Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2301
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:00:47 -
[1171] - Quote
Shun Makoto wrote:If you want examples of how this Sov Mechanic is being used just look to Providence. 50+ man trollceptor fleets rolling around capturing everything in sight. I logged in today with 355 notifications about captured services. Within 3-5 hours I had at least another 100.
The Cancer of New Eden will do cancerous things. No sane people that want the game to survive would ever do the things Goons are so proud off.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Kystraz
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:13:26 -
[1172] - Quote
100 cruisers or battlecruisers leads to a fight that is interesting and enjoyable for all players involved. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1827
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:25:28 -
[1173] - Quote
In dozens of systems? Easily relocatable into 200, 300 people, crushing on a defending fleet? So back to Tidi fights that everyone loved so much prior to Aegis. Or cruisers that are specifically fitted to evade fights and kill ceptors that try to intercept?
You don't want to see that numbers are going to ruin every single mechanic CCP puts out in the wild, do you?
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:36:18 -
[1174] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: You don't want to see that numbers are going to ruin every single mechanic CCP puts out in the wild, do you?
well, CCP could introduce arenas, so that it's always 1 v 1 and whoever wins - gets the structure |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2707
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:44:23 -
[1175] - Quote
Has there been any discussion or even mention of chamging the vulnerability window to not only be for a single TZ? |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1827
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:45:33 -
[1176] - Quote
What a fantastic suggestion.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:16:38 -
[1177] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:And again: In this particular case, where is the difference between 100 Trollceptors and 100 Cruisers or BC? As long as players (and one group in particular) have nothing better to do than to exhaust mechanics to the extreme, the situation itself is not going to change. Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1827
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:21:16 -
[1178] - Quote
Which is a problem in itself if you can screw an entire gate grid with several dozens of large bubbles for hundreds of kilometers and completely immobilized such a group.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:25:11 -
[1179] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Orca Platypus wrote: Of course not. Aside from the obvious fact that it doesn't state the reason for these changes, it's obvious that CCP routinely catered to gewn tears without sufficient analysis, like it did many times before. So I'm all for asking for a reason to this patch before it's even a candidate for needed citation.
They also confirmed it on the meta show, grudgingly. Citation needed.
baltec1 wrote:Orca Platypus wrote: Unfortunately this is not the case where mechanics permit evasion. Since you ignored the question, I have to assume typical goon bs. You can still give a legit explanation to break that assumption, but until you do, it stands.
So despite stating over and over you are having fun with trollcepters you don't know how to fit one? So despite being stated at least twice that was about evasion built T3 nullified cruisers you still gewned and demonstrated typical reading comprehension failure in attempting to switch the context back to trollceptors?
Kagura Nikon wrote:You know, goons are not among the wiesest and brighest of eve, and I do not like them, but you know who has even less sttus to talk about what is right or wrong? Pator tech school.
ad gewnminem at its finest. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:27:25 -
[1180] - Quote
Shun Makoto wrote:If you want examples of how this Sov Mechanic is being used just look to Providence. 50+ man trollceptor fleets rolling around capturing everything in sight. I logged in today with 355 notifications about captured services. Within 3-5 hours I had at least another 100.
Being outnumbered at least 1 to 5 had nothing to do with it *sarcasm*. |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:37:36 -
[1181] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Which is a problem in itself if you can screw an entire gate grid with several dozens of large bubbles for hundreds of kilometers and completely immobilized such a group. So you think the problem is bubbles? So should all ships be nullified? Or should people just not be allowed to use defensive measures in their space?
Bubble are a powerful way for people to held defend their borders. Alone they do nothing but they improve the ability of a defender to keep people out. Nullified ships are intended to get past them so they can scout, set up cynos, etc. The problem comes when nullified ships are given advantages on a strategic level like they have now. You can now threaten sov with nullified ships, or like in our case just blast enormous numbers of them about with a couple of support fleets to stop other people getting to them very easily.
I'm honestly curious about what you think should be done, if anything to balance out the system as it is.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1828
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:47:11 -
[1182] - Quote
It is not the bubbles in itself, it is how people use them. A handful of bubbles to cover a gate is fine, hundreds of bubbles to break the grid, to prevent warp for hundreds of kilometers, to create lag and make brackets and overview hard/impossible to read (CCP, where are the bubble improvements that you hinted at FF2014. Stop your work on SKINS and actually improve the game!).
Again: Exhaustion of game mechanics to the extreme is a problem.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 07:58:23 -
[1183] - Quote
That rarely if ever happens. I've not yet seen enough bubbles to create lag and if you don't have a ships only combat overview tab you're doing EVE wrong.
In any MMO (hell, in any game - seen speed runs?), people are always going to push the mechanics to the extreme. In EVE moreso due to the types of players and how into the game they get. The trick is that the mechanics should be balanced enough that it doesn't screw the opposing side out of fun. Losing should also be an entertaining experience.
Edit: And it seems a little unclear reading back so I'll clarify. That doesn't mean that the extreme will always win. Mechanics should also be flexible enough for people to counter.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1829
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:30:36 -
[1184] - Quote
I'm not that insane to have bubbles in overviews that matter, it's the graphical effects that cause these issues.
Right now, this tactic is primarily employed in some ratting systems or rarely to slow down incoming opponents known to be in non-nullified ships. But this is only because of ceptor nullification. If ceptors were out of the picture for sov defenses, these grid tactics would become a whole lot more enticing for people like your coalition.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:36:31 -
[1185] - Quote
They're already enticing if we fee threatened. As we've already discussed, nullified ships aren't really going to do much alone. If we were worried about invasion then they would keep out most unwanted attention. If people are forced to cyno in attack forces, they'll have a much harder time when they need to disengage.
For defenders, bubbles are useless since you can be over 100km away and switch of an attackers entosis link. Suicide ECM is a thing which is quite funny now.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:43:44 -
[1186] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:blast enormous numbers of them about with a couple of support fleets to stop other people getting to them very easily. Or just blast enormous fleets with a couple of support ceptors, which is more accurately reflecting what was done. |
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:44:20 -
[1187] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:And again: In this particular case, where is the difference between 100 Trollceptors and 100 Cruisers or BC? As long as players (and one group in particular) have nothing better to do than to exhaust mechanics to the extreme, the situation itself is not going to change. Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot. BCs can easily avoid all the camps completely by using wormholes |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1646
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 08:49:51 -
[1188] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
@FT Diomedes What would that solve? Make you as a single-TZ entity in Null sec vulnerable in 2 windows out of which one you can potentially not defend your stuff in?
Rivr, I think you misread my post.
Quote:The attacker will always get the initiative - he chooses the date and place for the fight. The defender gets to choose the vulnerability window...
Another way of saying that is that the spaceholding alliance [Defender] gets to choose the vulnerability window. In other words, he chooses the time zone for the fight. The attacker still gets to pick the date and the place he will attack.
I would also give the defender the opportunity to set multiple vulnerability windows. That way an alliance strong in both EUTZ and USTZ could provide defensive content, if they so desired.
As an incentive to have a larger vulnerability window, or multiple vulnerability windows, I'm thinking some sort of lowered sovereignty cost, lowered fuel cost, etc.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:48:03 -
[1189] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:And again: In this particular case, where is the difference between 100 Trollceptors and 100 Cruisers or BC? As long as players (and one group in particular) have nothing better to do than to exhaust mechanics to the extreme, the situation itself is not going to change. Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot. BCs can easily avoid all the camps completely by using wormholes If they are there, they can find them and they can get to them, yeah. That's their reward for their effort.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16559
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:51:58 -
[1190] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote: Citation needed.
Go look up, its not exactly hard.
Orca Platypus wrote: So despite being stated at least twice that was about evasion built T3 nullified cruisers you still gewned and demonstrated typical reading comprehension failure in attempting to switch the context back to trollceptors?
So you a don't know t3 fits, glad you have admitted you infact have no experience with any of these ships being used.
Orca Platypus wrote: ad gewnminem at its finest.
This is about all you have to input into this debate, grr gons.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6719
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:55:20 -
[1191] - Quote
Hide posts. It's a winner when people stop quoting the guy. He has noting to add to this discussion.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2089
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 09:56:37 -
[1192] - Quote
For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.
The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1865
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 10:09:57 -
[1193] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY
No.
Not ever.
Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1829
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 10:34:51 -
[1194] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Another way of saying that is that the spaceholding alliance [Defender] gets to choose the vulnerability window. In other words, he chooses the time zone for the fight. The attacker still gets to pick the date and the place he will attack.
I would also give the defender the opportunity to set multiple vulnerability windows. That way an alliance strong in both EUTZ and USTZ could provide defensive content, if they so desired.
As an incentive to have a larger vulnerability window, or multiple vulnerability windows, I'm thinking some sort of lowered sovereignty cost, lowered fuel cost, etc. That is already possible. Not for one system, but for spread over your entire sov holdings. You can set vulnerability windows on a system-by-system basis.
I have not misread it, I have thought it out further ahead the road.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 10:56:03 -
[1195] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.
why should someone be disallowed the chance to entosis something if they control the grid in an inty? you are not gonna suggest that someone can entosis the structure in an inty when the defender controls the grid, are you? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2090
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:20:53 -
[1196] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY
No. Not ever. Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space.
Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2090
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:21:48 -
[1197] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.
why should someone be disallowed the chance to entosis something if they control the grid in an inty? you are not gonna suggest that someone can entosis the structure in an inty when the defender controls the grid, are you?
Because if you control the grid, it wil be no problem for you to bring a BC.
But an inty , while it can be used while you control the space, it can ALSO be used when you do NOT control the space.
Simple logic, even a goon can understand.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1865
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:23:44 -
[1198] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:afkalt wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY
No. Not ever. Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space. Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now?
No, but it will be used on structures imminently.
So what happens when you want to kick someones stuff over, but you only have small hole access? Or it's a wolf rayet and bringing big stuff is straight up ?
See, you're all arguing like null is the only area affected here, which granted it CURRENTLY is, but with no regard for the fact that the mechanic will be used EVERYWHERE.
What "works" for null, doesn't work everywhere. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2091
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:46:24 -
[1199] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:afkalt wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY
No. Not ever. Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space. Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now? No, but it will be used on structures imminently. So what happens when you want to kick someones stuff over, but you only have small hole access? Or it's a wolf rayet and bringing big stuff is straight up ? See, you're all arguing like null is the only area affected here, which granted it CURRENTLY is, but with no regard for the fact that the mechanic will be used EVERYWHERE. What "works" for null, doesn't work everywhere.
If it comes to be used in wormhole space then it might be soemeting to solve then. But as of now, it is like to worry with the imminent invasion of the aliens.. that there are no evidences of... but you know.. might happen.
A simple example of how to solve that is to create a specific frigate or destroyer type that CAN exceptionally fit the entosis but has very very bad infiltration capability.
ON the wolf r type of system, that is not supposed to be a problem, after all you are supposed to use the entosis when you CONTROL THE GRID. The systems where a BC cannot enter although are a real issue I would tend to agree.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1865
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:55:15 -
[1200] - Quote
No, it is not "worry with the imminent invasion of the aliens" it is happening. 100% confirmed.
Go read the new structure blogs. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/shake-my-citadel/
Controlling the grid is one thing, but why would we take a non small ship there in the first place? This isn't null, mate, we can't just YOLO some BCs through the gates because the pathways can and DO close behind you at a moments notice. Equally you don't drag along a slowass ship "just in case" and going back for one isn't always an option and nor can we bridge one in.
What happens when we log off in system to siege the system? We need to pour useless ships (except for one role) into the hole blowing the mass limits along the way thus closing it to other more useful ships?
You're assuming mechanics and pathways to be the same out there and they simply are not. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |