Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:34:06 -
[31] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?
Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.
Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse. This is the crux of the issue. Because of a possibility something might result in someone making ISK, they are instead deleting the assets of alliances? How does that make sense? Someone might make ISK so lets delete 100s of billions in assets? Either refund the assets themselves or allow us to do so on our own. However, I would point out a week is not enough time to do so on our own. This is also why we have completely stopped all upgrades to stations. We have to date not received a plan for outpost refunds despite asking several times. If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?
Christ i didnt even consider this and it is so true, i just thought about the assets themselves didnt even consider the upgrades inside. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:35:49 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points. New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.
your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
240
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:39:39 -
[33] - Quote
twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.
1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13055
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:44:17 -
[34] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points. New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically. your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment. If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs). As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:53:01 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points. New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically. your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment. If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs). As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.
The key point I'm getting from this is, don't bother with dropping outposts until the new structure system comes in. |
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:56:12 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Aryth wrote:Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?
It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall. The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go. The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:05:21 -
[37] - Quote
twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. FCON tried it with 9km/sec Vagabonds in the play-test.... that worked well for them....
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
294
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:08:17 -
[38] - Quote
Quote:Subscription Renewal Reminder
Dear Freelancer117,
According to our records you have 22 hours left on your non-recurring subscription to EVE Online.
Below is a list of some of the payment options that you can use to renew your subscription:*
CreditCard DirectDebit PayPal PaySafeCard WebMoney Ideal Plex Ukash Yandex Amazon Sofort
* Availability of payment methods varies by country
You can enjoy additional savings when opting for a 3-, 6- or 12-month payment. More information and payment options are available through Account Management.
- The EVE Online Dev Team
Dear CCPgames,
As of late I have yet to see a(ny) expansion that has worthwhile pve / ambulation content, except only in other mmo-rpg's In order to pay the company Gé¼ 131.40 worth for a 12-month-plan, I would like to see value for money that is related to that.
Will see after patch day on the 14th July, in the meanwhile I guess I'm not the only one. source: http://www.vg247.com/2015/06/29/eve-onlines-player-count-drops-to-lowest-since-2008/ http://massivelyop.com/2015/06/29/eve-online-concurrency-is-at-its-lowest-point-since-2008-by-player-analysis/
Regards, a Freelancer
PS: to any forum moderator, I changed my account name in the heading ofc.
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:10:24 -
[39] - Quote
utec asmo wrote: Killing the unused structures is the right way to go. The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:14:41 -
[40] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.
Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it. |
|
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:19:39 -
[41] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote: Killing the unused structures is the right way to go. The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.
Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently. |
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
45
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:25:21 -
[42] - Quote
twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.
Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:31:52 -
[43] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote: Killing the unused structures is the right way to go. The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently. This is a romantic sentiment, but what is overwhelmingly more likely is that CCP had no idea that multiple ihubs in a system had a military use at all, and did not take it into account when making the decision.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1739
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:38:15 -
[44] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote: Killing the unused structures is the right way to go. The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
Or they never got around to coding the ability to remove upgrades at all without destroying the hub. Which is why we are in the position we are in right now.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:44:12 -
[45] - Quote
Another issue: you say you're going to put up buys for SBU BPOs, but that won't work - once a bpo has been used for anything (manufacturing, copying, or research) it can never be repackaged and sold to buy orders.
So, uh, anyone with an SBU BPO is basically stuck with a (worse, because it costs less and the markets is now glutted to hell and back) TCU BPO. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:45:34 -
[46] - Quote
utec asmo wrote: Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
we couldn't even destroy an upgrade in an ihub without destroying ALL the upgrades in the ihub it was purely that the system was incompletely coded and people trying to back in justifications are obviously wrong |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:49:26 -
[47] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it. Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with.
