|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:48:21 -
[1] - Quote
IB4 100pwg 10km/s 250km lock range trollceptor plans |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:15:21 -
[2] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:21:21 -
[3] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:Rowells wrote:Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up. most allliances aren't that clever, they'll sit there and ping + have 1hr form up and by that time the ceptor has done its job sounds like thats their own problem. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:31:45 -
[4] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:What about stalemate? So 2 links activated at the same time , 1 offensive ( Loki) 1 defensive ( archon). So, whats your question? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:35:30 -
[5] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:(and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off) iirc it doesnt break locks unless you are out of lock range, it doesnt break locks that are being used on you either. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2189
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:20:55 -
[6] - Quote
Dominionix wrote:I'm not sure if I've missed this, but I couldn't see it in this post anywhere so I'll ask:
Has there been a decision as to whether or not activation of the entosis module against structures will generate notifications for the defending alliance? yes, from last thread. Everyone in alliance will get notified regardless of location or role. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:30:06 -
[7] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. why do you think that? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:47:17 -
[8] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:So then, its kitsune sov?
Seriously though whats to stop people from just coming out and using blackbirds or keres or kitsunes and perma-ruining your attempts to take something. Sure you can blap them, but brave has enough disposible ewar frigs to perma defend any fleet despite not holding the grid. If they have enough disposable throwaway power to keep you from holding the grid, then so be it. It is a legitimate concern an alliance needs to sddress before it tries to take sov like that. This change isnt to remove the impact of numbers, but make them less necessary. I'd suggest making the ship get 100X the sensor strength or lock range as well. At least then you have a chance to hold the link on against ewar.
The fight should be over control of the grid, not who can jam out the other more. If they have enough disposable throwaway power to keep you from holding the grid, then so be it. It is a legitimate concern an alliance needs to sddress before it tries to take sov like that. This change isnt to remove the impact of numbers, but make them less necessary.
If the enemy can keep jamming you, you don't control the grid. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:46:11 -
[9] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote: Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures? Yes.
Aiyshimin wrote: Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock? Yes, but the timer for the structure does not.
Aiyshimin wrote: Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid? I'm going to assume yes since every structure timer in game has a visible timer.
and what do you mean by deadspace? Acceleration gates and such? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:55:01 -
[10] - Quote
Dr Farallon wrote:Lets not forget the whole idea isn't to allow asymmetrical warfare through a handful of roaming frigates, Not specifically frigsates, but:
Politics By Another Means Devblog wrote:Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. So, frigates in multiple places fits the bill.
Dr Farallon wrote:And 1 strontium is way too low. Maybe 10 or 25 per cycle. If you're gonna do 1 you might as well do none at all I'm of the opinion that the stront requirement is unnecessary. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:01:24 -
[11] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote: While we don't want to end up back where we were having to grind structure HP, there's also something to be said for not just allowing drive by linking in the time when everyone using the structure is away.
thats what the timezone mechanics are intended for. However badly the originally stated form is, you wont be losing everything just because you went to bed.
Xindi Kraid wrote:Also how long do you expect capture to take, and what will modify that time, if anything? Capture depends on level of system upgrades and indices. approx. 10 minutes for unused and undefended and upwards to 40minutes for fully upgraded. not including warmup timer. I think there is a chart somewhere between the devblogs and dev threads.
Xindi Kraid wrote:Structures should actually require a somewhat committed force, not just a few people reinforcing the structure in 15 minutes for the lolz. if you cant be bothered to use the system enough for the upgrades to increase the timer and allowing longer response time, then you really didn't need the system for anything other than a buffer zone.
And all an attacker needs to commit to the fight, is whatever can defeat the defenders, should the defenders choose to show up. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2206
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:45:28 -
[12] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2210
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:45:58 -
[13] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced Hope the cargo crew is up to game.
"which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!" "Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick." *empties container into module fuel port* "Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?" |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2214
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:36:17 -
[14] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2223
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:23:23 -
[15] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:rsantos wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Took another system last night with domis, harpies, celestis, and dread fleets. Other side was a no-show Post-Entosis sov will be nothing but Ishtars and Domis and Huginns and Lokis. Drop drones + assist, turn on entosis, go play DOTA2. I don't understand why CCP can't see this. No... post-entosis sov you will still be chasing frigates reinforcing random systems for 4 hours. we will do our best to make sure you not "allowed" to play DOTA2! :P the best will be after june a group like brave can go in and literally reinforce every cfc system from ihub to outpost... then it will be interesting if mittens forces the meatshields.... i mean equal members of the cfc like fcon to save goon space... That depends on whether or not we'll be babysitting the renters in branch. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2229
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:06:43 -
[16] - Quote
Gyges Skyeye wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The first cycle of the module is always a "warmup cycle" and has no impact. If you lose lock or the module is disabled for any reason, you'll need to go through that warmup cycle again before you can continue exerting any influence over the structure From a user interface standpoint, can we get some clarity added to the game client on this. Modules all have a green cycle timer for ON, and a red cycle timer for OFF/SHUTTING DOWN. Something like a yellow or orange cycle timer for WARMING UP would probably suffice. It would let us more accurately know what the status of our personal entosis link is. Thanks the timer on the structure should be the one to have the count down. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2236
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:19:15 -
[17] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:One, I disagree that RR is broken. Since it's not the point of the thread I won't elaborate.
Two. I'm a little worried about all structures being flippable with the entosis link. I'm not sure if this is covered, but you're going to kill casual HS industrialists that set up a couple days of production. They'll show back up, and they'll have to play collect my cans in space, and try to flip the asset they bought back into their possession.
Maybe I'm missing something but that sounds screwed up. There should be some onus on the attacker to have to bring a decent sized force to dislodge an asset I've purchased and am using - rather than 1 dude noticing that there's no one at a structure and throwing 10 minutes of time at it.
This is especially multiplied in wormholes where logistics is already a huge pain in the ****. You have a slow weekend (i.e. people are traveling, doing yardwork, whatever) and you log in Sunday night - bam now you don't own any assets. Hope you logged off in a probing ship, so you can scout a hole and return with an entosis link.
Flipping Sov? Sure, go for it - it is what it is. Flipping personal/corporate structures? The disruption to game play this will cause to such a huge piece of the player base is just annoyingly large. There has to be a better way here, I thought the thought behind POS mechanics was it should be semi difficult require some time and assets to wipe out a tower. This puts everything on the defender, which is a complete reverse.
So if I grab an entosis link and throw it on an SOE ship I can troll wormhole corps during their prime time should they not log in and force them to play capture the flag with me or forfeit their assets If no one in your wh can be bothered to check on it once every 24hrs that is your own prerogative. Also, structure guns. Use them. Also, seeing as it took one person to set it up, I don't see how a minimum of one to take it down is that bad.
Speaking of which, did anyone find out if the notifications will be api? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2236
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:31:39 -
[18] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I was thinking about this too. I think the onus should be on the attacking alliance not the defending alliance . Let me explain. One of the things i hate about the current system is you have to rep structures. In the new system even if the other side doesn't show ypu still have to do the 10 annoms per reinforced structure . This imo is bad design. I think if the attacking alliance does not show for the fight you shouldn't be forced to rep/elink stuff.
I would make the first 5 capture annoms have a 30 min lifetime If no elink from the opposing alliace is initiated in any 5 annoms.
This way you only have to active defense when the enemy shows and limits the other side of the grind Will there even be capture points in wh space? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2241
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 00:44:16 -
[19] - Quote
what page did this become a epeen swinging competition? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 05:26:02 -
[20] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys I saw a move-OP with over 1000 supers and caps a few weeks ago. Those were alts in CFC moving SOME of their caps and supers to fountain. Multiple of those OPs happened during that week with similar numbers. So yes, CFC can hold its sov. Just like the other large coalitions can. Those new changes will only reinforce teamwork between alliances. So.... Bigger coalitions will form. Goons holding dek? sure.
CFC members keeping the same level of control in their own space? not so much.
E: unless, of course, every current sov holding entity sets aside their differences and focuses efforts against non-sov holders. That would be, to say the least, an interesting development. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 19:28:14 -
[21] - Quote
man power is only being disincentivizrd in situations where it is unnecessary. The effort to take the system or structure needs to more reflect the defenders participation, rather than simply blabbing as much as possible with as much DPS you can muster, to overtake absentees landlord holdings.
In other words, the amount of resources to take something, is exactly the same if you attack someone's home system versus snatching a backwater buffer system is exactly the same, any fights generated not withstanding |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2244
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 23:44:35 -
[22] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm still not satisfied with the bit about determining military control of the grid. Killing the thing is already a good indication of who is winning.
What Entosis does differently is ensuring that one side has fought to the last man, or has left completely. Or has run out of entosis links. This strikes me as very wishful thinking.
I mean no disrespect when I say that I find the attempt amusing. I'm left hoping there's simply a big chunk of future changes that we aren't being told, that would make this revamp worthwhile. The key difference between "having effective military control" and "holding the grid" defines whether or not hostiles are present and engaging. A simple way to explain this would be to ask,"If i bring in something I cannot support with remote assistance, will it be safe?" vs. "I am holding my position however I cannot gauruntee the safety of anything that is independent of my repair ability" Military control is fluid and dynamic. If you can suppress a hostile entity's ability to engage targets, You have control. If the hostiles can engage targets freely, you do not have effective military control.
Rain6637 wrote:Rowells wrote:man power is only being disincentivizrd in situations where it is unnecessary. The effort to take the system or structure needs to more reflect the defenders participation, rather than simply blabbing as much as possible with as much DPS you can muster, to overtake absentees landlord holdings.
In other words, the amount of resources to take something, is exactly the same if you attack someone's home system versus snatching a backwater buffer system is exactly the same, any fights generated not withstanding Doesn't the current system already scale in difficulty based on the defender's participation? What I see is that timers are guaranteed while the option of accelerating the process is being removed completely. I don't understand how this fits in with making sov easier to defend if you live there, and the reduction of power projection through jump fatigue. EHP buffers, rather than timers, would support the idea of scaling based on the fight. If Entosis has to be used, it could be required in conjunction with an EHP buffer. For example, a structure can only be flipped when it is out of EHP and has been Entosised. Doesn't this satisfy the military control requirement? So why is Entosis being used exclusively. Is this not trading an EHP buffer for a time buffer? Feels oversimplified, to put it lightly. The current system does not do it well or barely at all. The difficulty of taking the structure itself (the hostiles fighting is an almost entirely independent variable in both situations, due to factors outside of the engagement) does not change. Whereas, trying to take a system under high use and with long-standing occupancy, is more difficult to take than a system that literally just had a flag planted in it and nothing else, under the new system.
The EHP buffer only offered a system where having greater numbers would be a higher determinant of structure survivability, than actually fighting the enemy. This was why reducing the EHP would not be a viable solution to lowering the entry bar for sov, since it makes it slightly easier for a small group and greatly easier for a much larger established group. This won't remove the advantage of greater numbers entirely, but make the numbers advantage applicable to the fight, rather than the grind.
Lets think of an extreme example: Group A has 100 pilots Group B has 50
Hypothetically we assume group B destroys the enemy fleet or causes them to leave the field indefinitely. Group B has to spend more time trying to take the system even though group A lost or abandoned it.
This system removes numbers as the determining factor for how long you have to sit cycling guns on a target, which is almost irrelevant to the actual combat victory in most cases. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 00:37:44 -
[23] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Until I hear some deeper reasoning to justify numbers as being a bad thing, I'm stuck in disagreement. numbers are not bad. However the advantage they give needs to be in the fight, not the grind. We have no need to make smaller groups spend more time destroying something that is undefended simply because they don't have as many friends. Numbers will still give you the advantage in a fight and in maintaining sov indices to make it tougher, amongst the other benefits it gives. However the way scaling worked for HP grinds made numbers absolutely ESSENTIAL to do anything in a reasonable time. It all goes back to,"shoudld an abandoned system take just as long to flip as an occupied one?"
Rain6637 wrote:Compared to damage (EHP), things like invulnerability, timers, and a special module will remain, in my mind, nothing more than 'because magic' a la WoW. In the meantime, I'll live without an explanation to satisfy my curiosity, so I suppose it'll just have to be whatever. Magic game mechanics break my immersion quite a bit, but who cares about RP right. I don't find this unique to many mechanics in eve. As much 'scientific' explanation someone will give me, I will never believe turning capacitor energy into nanites into armor on a ship 50km away will ever make sense (in a sense all sov mechanics don't make any real sense either). Guess it just depends on how important the realism is to you. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 01:18:22 -
[24] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I don't see why the EHP can't be part of the conflict. It can be called a grind, but if you're uncontested while grinding EHP, then you should consider yourself fortunate. Considering myself fortunate because no one is going to show up for the next few hours while I try to work with dominion sov and hp is not something I would like to do. At that point its almost me just paying for something in man hours. Rather than from actually using my man hours better.
Rain6637 wrote:Oh, and magic capacitor creation through cap chaining... that's hilariously fake and I love abusing making use of it.
At the very least, I think Entosis links should have skills that reduce cycle time. no complaints here |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:14:59 -
[25] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:See, that point about man hours. You have to submit to a set number of minutes under Entosis. Unlike right now, like I did on Sisi last night, just bring three or four dreads and get it done in 10 mins. I don't think it's a worthwhile trade off. I also don't see why Fozzie expressed such a strong negative sentiment toward HP objectives. Does he grind structures alone, with just one character? disabling a station service with 5 dreads in 10 minutes? ok. grinding through 2 station and ihub timers with much more hp and onlining sbus in system? very different amounts of investment in time.
Which might also lead us to the question,"how mamy dreads should an alliance have before it can take sov reasonably?". Should we start setting minum limits to take sov like that?
Also considering a T2 link can quite possibly RF an unused system in about 12 minutes, without having to drag caps and industrial ships around the system for hours, I find that a very fair trade off. In fact the largest investment in time would be the 120 minutes (or less if friends) minimum needed on the final timer. And using a flat timer instead of HP also benefits a smaller group since no one can just drop hundreds of people and roll through in a matter of minutes for all of their services. A well used system will give the advantage in defense. An underused one will give very little in defense. It equals the requirements of time in similar scenarios and focuses the gameplay on the actions surrounding it. Same thing happened with jump fatigue, everyone's timer is the same based on the same factors.
Rain6637 wrote:If the goal was to negate multiboxing, I remember no such goal
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:29:56 -
[26] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:What's the problem with bringing max dudes, I mean, isn't that what Entosis does... proliferates sov flipping down to just one character? I'm just spitballing and exploring possible motivations here.
Man you can get a lot done with just three or four dreads. It's not that hard. I'm very confident the number of Entosis minutes will be more than 10 (two siege cycles), which is a current threshold that is very easy to stay under.
My point is still the same as it was at the beginning of the last page: Why is so much being changed for the sake of something that is already easy with five to six ships, while keeping the timers which cause most of the clunkiness.
The timers are what allow reinforcements to slowboat across regions in time to defend systems they don't live in.
Doesn't make sense to me.
You could attack several systems owned by an alliance at once, sure, but that's not new. You can already put that kind of pressure on an alliance right now.
I ref'd that station in 2 cycles, btw. I took out some of the services because I still had time left on my siege cycles. Yes, but I'm sure you didnt RF the IHUB or TCU or online the SBUs or wait the potential 2 (?) days for the final timer so you could do it all over again, in that same 10 minutes.
So much is being changed, because it currently requires quite a bit to even begin thinking about sov, much less anything beyond it. The focus needs to sway more into the fight for control, rather than the grind for it.
The timers are fine. If the timer is too short because you never use it, thats ok. If its long enough for you to form a proper defense, then thats the secondary benefit of using that system.
You could attack several systems at once, but lets take a look at the shopping list for that endeavour. 'x' will represent number of targetted systems. (all assuming no defenders present and no sov indices) Dominion:
- 5x dreads
- (0.51 number of gates in system)x SBUs
- x number of haulers for SBUs
- 3 hours for SBU onlining
- 1-3 days per timer for 2 timers (possible 6 days)
- 30 minutes total of grinding time based on your numbers
And now for Entosis sov with the same systems:
- x ships and pilots
- x entosis mods (T1 or T2 dependant on availibility)
- 20 minutes for inital timer on T1 12 on T2
- 120 minutes for final timer spawns
- roughly 24 hours to wait for final timer
while the grind has not been entirely removed (mostly for sake of potential defenders) the initial requirement is much lower, and will simply scale based on the defenders presence and resistance.
and for the last remark, see above post regarding SBUs and such |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:42:53 -
[27] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If a limited vulnerability window is going to be implemented, timers should synchronize, rather than exit at some random number of hours +/-. I'd agree with the timers and the vulnerability if timers come out at the same time alliance-wide.
Explain to me how I'm off. I showed up as SBUs onlined, reinforced the Ihub and then the outpost, took 20 mins. Am I missing something?
If vulnerability will only be for a period of 4 hours per day, why can't I run straight through EHP for those four hours. Is it too much to expect players to be vigilant for 4 hours? Is 1 hour better?
I just logged in to that system to check the timers, I didn't write anything down... I still can't do anything for 1 or 2 days, depending on the structure.
I don't see why people will bother. Have you checked rental prices? Most of them are one or two billion ISK per month. If that's really what systems are worth, really, why do people bother, outside of attrition.
I have my disagreements with the currently proposed RF timers as well. mostly the 'alliance wide' thing.
Those SBUs didnt just spring up pre-onlined out of nowhere. They are an essential step to taking anything sov related and require 3 hours to online each.
The 4 hours is for the defender as I understand it. And I don't understand what you mean by running through the EHP for 4 hours.
yep, timers for sov structures can be timed for a max of 3 days I believe, making it 6 for the two timers.
I have no idea why people rent, never done it myself. I imagine its either for the ISK, the glory, or the babes. And ironically, an active renter empire will actually be harder to take than one might think. go figure. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:45:16 -
[28] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I missed that figure, 120 minutes of Entosis?
Welp. At least there's still POSes to cherry pick.
(120 minutes... what is that balanced against... a ratting carrier?) 10 capture points with a T2 mod (warm up time 2 minutes)
10 points x 12 minute capture
god forbid any poor man is forced to try and claim lots of sov sov with a carrier fleet, or is that a good thing? who knows. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 04:13:40 -
[29] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: The part about the 4 hour window: If structures are only vulnerable for 4 hours, isn't that enough warning for the occupants to be vigilant for that window? Why do you need timers on top of a limited vulnerability window.
If you know you're only going to be attacked in a 4 hour window, why not allow EHP to be grinded down continuously within that time period. What I'm hearing is that on top of 20 hours of safety per day, structure owners also get a day or two of prep time to defend their stuff.
It doesn't strike me as enough consequence for not being present in a system.
I believe the timer is in counter to the option of not having a timer. It gives time for alliance members to arrive or to grab ships from a staging system, etc. If you still manage to lose the system due to neglect, its even more reason you need to fight later on.
The 4 hour window is to ensure the defending alliance has a reasonable chance to organize a defense in a TZ they are actually using, rather than playing TZ games. it has its advantages and disadvantages over the old system.
The day (20-28 hours) is much less than the possible 6 for current mechanics. And since the barrier for entry was lowered substantially, the defenders are granted the ability to roughly decide the time of engagements, whereas the offender can decide the place. But, again, I dont necessarily like the way the 4 hour window works in its suggested form. Has potential to exclude parts of the alliance from assisting in defense, makes you pick favorites really. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:29:35 -
[30] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." How do you think only cruisers will only use T1 version? |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:31:26 -
[31] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2251
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:08:03 -
[32] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Rowells wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early. How about ejecting and re-boarding the spaceship vessel in question? lel dont think you can eject while its running. I don't remember a specific response to it, but the intention is it is a locked state of vulnerability. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2267
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 06:24:17 -
[33] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
think it should be renamed to Fozzy's Goon sov if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold.
And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2284
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 19:42:18 -
[34] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. Not on a 1400PG Maller sure, but absolutely on a 700PG Arbitrator, which is my whole point: The fitting (along with the nature of an Elink ship needing to keep itself alive w/o help) heavily restricts the ships you would use it on. I foresee T3Cs being the only ship type that won't get you laughed out of the alliance for putting an Elink on it, which is not having "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." "having the minimum possible impact" and "being the optimal choice" are not the same thing. Of course people will throw these things on the tankiest ships they can scrounge, but that doesnt mean they cant throw it on something small and cheap too if they want. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2287
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 00:49:34 -
[35] - Quote
So, using the same mechanics, group B is capable of holding moons and living with harassment, except for stations hubs and TCUs? Seems like either the priorities or the capabilities aren't matching here. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2290
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 05:35:48 -
[36] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Rowells wrote:Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold. And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. Dropping sov means nobody gets sov. Neat.
If thats the case, I guess taking all the sov means everyone gets sov? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2305
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:33:15 -
[37] - Quote
The sheer money you put in something shouldn't be its primary defense. It should be the owners. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2332
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 15:31:52 -
[38] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Its not about them defending or even taking sov, they dont care its purely about the' becuase we can' and we like to grief as mnay people as we can purely for the fun and hell of it. thats what it will be down to. Havent you played eve long enought to understand that? as opposed to now where they only take sov if they need it? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2361
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:47:17 -
[39] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:...No where does it say that this update is supposed to allow some dinky little 10-man corp to go out and take Sov, that's an assumption by players, and IMO a poor one..... So... about that ... CCP Fozzie wrote:... Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days.... ... which realistically means that you have to have people in almost every system guarding them. "Sorry little Timmy, Jonny and Sammie you drew the short straws and have to stay in system WH0-C4R35 and make sure we don't have an enemy getting in our way. Do enjoy being griefed by every little tourist group and having to go out and fight every little pest for the foreseeable future. No, you can't come on any roams because you have to say home and watch all the holes in the walls for rats. No fun for you until we get some other new lame-o that wants to hang around long enough, doing this boring stuff; hoping to become one of the cool kids. Welcome to why Low Sec 2.0 that will be another empty waste land and suck." Key words being "completely undefended". If you don't live there and use the space is it really of any consequence? You're already in system using it for :reasons: it's not like you have to sit at the structure and stare at it.
If you have to force someone to sit and guard a system because it's index is so low you'll never form a defense for the initial assault (successive timers give you 20-28 hours advance notice) then why are you holding that system again?
Also, less need to go on roams if people bring the content to you as often as you imagine they will. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2362
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 06:02:24 -
[40] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all. Neat thing is you don't have to do any of that. You can just sit and do things until the notification pops up and then you know he's bit the hook. No chance of warping off into the sunset when you are strapped to a structure.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.
They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them. Not sure how thats any different from current sov. I would argue its not even related to sov. Camping undocks and running away when the heat shows up is something you can do right now.
They're casting spells on the structure? Looks like they've put their ass on the table, so it's time to go for the kill, or wait until the next timer, if you're unlucky enough yo lose the fight.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk. Oh dear, it looks like people are actually going to have to defend their space instead of waiting the better part of a week to batphone as many dudes as possible. Poor (former) sov owners. Maybe it's time to start condensing.
It will become quite difficult to troll someone's space when there are over a dozen people in system. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2363
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 19:36:13 -
[41] - Quote
Daenika wrote:ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.
And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.
Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal. Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat. |
|
|
|