blue status. I really don't see sov map changing other then trols doing the trolcepter idea just to get fights.
If an actuall alliance wants to take sov they will still most likely still work with existing sov meta game to get and keep it. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 22:14:54 -
[7] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the established Alliances. This makes it sound like Sov never changes hands under the current system, or that no big and established powers have ever been done in by anyone before. Anyone remember BoB and how they went from permanent fixture to "OMG Fail-scade" in literally minutes? (and yes I'm simplifying but still)
If this opens up a little more room for people to work and for good fights to happen without a dread/Titan blob the size of a large Moon then I think that's a win.
What I meant was that the larger more robust alliances are the one's that usually hold sov in null.
The coalitions and the sov meta game is the problem that I see. Yes they do fail cascade every now and then.
I see the meta system that is place being hard to get rid of. Even rival coalitions in null sec use the same meta game system of renters and sheer numbers to control their regions. What usually happens is renters are brought in to make isk for these alliances. Also the renters become a recruitment center for the landlords.
What I really see is smaller alliances holding sov as renters of the larger alliances knowing that as long as they pay there rent they can have their sov and their system.
What I think would be cool is if the main alliances would concentrate more in there home regions creating space for new just starting alliances to maybe capture a system then have to fight other smaller alliances to keep that system. |
|
|
| |
|