|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2379
   |
Posted - 2015.05.07 18:43:33 -
[1] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems. You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?
Maybe that whole first part of, "We hope to work toward including..." implies they plan on working on those aspects. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2379
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 18:48:58 -
[2] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:mynnna wrote:Xttz's fingerprints on the timezone mechanics, mine all over the mineral changes, sov is just goons all the way down. Yeah I know. 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'.  I do agree the new revised timezone mechanic is a very good idea though.  /me takes the melted gummy bears off his fingers. There's a reason my name is mentioned, you know.
Sadly you're not goon. Therefore the tinfoil factor is limited, decreasing demand for your credit.
I did like the variability idea though, if that makes you feel any better. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2379
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 18:50:23 -
[3] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:...our first generation Activity Defense Multiplier system will not include contributions from typical capital system activity such as trading and manufacturing. We hope to work towards including these factors in future iterations of the Activity Defense Multiplier mechanic, but in the meantime we need an effective way for alliances to defend their staging systems. You stated that anything that contributes to indexes must be disruptable in space which is why you didn't want manufacturing to contribute to the industrial index. Now you're saying manufacturing and trade (both very easily gamed) will eventually contribute?. manufacturing requires extensive in-space flying to bring in raws and export finished products JFs are basically unkillable, so until that changes manufacturing is not disruptable. Does everyone who does industry have a JF?
Confirming that I build capitals with myself, A blockade runner, and my entire life-savings shoved into cargo. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2379
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 19:23:49 -
[4] - Quote
Molenius Morrowinger wrote:Vyle Feelings wrote:Is there any intention of buffing systems that do not contain the resources necessary to increase indices? My alliance currently owns a system with 0 astroid belts, making it difficult to raise the military and industry indexes. We kill gate rats and run any anomalies that spawn, but it's slow going. Under the new mechanics, solar systems like this will be at a severe disadvantage and difficult to maintain defensive indexes for. Systems should not be all equal, otherwise what is the purpose of fighting?
Yeah, but the bottom level of value doesn't need to be so low.
Is there really no belts there? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2380
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 02:37:57 -
[5] - Quote
I will chime in and say that the fidelity of timer usage might need to be scaled to system-wide. Otherwise the possibility of having a system 3 different windows might be a PITA. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2388
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 21:50:55 -
[6] - Quote
Is structure deployment limited to the alliance prime time? Or can it be any point during the day? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2396
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 23:16:57 -
[7] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Okay so a lot of people just don't seem to get it. The only ones that can capture something for your alliance, are characters in your alliance. If an object is neutral, every alliance is on their own team. So your alliance is its own team. Blues are not on your team. If the object is owned by your alliance, your alliance is its own team, and everyone else is on Team Not You. Team Not You includes blues, so if they EL your node, they are working against you and working for everyone else. If an object is owned by another alliance (even a blue one), using your EL on one of their nodes begins removing their control. Should control be lost it goes into RF, disabled, etc. So given the above, the only way for blues to help you in regards to capture mechanics is to:
- Shoot people EL'ing your stuff.
- Shoot people EL'ing a neutral object you want to capture. Optionally EL the object for the purposes of pausing capture progress of a common enemy.
- Shoot people of, and/or EL the stuff of, a common enemy, as long as the target object is still owned by the common enemy.
So you obviously believe the giant coalitions are going to stop playing how they have for the last 4 or 5 years and just fly alliance fleets.. LOL I don't get how people can't see how easily this mechanic is manipulated and biased toward existing power bloks. For those who can't see it, I feel for you but if you have ever been in a coalition fleet, you should clearly see how to ensure the odds are always in your favour. There are still many unanswered questions regarding how entosis links will work, I prefer to believe what CCP Masterplan wrote out, as it fits with the blog description. An attacker must 1st remove any progress made by a previous attacker ( a defender is not an "attacker" so that can only mean 1 thing). That statement ONLY makes sense if only 1 entosis can make progress at a time, which according to the blog is how the mechanic works. A mechanic like this, that is designed to favour large groups, will be used by large groups to ensure no-one becomes a threat. Why else do you think none of the bloks are whining in the forums - You don't complain about something that gives you a major advantage over others. They know Fozzie-Sov is all in their favour.
There are only two forms of timers. A reinforce timer/destruction timer and capture nodes.
When attacking a structure that has an existing owner, it follows the mechanics of '1 v all'. If it is not some thing owned by someone (capture nodes, fresh structures) then it is every team for itself (FFA). So there are two definitive situations.
If there is no owner, then there is no 'defender'. Essentially a fresh structure is considered to be under attack by the person trying to online it.
And yes, if two 'attackers' are linked to node, then the progress halts, until only one team has a link on it. Once this exact same situation switches to an owned structure, then the teams are switched to the defender (owner) vs the attackers (everyone else).
Is the structure owned? Yes = defending team vs attacking team (standings have no play in how server recognizes teams)
No = every alliance is it's own team.
Again, server doesn't care who you are blue or red to. If you aren't in the same alliance, you are a potential attacker.
And this entire scheme has no new mechanics that favor blobbing any more than the previous design. You're going to find it difficult to figure a system that is both sandbox in nature and discourages working with others. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2397
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:46:42 -
[8] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:The 6x multiplier needs more factors to be reflective of player activities. Market transactions, industry jobs, research, and refining need to be added AT A MINIMUM. These activities are already tracked, just need to be added to the matrix and given a multiplier. Why is this something that wasn't considered A LONG TIME AGO. As though mining and shooting red crosses are all that indicate active areas of eve...
The problem is how to get it to reflect actual activity rather than make a system where you can just make pseudo-orders and build jobs to bump the index. I think it should definitely include it, but it needs to be done properly. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2469
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 12:47:31 -
[9] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Out of curiosity: If I rat as a neutral in a system of another alliance, I obviously have an influence on the indexes of the system. Does my ratting help the holder of the sov or does it diminish their grasp on the system?
And is the completion of data/relic sites influencing the indexes just like ratting/indu is from the start? I don't quite remember the stance on that.
I don't think data/relic sites impact the index. Last I checked its just volume of ore mined.
And for neutral ratting, I would assume it helps. I guess that would be a boon for providence. If it works like mining, it doesn't care about the who, but rather the value generated in total. |
|
|
| |
|