|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5144
   |
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:46:27 -
[1] - Quote
Some alliances are recruiting mining corps, can you believe it!?! MINING CORPS!
Next thing you know we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5145
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 01:19:12 -
[2] - Quote
There are no nodes to deal with when you defend.
If you are dealing with nodes, then you are doing it wrong. Nodes only appear if you allow reinforcement.
It takes 3 people per system (tcu, ihub, station) to defend against troll-ceptors during the vulnerability window. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5146
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 07:01:34 -
[3] - Quote
Felicia D'Arch wrote:...Didn't you guys have like 350 nodes to contest just the other day?
... or they could have just prevented the reinforcement in the first place and have 0 nodes to deal with. 
And if they couldn't be bothered to do that, then why would they bother to deal with the nodes!
/facepalm |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5175
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 22:18:46 -
[4] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's all that chasing though isn't it? All sorts of points to be captured all over and you're chasing around disposable ships that the enemy don't care about. And all it takes is one of those many points to slip though while you're chasing frigates about for command nodes to be spawning.
The whole idea of sov is it was supposed to promote actual conflict. It has failed to do that.
There is no mandatory chasing involved. Structures don't move.
If there are command nodes, then you already screwed-up by not preventing reinforcement.
Entosis links are far better for getting fights than SBUs. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5175
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 22:41:51 -
[5] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Excuse me for thinking the idea of this change was to make people actually fight each other. I guess it was really because people love chasing cheap ships designed not to be caught. That's why the ACU is soaring, right?
The stated goals are:
CCP Fozzie 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
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
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.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
You could argue goal #1, but it seems to me at least that you have chosen to be on the defensive rather than the offensive, and possibly not properly defend. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5179
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 04:23:43 -
[6] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring[/url]. Yay now you have to stand guard to prevent someone making a mess, who doesn't even want your sov. Hey a solution that is even more boring than watching pant dry. No fun allowed, you got guard duty for X hours.
If your alliance is asleep during your vulnerability period, whomever chose that period is stupid.
CCP Fozzie wrote:A system with Military and Industrial each at 1 would already have shrunk its vulnerability window all the way to 8.18 hours. A system with Military 5 and Strategic 5 (quite common) would have a vulnerability window of 4 hours.
So for 4 hours a day you are incapable of having at least one person per structure in system to stop capture?
Miners, ratters, or alts... it doesn't take much. Oh, and you have 50 minutes to respond at ADM 5. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5181
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 07:25:59 -
[7] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:If your alliance is asleep during your vulnerability period, whomever chose that period is stupid.
So for 4 hours a day you are incapable of having at least one person per structure in system to stop capture? To be fair, Goonswarm is a BIGGäó Alliance, so it it is almost surely the case that for many in the alliance that they are asleep when the systems are vulnerable.
The entire alliance is asleep? Really? You are gonna go with that argument?
If so, again that would also be an example of setting a stupid vulnerability window. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
5273
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:39:55 -
[8] - Quote
Jeven HouseBenyo wrote:So let me get this straight.
CCP, with the release of FozzieSov, managed to 'break' your 'shiny' when it comes to Sov.
"Who Moved My Cheese!" |
|
|
| |
|