He can just fly away.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1935
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:54:17 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Altrue wrote:Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events? 20 is correct for an uncontested freeport station. Each node is worth 5% of the structure control. In an attack/defense event both sides start off with 50%, in a freeport mode the NPC corp starts off with 100% and all player alliances start at 0. Altrue wrote:Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves? Yes, index levels are completely independent of structures in the new system. As well, you can actually begin raising your indexes before deploying any sov structures if you're especially worried about being attacked early on. The new owner gaining the benefits of the activity indexes is intended. If you can manage to take a system with strong defensive multipliers, the reward is the temporary advantage provided by those indexes once you hold the system. However to keep holding it the new owners will need to make sure that someone stays active in the system long-term.
Thanks for all these answers!
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:32:04 -
[49] - Quote
Fozzie,
How much impact do you expect these changes to have? Personally speaking I feel there is too much to lose for those few individuals whos interests are at the core of keeping things as they are. Those individuals, as you more than likely know, have huge influence over what goes on within Eve, I simply don't see how these changes will do much of anything.
We need mechanics that will make renter alliances more likely to strike out on their own rather than be dominated by some "overlord". We need to ensure moon mining isnt as passive as it is currently. There needs to be inclusion within the entosis timer that takes into consideration the size and space currently occupied by the owner alliance so that larger alliances (in both senses) have a harder time which reinforces the concept behind your changes which are to make alliances use up less space.
I hope I am wrong but I don't think I will be. There is hype for FozzieSov for sure but sadly I don't think it will last that long unless there are follow-up releases which expand on what is being implemented now.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
242
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:37:22 -
[50] - Quote
twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.
By making you undock, the Phantasm pilot has "won"? You considering being able to stay docked "winning"? My mind boggles.
Regardless, the Phantasm certainly does have to fight if he wants to survive. He's effectively pointed for the duration of his Entosis activation. If he does not fight, he dies. That is, if you can find the undock button.
|
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:37:47 -
[51] - Quote
Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored? |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
155
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:39:23 -
[52] - Quote
Quote:The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed.
So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign?
Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?
The UI is still bad.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
245
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:50:12 -
[53] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
Asked and answered page 1 post #7
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5870299#post5870299
I even made a link cause if you couldn't bother reading 3 pages, you prolly don't have the brain power to find page 1 |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
245
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:50:57 -
[54] - Quote
SpaceSaft wrote:Quote:The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed. So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign? Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?
Open corp neocom, soveriegnty tab
Read
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
242
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:52:14 -
[55] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
From post #7 of this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:For this release you'll have to capture it normally. We are investigating some options for formal sov transfer mechanics in the future.
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:59:27 -
[56] - Quote
So huge amounts of isk are involved in renting at the moment, and without a doubt a lot of it is being used for "interesting" needs, why make it easier to rent out space? Surely if CCP wants to see more conflict they will not support "renting" as an option and make players have to do it by their own means? |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:04:36 -
[57] - Quote
When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...
And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range... |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1156
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:05:23 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet? This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered.
you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos
why do you insist you know better than players who actually do these things
a tcu on a moon is far
far far
far
far
FAR
easier to defend than one anywhere else
the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought
however when claiming sov, tcus on deathstars are very common and very very strong and is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:07:16 -
[59] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...
And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range...
Quote:This module requires a full warm-up cycle before beginning to influence targeted structures. Once activated, this module cannot be deactivated until it completes its current cycle. While an Entosis Link is active, the fitted ship cannot cloak, warp, jump, dock or receive any form of remote assistance. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1156
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:17:26 -
[60] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet? This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered. you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos why do you insist you know better than players who actually do these things a tcu on a moon is far far far far far FAR easier to defend than one anywhere else the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought. in the new system a frigate can easily entosis a TCU on a planet, but a TCU on a moon is unassailable by anything that can't tank the tower when claiming contested sov, tcus on deathstars are already very common and very very strong and thus is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included] as an example optimal range on a SMALL beam bettery is 187km WITHOUT the 50% amarr tower bonus to optimal how can you possibly consider the range on the entosis link as a reason that deathstars on TCUs arent overpowered
like a tcu on a pos literally just invalidates the entosis module for that purpose as you have to reinforce the pos first (probably with caps) and then show up to the timer and win
aka exactly the same as the old system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |