Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:32:30 -
[31] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we make dedicated fuel for this module. I know - strontium is there , but the need of making different fuel and shipping it is also something you need to take into consideration.
Strontium is already used in carrier triage , dread siege, towers so every one have stacked it everywhere.
My suggestion add BPO for this fuel that will combine : - PI 1 materials - Moon Gases / some R8 materials? - Strontium
It can be heavy as stront , but adding additional level of logistics can be very interesting.
For example. 2 Forces fight over the system.
Both are running low on strontium.
Side A, needs to go 10j to get supply from the station. Local's just go to first tower in the system and pull some strontium out.
If we have dedicated fuel then both sides needs to transport it from some distant locations - so gate camps will be also important.
What about stalemate? So 2 links activated at the same time , 1 offensive ( Loki) 1 defensive ( archon).
I see where you're coming from, but I think the end result would just be stockpiling this "Element X Fuel" everywhere too, as a defensive measure.
I think the point of the Strontium is to make it harder for an attacker who can't actually dislodge the defender to keep pressing their attack. The idea being that if the attacker can't force a win the defender deserves the successful defense. A sort of "ties go to the defender" setup. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
234
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:33:02 -
[32] - Quote
I would suggest that the home advantage of having your stront a single warp away instead of 10-20 jps is a good one as for the mass changes..... I think I really like this! same for the PG and CPU requirements
I still think CCP ought to consider allowing entosis users to recieve cap transfer, and e-support
but these seem to be looking more sensible now, Fozzie - good job!
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:33:41 -
[33] - Quote
Valtaric wrote:Will it be possible to MJD with an entosis link active?
This was actually answered in the previous thread. Yes, but if you lose lock your cycle keeps going with all associated penalties for no capture progress (and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off) |
Valtaric
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:34:57 -
[34] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Valtaric wrote:Will it be possible to MJD with an entosis link active? This was actually answered in the previous thread. Yes, but if you lose lock your cycle keeps going with all associated penalties (and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off)
MJD doesn't break your locks. Your locks only break if you MJD out of range. But that's good to know. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:35:30 -
[35] - 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. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1463
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:41:57 -
[36] - Quote
Good change.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3260
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:42:37 -
[37] - Quote
I'm not sure I understand the entire capture timer thing. Lets say I fly up to a structure, activate my E-link. It cycles once, then starts its second cycle. 1.5 minutes into that second cycle a SB shows up and makes me go boom. There is now 1.5 minutes on the capture timer? What happens to that timer if nothing is done by anyone for the next week? Does that 1.5 minutes persist until someone uses another E-link? Does it decay back toward zero, or what? I assume if the enemy now uses a E-link on the structure, it will drive the timer down? Can everyone see how much time is on the capture timer? Anything special needed to see the timer?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2064
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:50:41 -
[38] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Maybe instead of "T1 Entosis link " and "T2 Entosis link " you should call them "Small Entosis link" and "Large Entosis link". Given the range, power and energy use, that would better fit what you are doing.
yeah I like the sounds of that better... heck why not have a medium version too that fits well on crusiers/bc and the large version is meant for battleships.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:11:32 -
[39] - Quote
So, the more I look at these changes the more I think that part of the intent is that you not be really able to successfully capture against a large force while they're still on grid, at least not easily. As Fozzie has stated, the side that captures should be the side that holds the grid. So from the sound of things that's what you're going to have to do to progress the capture timer.
This should have a rather interesting effect on the 30-40 minute timers/sites where the defenders and attackers both have ample time to shift forces around and reinforce over the course of a single fight, let alone the larger contest for the various nodes. |
Dominionix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:13:14 -
[40] - Quote
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? |
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
234
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:13:33 -
[41] - Quote
I also think that the terminology between T1 and T2 Entosis link should be revisited, as suggested above. Overall, Ilike the changes and I do like that the new stront cost has been kept to the minimum per cycle.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:17:25 -
[42] - 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?
The defending Alliance gets a notification as soon as someone finishes a warm-up cycle and starts actually capturing a structure, per the original design outline from the blog post. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2189
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:20:55 -
[43] - 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. |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:25:16 -
[44] - Quote
I dont like the way that drone boat almost lost nothing when they fit the enthosis, i mean most of their cargo bay is empty, most of their high slot are secondary... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12388
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:46:47 -
[45] - Quote
Well, glad to have some information, first of all. The circlejerk that the previous thread got into with nothing more than speculatory stats was a whole new level of stupid.
Secondly, not bad. The T2 version is well out of reach of most smaller ships, which is a good thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:54:55 -
[46] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:I dont like the way that drone boat almost lost nothing when they fit the enthosis, i mean most of their cargo bay is empty, most of their high slot are secondary, for exemple if i take the Vexor navy, my main input is my drones, most of these slots go for neuts and sometimes enthosis, well most of those are not a big deal but missile/turret boat will be hardly hit, probably loss dps, sometimes they will lose sparring slot (exemple machariel / barghest -> Heavy neuts is a must-have).
A good portion of available ships have a free high slot available, and you're going to want to make a tactical decision about which ships and how many fit Entosis Links, rather than simply fitting them to every ship in your fleet comp. Even on a drone boat if your opponent fits secondary weapons and you don't you're going to lose out in an even fight because of that extra DPS.
Also drone boats have a hard time flexing around the battlefield since they need to recall drones first in many cases, and they're vulnerable to Smart Bombs, bomb-Bombs, and a host of other tactics.
This is definitely a valid concern but just on the face of things I don't think it's a major one. |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:07:49 -
[47] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: This is definitely a valid concern but just on the face of things I don't think it's a major one.
My main concern is that why would i fly a mach enthosis for exemple and lose my neut/my dps output, while my gila/ishtar can lose some but keep their dps main dps source intact while being able to fit enthosis + utility thanks to sparring high, so yeah btw smartbomb but their are not that common, aswel as my :insertrandomboat: can be affected by damp & TD. |
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:17:51 -
[48] - Quote
make the t1 a 10minute cycle and t2 a 5 minute cycle
Also make the fuel a new charge type... Pretty decent in size.. 200-300m3 each. Make the charge use stront and Heavy water to create.
Also in addition to the current penalty's make the entosis mod when active, act like a polarized weapon. Removing Resistances and maybe throw in a nice +500 sig bonus when active.
So now you cant warp, cloak, jump... receive reps of any kind, have a shitload of mass, have no resistances and a huge sig.
This means if you want to keep Reinforcing systems your going to need most likely someone to bring you more charges, and you better hold the grid because the entosis ship is going to be weak as hell.
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:34:34 -
[49] - Quote
I can say I definitely approve of the t2 one being 100pg definitely helps with alleviating a lot of the concern behind it being used heavily by interceptors. I say give it an extra 50 pg to make abso-f*cking-lutely impossible to be fit by an inty and then we're golden. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:38:40 -
[50] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I can say I definitely approve of the t2 one being 100pg definitely helps with alleviating a lot of the concern behind it being used heavily by interceptors. I say give it an extra 50 pg to make abso-f*cking-lutely impossible to be fit by an inty and then we're golden.
Not really necessary IMO with the mass increase. You're looking at an Inty that's pinned on grid for at least a minute, possibly 2, and now goes ~1km/s slower than a regular Inty does, meaning it's amazingly easy to catch it and put it in your scrap book like a pressed butterfly, and it has to either online the thing when it gets to target or be slow enough to easily catch on a gate. |
|
Zazad Antollare
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:10:38 -
[51] - Quote
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:38:50 -
[52] - Quote
Perhaps the effectiveness could be attenuated with distance from the node. Basically a falloff mechanism. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:30:06 -
[53] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. why do you think that? |
PinkKnife
Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind
515
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:32:52 -
[54] - Quote
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.
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. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:47:17 -
[55] - 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. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:12:56 -
[56] - Quote
Posting these questions again, as players are already planning their tactics and strategies for the summer, we deserve some more information.
Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
and a few more:
- Do the nodes allow anchoring deployables in their vicinity?
- Will the nodes have a decloaking sphere around them?
The deadspace or not part is the most important now, along with the "tug of war" specifics. Thanks! |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:46:11 -
[57] - 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? |
Dr Farallon
Moongoo Mining and Mixing Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:48:38 -
[58] - Quote
Lets not forget the whole idea isn't to allow asymmetrical warfare through a handful of roaming frigates, but for smaller corps and alliances to take and hold sov with proportionally sized fleets. I don't think it's CCP's intention to devise a system based around the idea of harassing large alliances as much as its meant to help the little guy get in the bigger game.
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. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:55:01 -
[59] - 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. |
Humang
Awakened Ones
86
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:58:01 -
[60] - Quote
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 agree with this, in that it should be removed altogether, It seems like a requirement that would be more if an annoyance than a limiting factor, and for a system that already has a fair amount of drawbacks.
I'll probably regret suggesting this, but how about using a fatigue mechanic instead: after X number of cycles you need to wait Y amount of time before you can reactivate it.
AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis
Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |