Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Falcon
12368
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:51:12 -
[1] - Quote
Hello Capsuleers!
Team Five-0 have been working tirelessly to iterate on the sov release since July 14th, and are ready to share more details about what's coming in the next couple of releases for Sovereignty in EVE Online.
Check out this Dev Blog from the team to see what changes are coming over the course of the next few months.
Feel free to post your comments and feedback in this thread!
CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13180
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:52:19 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved for FAQ
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1127
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:52:29 -
[3] - Quote
All good, sensible changes - an excellent step in the right direction. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:53:10 -
[4] - Quote
I'm sad that the fitting restriction is to Interceptors only - it's too trite.
Much more sensible would be to restrict it to Destroyers, perhaps even Cruisers, and above - due to 'size' constraints. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1793
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:53:10 -
[5] - Quote
Very happy with these. Still would like to see several more but all of these are a good package.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1845
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:54:38 -
[6] - Quote
All sensible changes. I'm especially glad that you went with the light hand on fatigue.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3301
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:55:33 -
[7] - Quote
Quote:This change is designed to reduce the damage that a character can inflict by overjumping, reducing the maximum possible fatigue from 30 days to 5 days.
Just to clarify, its only the maximum possible jump fatigue ceiling that is being altered in this, and not the actual mechanics and formula by which fatigue is calculated, yes/no?
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:57:53 -
[8] - Quote
These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5548
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:59:02 -
[9] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Quote:This change is designed to reduce the damage that a character can inflict by overjumping, reducing the maximum possible fatigue from 30 days to 5 days. Just to clarify, its only the maximum possible jump fatigue ceiling that is being altered in this, and not the actual mechanics and formula by which fatigue is calculated, yes/no?
For now, correct.
Everything caps out lower, but the numbers are otherwise the same.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3305
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:02:46 -
[10] - Quote
Also, can I ask why you've gone with an outright entosis ban for interceptors rather than adjusting the associated requirements/drawbacks/etc to make the choice suboptimal?
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
|
Zalmun
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:03:41 -
[11] - Quote
Finally some sensibility comes to jump fatigue timers. I still think 5 days is a bit too long, but I completely agree with targeting the weekend players as having the most benefit. Reason prevails. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
351
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:03:50 -
[12] - Quote
You guys realize that the entire reason Interceptors came to dominate the Entosis meta was their combination of survivability and expandability, right? They would never have enjoyed the level of popularity they achieved if fitting and using Entosis links wasn't an unqualified de-buff in every respect. |
Sydious
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:04:18 -
[13] - Quote
These changes are a good step towards addressing null-sec's concerns. Good job team five-o. |
Sporx Utensil
Colossus Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:05:56 -
[14] - Quote
really, really good and sensible changes. the fatigue cap is GREAT.
good job listening. well done CCP. (Please keep making it better) |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
803
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:07:34 -
[15] - Quote
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.
Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back.
I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.
Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
|
Seven Koskanaiken
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1640
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:08:20 -
[16] - Quote
foz braek gam kil BL kil pizza no rmt for babushka fir foz |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1852
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:11:29 -
[17] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
803
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:14:29 -
[18] - Quote
Querns wrote:Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest? Have you considered patrolling your own space ?
I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.
Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3305
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:14:59 -
[19] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:You guys realize that the entire reason Interceptors came to dominate the Entosis meta was their combination of survivability and expandability, right? They would never have enjoyed the level of popularity they achieved if fitting and using Entosis links wasn't an unqualified de-buff in every respect.
The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
215
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:15:23 -
[20] - Quote
Atrum Veneficus wrote:These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start.
I have to agree with this. A number of different options could have had the same effect while having a much more broader positive change. Like, increased align time, mass increase, no prop mod activation, and reduced top speed (a little of each, not a lot of each) would have prevented the problems with interceptors trolling sov, as well as other slippery targets, while still letting interceptors be viable for capping sov for uncontested or grid-controlled areas.
Also I think the new jump fatigue cap is interesting...but perhaps too generous? From the blog...
Quote:a player who is mostly active on the weekend will have fully recovered from one weekend by the next
Isn't that precisely what jump fatigue was supposed to preventt? A player who can jump around as much as he desires during his prime time, and it's all gone by the next time he plays, somewhat (not totally) defeats the purpose of the fatigue in the first place.
"We want to limit power projection, but gosh darn, it would be so un-swell to inconvenience someone like that"
How's about a slight adjustment to a full 7 day cap? One full week cap seems to be closer to what the fatigue was supposed to do in the first place without being too punishing. You're already bringing it down from 30 days, so 7 is still a big positive difference for cap owners.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1854
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:15:39 -
[21] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Querns wrote:Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest? Have you considered patrolling your own space ? We do.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:18:29 -
[22] - Quote
So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1854
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:19:33 -
[23] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled Do they not have cynos or wormholes where you live?
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
1797
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:20:17 -
[24] - Quote
One bit of feedback. I would increase the timer from 20 minutes to 4 hours. Otherwise I can see waiting for all other fulldirs to go to bed and nuking stuff in the middle of the night. I don't know what harm a 4 hour timer does other than meaning you can't start it 4 hours before DT.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
428
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:20:28 -
[25] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8 |
Ardmel Torcken
NED-Clan Reshipping Services Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:22:02 -
[26] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8
They aren't allowed to fly ships worth more then 100m in MOA. |
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:23:10 -
[27] - Quote
I am delighted to hear that CCP is moving to a weekend only subscription model.
I await the lowering of the subscription cost by a factor of 5/7th and the limitation on all sov and pos structures to exit rf during the weekend.
Punishing people for paying your game for a couple of hours every night remains stupid. The fatigue limit should be set at 24 hours, though the cumulative effect on the jump reactivation timer should continue to scale. This allows for people to play each day, but would prevent the dogpiling and such that fatigue wishes to prevent.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
672
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:23:22 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ
Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? |
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:25:21 -
[29] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:[quote=Atrum Veneficus]
Isn't that precisely what jump fatigue was supposed to prevent? A player who can jump around as much as he desires during his prime time, and it's all gone by the next time he plays, somewhat (not totally) defeats the purpose of the fatigue in the first place.
No, It was to stop someone from going from one end of the universe to the other in 5 minutes, destroy an alliance, and go back home in one night. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3310
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:26:13 -
[30] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled
The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1731
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:27:43 -
[31] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for?
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:28:20 -
[32] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it.
The "timer" on entosis also exists already: it's called: undocking and doing something for your space. But CCP "fixed" that one, so maybe this one might get fixed as well. |
Taru Audeles
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:28:58 -
[33] - Quote
Took you guys long enough to understand what mess you got yourself and US paying customers into. You should have never released this mess in the broke state you did. It is a SMALL first step to fix it. Please keep it up and push for faster changes. This is not enough to bring FozzieSov to a semi usefull state.
Provi Invasion and MoA trolling should give you enough fancy statistics of your epic failure. |
Traumatica
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:29:07 -
[34] - Quote
Even we learned that you have to bring more than frigates to a fight if you want to win. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:15 -
[35] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken.
So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Granted, you can still do the same thing by using a Titan bridge, but the threshold for bypassing gatecamps is going up. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:51 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for? Unless I've read incorrectly, it will be necessary to be able to willingly freeport an outpost/conquerable station to transfer it.
One could also want to freeport it for its own sake. Unlikely, but potentially desirable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:54 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for?
If we want to give a station to someone. Or just want to give up the space to whoever because defending it is too annoying.
Same reasons we would want to self destruct a sov structure. |
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:26 -
[38] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Atrum Veneficus wrote:These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start. I have to agree with this. A number of different options could have had the same effect while having a much more broader positive change. Like, increased align time, mass increase, no prop mod activation, and reduced top speed (a little of each, not a lot of each) would have prevented the problems with interceptors trolling sov, as well as other slippery targets, while still letting interceptors be viable for capping sov for uncontested or grid-controlled areas. Also I think the new jump fatigue cap is interesting...but perhaps too generous? From the blog... Quote:a player who is mostly active on the weekend will have fully recovered from one weekend by the next Isn't that precisely what jump fatigue was supposed to prevent? A player who can jump around as much as he desires during his prime time, and it's all gone by the next time he plays, somewhat (not totally) defeats the purpose of the fatigue in the first place. Jump fatigue was supposed to prevent caps from racing along from this side of the universe to the other and nuking a carrier before heading home and doing the same thing 20 mins later.
It was not supposed to make all cap pilots want to biomass, nor make then utterly worthless outside of 10ly, but congrats to CCP for achieving that subcap stretch goal as well.
As a pilot wanting to jump his CAPITAL SHIP, in his PRIME TIME, more then 10 ly, this once a week deal still seems a mite bit raw. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:36 -
[39] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken. So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Good thing the dominant ship in the meta right now can conveniently fit for interdiction nullification.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:56 -
[40] - Quote
Dreiden Kisada wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for? If we want to give a station to someone. Or just want to give up the space to whoever because defending it is too annoying. Same reasons we would want to self destruct a sov structure.
Or to transfer it to renters more easily?
|
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:34:45 -
[41] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken. So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system.
There was no skirmish warfare with the sov system.
Hostiles show up to sov laser things, some people who want to do pvp try to do pvp. Sov lasering inties run away crowing in local. next day, defenders go sov laser things back the way they were since the "elite pvp" inties from the previous day don't actually want the space.
Any skirmishes that happened would have happened if the attackers had shown up with no sov lasers, since the defenders who engaged do so for fun.
There will not be any more or less bubble camps on chokepoints. |
Spookay
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies.
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:38:34 -
[42] - Quote
Will fatigue accumulate at the same rate? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:39:08 -
[43] - Quote
Spookay wrote:Will fatigue accumulate at the same rate? Yes. All that got changed was the maximum fatigue you can get.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
141
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:40:01 -
[44] - Quote
Please forbid using entosis links on interceptors, interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, Recons and Stealth bombers. |
Crazy Vania
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:40:16 -
[45] - Quote
Once again I'd like to remind CCP that combat entosis solo pilots exist.
I fit an entosis link on my frigs to hopefully kill the responding tackler when he lands. Removing the entolink from interceptors annoys me somewhat as it gives me less choice in ships but I don't really care, the best ship for this role are the pirate frigs anyways.
But that's not what I'm here for: CCP, please, please make the 4000m/s speed cap on the entosis module a "WHEN ACTIVE" debuff... Slow down the ship during the 5m cycle. By doing the current "WHEN FITTED (EVEN OFFLINE)" cap you are killing off a lot of ship fitting options for combat pilots for no reason.
Make the entosis link affect your speed only when the module is cycling. It gives you your intended result without nerfing actual pew pew. |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:41:58 -
[46] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Granted, you can still do the same thing by using a Titan bridge, but the threshold for bypassing gatecamps is going up.
I've only been on two or three system defence ops, so sorry if these were not the norm, but the ones I turned up to there WERE no "skirmish warfare" events. MOA would come along in 15 cormorants and try to catch stragglers. Sometimes an inty would wave a sov laser at something then run away when someone got within 50k of him. If the system, as it stands right now, was generating PVP content I would be ALL for it. As it is right now it doesn't generate anything.
|
Azgard Majik
Ilium Skies
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:42:26 -
[47] - Quote
If you're going to insist on keeping jump fatigue (the worst game mechanic in history), do it in style and make it 1 year maximum recovery timer. That way we can all move back to hi sec and leave the awful sov game play. |
Gigiarc
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:44:49 -
[48] - Quote
I'm liking these battlecruiser and sov changes. (sexually) |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:53:40 -
[49] - Quote
Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100? |
Enddel Ayere
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:54:53 -
[50] - Quote
Very sensible change on the ceptors! and also the structure regen makes lots of sense in terms of game mechanics (maybe have a maintenance bots animation to keep the lore... auto repair blabla)
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:56:06 -
[51] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100? It'd have to be higher than that. Two T2 MAPCs and a T2 ancillary current router on a crusader had me easily above 100 grid, with two lows and a rig slot left over for reducing my align time to below two seconds.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:00:06 -
[52] - Quote
The Slayer wrote:I've only been on two or three system defence ops, so sorry if these were not the norm, but the ones I turned up to there WERE no "skirmish warfare" events. MOA would come along in 15 cormorants and try to catch stragglers. The problem with those seeking to harass the CFC is that there are no peer adversaries with the throw weight to seriously contest you, which is probably why you've never seen anything more than reinforcement timers that go uncontested. I can't imagine it's any fun, but on the plus side, uncontested timers will fix themselves soon.
The Slayer wrote:Sometimes an inty would wave a sov laser at something then run away when someone got within 50k of him.
They had a speed penalty before, and have a maximum velocity penalty now. You couldn't find anyone who could catch them? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:05:15 -
[53] - Quote
I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
|
Sporx Utensil
Colossus Enterprises
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:07:03 -
[54] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100?
That severely compromises fits for other ships. I'm glad they didn't do that; although fair enough if what they did pick is a bandaid. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1866
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:07:57 -
[55] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
It may behoove you to defend your space. Additionally, it might behoove you to attack the space of those attacking you, as the same rules apply to whomever is attacking you.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
William Ruben
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:09:47 -
[56] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
says NPC corp alt |
Igor Nappi
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:09:52 -
[57] - Quote
CCP caving in to the nullbear whine - the devblog.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:13:44 -
[58] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
Ahh, you hit it exactly on the head. All those thousands of supers and titans, with nothing to do. Only a fool would keep those subbed. CCP is again putting the cart before the horse. Rather then give supers/caps a decent and balanced role to play, they just shot them in the knees, promising a fix Soon TM.
Also, maybe you can put your inner peasant away and realise that capital gameplay might actually be end game play for some. |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
544
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:13:46 -
[59] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:I'm sad that the fitting restriction is to Interceptors only - it's too trite.
Much more sensible would be to restrict it to Destroyers, perhaps even Cruisers, and above - due to 'size' constraints.
It's not the speed, size, or cost of inties that is the root problem; it's the bubble immunity. There is no need to restrict it from other small/fast ships that are not bubble-immune. Especially not with the capture decay thing coming later... |
Traumatica
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:17:24 -
[60] - Quote
Really if certain parties spent less time shooting sov structure in interceptors and more time mining or whatever pubbies do for money then maybe they could afford real ships to contest sov with. |
|
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
544
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:18:56 -
[61] - Quote
Sporx Utensil wrote:Colman Dietmar wrote:Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100? That severely compromises fits for other ships. I'm glad they didn't do that; although fair enough if what they did pick is a bandaid.
Would have been more interesting to see them take the route of a fitted (offline too) entosis link "interferes" with interdiction nullification (magic hand-waving). You can still fit it to those ships, but you lose nullification if you do. Since that would apply to T3's as well. Also frees them up to continue to play around with nullification on other hulls in the future without having to agonize over entosis implications every time. |
peaSTAR
Low Risk
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:19:03 -
[62] - Quote
so with the jump timer changes 5 days of fatigue max. this means the uni has shrunk even more now.
does this mean fatigue timers will be adjusted ? (reduced) being as a quick response fleet will only be able to jump 3 times before hitting 1 days 7 hours 17 mins of fatigue,after that time it will be 7 days 19 hours 38 mins, unless your allowed to go over the 5 day max period this is not going to be of any use.
thanks for the stupidity ccp.sandbox game,becoming more like a matchbox game |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:21:39 -
[63] - Quote
peaSTAR wrote:so with the jump timer changes 5 days of fatigue max. this means the uni has shrunk even more now.
It was honestly starting to feel too big thanks to the jump fatigue changes. Dialing down the impacts of fatigue right now is, imo, a step in the right direction.
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
428
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:24:02 -
[64] - Quote
Any ETA on capital rebalance? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1867
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:25:11 -
[65] - Quote
peaSTAR wrote:so with the jump timer changes 5 days of fatigue max. this means the uni has shrunk even more now.
does this mean fatigue timers will be adjusted ? (reduced) being as a quick response fleet will only be able to jump 3 times before hitting 1 days 7 hours 17 mins of fatigue,after that time it will be 7 days 19 hours 38 mins, unless your allowed to go over the 5 day max period this is not going to be of any use.
thanks for the stupidity ccp.sandbox game,becoming more like a matchbox game Considering that you can jump an unlimited number of times by waiting out 50 of the 60 minutes of fatigue a 5LY jump grants you, I fail to see the concern. A 5d fatigue, 5LY jump grants 1h12m of cooldown.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
215
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:34:46 -
[66] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Any ETA on capital rebalance? This will be a main topic during the CSM summit, next week.
|
Cobat Marland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:35:37 -
[67] - Quote
Good stuff guys |
Zappity
the 57th Overlanders Brigade A Band Apart.
2450
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:37:13 -
[68] - Quote
Good job. As a small gang player who has recently dabbled in taking sov I think you are going in the right direction with these changes and, more importantly, Aegis sov as a whole. It is a fundamentally good system and these are very good changes.
I would REALLY like to see killmails for sov structures so bounties can be placed on specific structures.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
2560
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:39:09 -
[69] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Any ETA on capital rebalance? This will be a main topic during the CSM summit, next week.
most likley won;t hear anything till eve vegas is my guess, It would be wise to announce during the stream when lots of ex players might be watching
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Yes i am optimistic about eve.. i'm giving it till dec 31st 2016 before i doom n gloom
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2100
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:45:11 -
[70] - Quote
All Positive so far. Thanks for acting on this and iteration as you promised.
I can only say i hope the weekend CSM summit goes well and next week i get to mull over the proposed capital changes... Since its really hard to judge this new system without them being rebalanced.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2100
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:47:25 -
[71] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:I'm sad that the fitting restriction is to Interceptors only - it's too trite.
Much more sensible would be to restrict it to Destroyers, perhaps even Cruisers, and above - due to 'size' constraints.
I dunno I think from lore perspective this supposed to be some super advanced Jove module that can hack anything it would have to go on a ship that was designed for electronics warfare...
but apparently that goes against the stated design of atrons that can capture systems.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2100
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:54:52 -
[72] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled
or maybe you should bring MJD ships.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1976
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:59:25 -
[73] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it.
That's garbage and you know it. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
23019
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:03:18 -
[74] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it. That's garbage and you know it.
Last time I did that, a GM came by and took my nice things away.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:03:20 -
[75] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it. That's garbage and you know it.
Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
546
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:09:55 -
[76] - Quote
I am Commander Shepard and I approve of this message
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:13:50 -
[77] - Quote
Querns wrote:Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live?
Why would you use Tech 3s for Entosis? Any Entosis ship caught during the module cycle is basically doomed.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1977
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:14:02 -
[78] - Quote
Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it. That's garbage and you know it. Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live?
Last I checked, WH can't be spawned on demand, cynos can be nullified and a clear and stated objective was to not limit the field to certain hulls.
This is why I was against the direct removal of intys but in favour of an increase in align time and a lower speed cap - these would allow active alliances to prosper but prevent passive defence.
Allowing an +effectively+ passive defence of sov is too much of a swing in the other direction. Do I need to live in my space? Hell no, I need only bubble the chokes to death, a wormholer can be ignored because that hole wont be there by the time the RF rolls around and now the nodes regenerate.
It is just too much in the wrong direction - close, but not there yet. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1873
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:16:02 -
[79] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Querns wrote:Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live? Why would you use Tech 3s for Entosis? Any Entosis ship caught during the module cycle is basically doomed. Alone, sure. You may need to bring a support fleet, or ante up to T2 entosis links to limit your exposure.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
217
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:16:20 -
[80] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Querns wrote:Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest? Have you considered patrolling your own space ?
Have you considered Actually finishing something you started or is your group just not competent enough to hold it? |
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
217
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:19:06 -
[81] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled
When they put a limit on cloaks so you have to at least put in an effort to be at the keyboard for your alts. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1874
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:20:02 -
[82] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it. That's garbage and you know it. Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live? Last I checked, WH can't be spawned on demand, cynos can be nullified and a clear and stated objective was to not limit the field to certain hulls. This is why I was against the direct removal of intys but in favour of an increase in align time and a lower speed cap - these would allow active alliances to prosper but prevent passive defence. Allowing an +effectively+ passive defence of sov is too much of a swing in the other direction. Do I need to live in my space? Hell no, I need only bubble the chokes to death, a wormholer can be ignored because that hole wont be there by the time the RF rolls around and now the nodes regenerate. It is just too much in the wrong direction - close, but not there yet. Cynos can be nullified -- you can put a covert cyno on a covert, nullified strategic cruiser and sneak any number of people behind the dread bubble wall, then refit to a more combat-oriented configuration using mobile depots once you've arrived.
You can also shoot the bubbles. A large bubble costs 10m (20m for T2), so if you consistently blow them up, you can probably encourage the bubble havers to stop throwing money away. Anchored bubbles just aren't that big of a deal. Their defense of sovereignty is hardly meaningful at all -- at best, they slow down people hunting ratters. A sovereignty conquering force should have little issue destroying them.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:20:59 -
[83] - Quote
Querns wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:Querns wrote:Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live? Why would you use Tech 3s for Entosis? Any Entosis ship caught during the module cycle is basically doomed. Alone, sure. You may need to bring a support fleet, or ante up to T2 entosis links to limit your exposure.
This is a direction that is highly favorable to Goonswarm's established modus operendi; bring as big of a death ball as possible and take advantage of superior throw weight to ensure that each objective is achieved. If that's the direction Entosis is going to go, we might as well just throw the sov wands out completely and just go back to Dominion or POS Sov.
If someone doesn't have the CFC's mass, skirmish warfare is the only viable option. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1874
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:23:54 -
[84] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Querns wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:Querns wrote:Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live? Why would you use Tech 3s for Entosis? Any Entosis ship caught during the module cycle is basically doomed. Alone, sure. You may need to bring a support fleet, or ante up to T2 entosis links to limit your exposure. This is a direction that is highly favorable to Goonswarm's established modus operendi; bring as big of a death ball as possible and take advantage of superior throw weight to ensure that each objective is achieved. If that's the direction Entosis is going to go, we might as well just throw the sov wands out completely and just go back to Dominion or POS Sov. If someone doesn't have that kind of mass, skirmish warfare is their only viable option. It would be a tragedy for that option to be lost. I don't follow -- how does anything you talked about limit skirmish warfare?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1977
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:25:19 -
[85] - Quote
Quote limit.
Querns wrote: Cynos can be nullified -- you can put a covert cyno on a covert, nullified strategic cruiser and sneak any number of people behind the dread bubble wall, then refit to a more combat-oriented configuration using mobile depots once you've arrived.
You can also shoot the bubbles. A large bubble costs 10m (20m for T2), so if you consistently blow them up, you can probably encourage the bubble havers to stop throwing money away. Anchored bubbles just aren't that big of a deal. Their defense of sovereignty is hardly meaningful at all -- at best, they slow down people hunting ratters. A sovereignty conquering force should have little issue destroying them.
It is still a hilarious design goal fail.
Tell me, if a minimum align time of 4s and a speed limit of 3k was enforced...what would the problem be?
You should not be able to hide behind anchorables so easily, it is every bit as big a flaw as the current model - except now it is in sov holders favour, so I guess that is ok.....? |
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
125
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:25:33 -
[86] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: It's not the speed, size, or cost of inties that is the root problem; it's the bubble immunity. .
No, it is the unholy combination of all those attributes that make them the sov troll's wet dream. They needed to die before Aegis was released.
|
Commander Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1562
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:33:50 -
[87] - Quote
I'm still a bit shocked that Entosis link isn't exactly like a Cyno, or at the very least a Siege module.
You light it and it:
A) puts up a beacon (like a cyno) B) you're sitting there for the duration.
A+B = both very recognizable mechanics already accepted in the game.
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1562
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:33:50 -
[88] - Quote
I'm still a bit shocked that Entosis link isn't exactly like a Cyno, or at the very least a Siege module.
You light it and it:
A) puts up a beacon (like a cyno) B) you're sitting there for the duration.
A+B = both very recognizable mechanics already accepted in the game.
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:34:59 -
[89] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it. That's garbage and you know it. Again, do they not have wormholes, cynos, and nullified strategic cruisers where you live? Last I checked, WH can't be spawned on demand, cynos can be nullified and a clear and stated objective was to not limit the field to certain hulls. This is why I was against the direct removal of intys but in favour of an increase in align time and a lower speed cap - these would allow active alliances to prosper but prevent passive defence. Allowing an +effectively+ passive defence of sov is too much of a swing in the other direction. Do I need to live in my space? Hell no, I need only bubble the chokes to death, a wormholer can be ignored because that hole wont be there by the time the RF rolls around and now the nodes regenerate. It is just too much in the wrong direction - close, but not there yet.
You realize if you come across a gate bubbled like that.. all you do is wave the magic ticket wand at a GM.. and those players who dropped all those Bubbles will feel very sorry. while you can Bubble a gate.. only X amount of bubbles may be used. Any amount of Cans/bubbles around gates that start to effect the loading of someones computers is considered bannable and an exploit. CCP has swung that magic hammer many times on players, suspending them and banning them for multiple offences.
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
805
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:36:43 -
[90] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Have you considered Actually finishing something you started or is your group just not competent enough to hold it? Have you considered that many people are interested in the fight and not in the sov/ihubs/whatever ? Have you considered that, since the nodes will regen, a lot less fights can be expected ? Have you considered that, since the anom buff, you can park 600 pilots in the same constellation and they all have something to grind, making our current universe way too big for the low population in 00 ? Have you considered that the game does not need a better, juicer carrot, but on the contrary a lower density of the riches, that would create conflicts after ~4 years of relative peace ?
I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.
Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
|
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
82
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:39:07 -
[91] - Quote
Maybe I'm too tired to say this but I seem to have spotted a typo:
Quote:All Entosis capture progress for owned structures, command nodes for owned structures and online station services will regenerate towards full owner control if nobody has an active link running. This regeneration only applies when the structure is partially contested, not while reinforced.
The pace of this automatic regeneration will be slower than active linking from defenders, but it provides another option for defenders to choose between after they have driven off their attackers.
Also, you're using two different types of scales (seconds and minutes) for your http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/tableforsov.png chart showing regen times. (this is just me nit-picking though, sorry!) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1977
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:44:48 -
[92] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: You realize if you come across a gate bubbled like that.. all you do is wave the magic ticket wand at a GM.. and those players who dropped all those Bubbles will feel very sorry. while you can Bubble a gate.. only X amount of bubbles may be used. Any amount of Cans/bubbles around gates that start to effect the loading of someones computers is considered bannable and an exploit. CCP has swung that magic hammer many times on players, suspending them and banning them for multiple offences.
It is a fair whack before it can be claimed to be lag inducing, as I'm sure you well know.
My point remains, relying on an edge case of lag inducing bubbles and GM hand waving doesn't strengthen your argument.
What should have happened is as I said, minimum align time, lower speed. Debatable sundries would be higher fuel costs and high cycle times (to allow running them down in time).
This swings the pendulum too far back the other way. |
Baron Holbach
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
32
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:48:20 -
[93] - Quote
this 5 day max fatigue is joke ... most of capital pilots (if they are playing) are active player who would usually want to play more than once a week in weekend.... while i agree its nice that you can't ***** youself 2hard when over jumping - in large picture its quite useless change - i never managed to get much over day of fatiqu for playing smart... i once once managed to jump my fatiqu over week and that was last jumps to move my titan and i just made those jumps knowing i never have change to use it and while logged off and inactive it has all the time in world to wait until fatigue goes away
PLEASE INCRASE BLACK OPS FATIQU BONUS - THIS 50% IS TOTAL JOKE... 90% LIKE JF WOULD ACTUALLY GET THAT SHIP BACK TO GAME AS SOMETHING FUN TO USE AGAIN :P with current 50% bonus ja bit more max range it still means you can do 3-4 jumps a day unless you want to wait hour between jumps ... what usually means 1 change for hotdroop :S |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:49:09 -
[94] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Have you considered Actually finishing something you started or is your group just not competent enough to hold it? Have you considered that many people are interested in the fight and not in the sov/ihubs/whatever ? Have you considered that, since the nodes will regen, a lot less fights can be expected ? Have you considered that, since the anom buff, you can park 600 pilots in the same constellation and they all have something to grind, making our current universe way too big for the low population in 00 ? Have you considered that the game does not need a better, juicer carrot, but on the contrary a lower density of the riches, that would create conflicts after ~4 years of relative peace ?
The problem is SOV for the average member doesn't offer As much riches as many claim. Hell its why I personally rather rent. I pay less in the long run and short run then I would on Infrastructure and Defense of assets. If I seen a reason to take Sov that outweighed what I made on my FW or Incursion alts.. my corp would not be renting.. but brawling again. As it stands now tho. I can putz around in null and make more Isk per hour in hi-sec or low-sec warfare zones. It's why the majority of pilots across all alliances in all sov areas have Incursion alts. No way am I saying change Faction Warfare or Incursions, I like my isk. But as for Reasons to fight in other regions and take Sov elsewhere. I have no reason to risk my toys for Sov, when I can get the better benefits elsewhere.
The big empires have no reason to kick over each others sandcastles when nothing of Value is sitting in the neighbors yard. Sure you can look at Lowering the density of what is around each Sov area. But it has to be done in a way that would effect the Leadership chains of the large and small alliances - Sov holding or not. Moons at one point drove conflict then they spread the value everywhere. Many suggestions have gone into these forums on how to change wealth redistribution of Sov. Having moons run out, making moons change what you can mine in certain cycles, etc. None of it is anything that would drive anyone to kick a castle over that isn't already well stocked up. Null Sov needs something new built into it to make empires want to go and fight elsewhere. Having something change that is long stocked up would only effect them if those assets were getting destroyed. They still need a reason to Exhaust the stocks. Not sit on them and chuckle buying what they need out of market hubs.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1876
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:53:20 -
[95] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Quote limit. Querns wrote: Cynos can be nullified -- you can put a covert cyno on a covert, nullified strategic cruiser and sneak any number of people behind the dread bubble wall, then refit to a more combat-oriented configuration using mobile depots once you've arrived.
You can also shoot the bubbles. A large bubble costs 10m (20m for T2), so if you consistently blow them up, you can probably encourage the bubble havers to stop throwing money away. Anchored bubbles just aren't that big of a deal. Their defense of sovereignty is hardly meaningful at all -- at best, they slow down people hunting ratters. A sovereignty conquering force should have little issue destroying them.
It is still a hilarious design goal fail. Tell me, if a minimum align time of 4s and a speed limit of 3k was enforced...what would the problem be? You should not be able to hide behind anchorables so easily, it is every bit as big a flaw as the current model - except now it is in sov holders favour, so I guess that is ok.....? I guess I am not understanding the outrage. How does having to slowboat through some bubbles meaningfully affect sov warfare?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3386
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:55:38 -
[96] - Quote
i would never have thought that nullsec will receive timer rollbacks before FW. Kinda funny :)
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:56:36 -
[97] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Have you considered Actually finishing something you started or is your group just not competent enough to hold it? Have you considered that many people are interested in the fight and not in the sov/ihubs/whatever ? Have you considered that, since the nodes will regen, a lot less fights can be expected ? Have you considered that, since the anom buff, you can park 600 pilots in the same constellation and they all have something to grind, making our current universe way too big for the low population in 00 ? Have you considered that the game does not need a better, juicer carrot, but on the contrary a lower density of the riches, that would create conflicts after ~4 years of relative peace ? So, you're only interested in generating fights, and not in actually conquering sov. Why should the system cater to you? Sovereignty warfare should be about contesting sovereignty, not creating meaningless fights with nothing on the line. Sure, the system can't deduce the intent of either the attacker or the defender, but the spirit of the mechanic should keep this in mind wherever possible.
The Imperium has a zero-tolerance policy towards attempts on our sovereignty, no matter the intentions of the attacker. I see no reason why any other sov holder should act differently. Plan accordingly.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 22:58:55 -
[98] - Quote
Massive respect, CCP!
I absolutely hated the first iteration of Aegis Sov and was pretty vocal about the shortcomings. Very happy to see these steps that are in the right direction.
o7
If I may, 5 days may be too soon of a cooldown timer, as we don't want to make weekend hoping a thing. Perhaps 10 days?
Also, perhaps a 50-minute regen timer is too short of a window for the attacker. I think it's fair for the shortest regen window to straddle the shortest vulnerability window possible at highest ADM (so 4 hrs?) so that the attacker has a good chunk of the next vulnerability window to show up in and contest. In other words, make the regen multiple ~0.04x instead of 0.2x for stations, ihubs and TCUs, for example.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1978
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:04:26 -
[99] - Quote
Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:Quote limit. Querns wrote: Cynos can be nullified -- you can put a covert cyno on a covert, nullified strategic cruiser and sneak any number of people behind the dread bubble wall, then refit to a more combat-oriented configuration using mobile depots once you've arrived.
You can also shoot the bubbles. A large bubble costs 10m (20m for T2), so if you consistently blow them up, you can probably encourage the bubble havers to stop throwing money away. Anchored bubbles just aren't that big of a deal. Their defense of sovereignty is hardly meaningful at all -- at best, they slow down people hunting ratters. A sovereignty conquering force should have little issue destroying them.
It is still a hilarious design goal fail. Tell me, if a minimum align time of 4s and a speed limit of 3k was enforced...what would the problem be? You should not be able to hide behind anchorables so easily, it is every bit as big a flaw as the current model - except now it is in sov holders favour, so I guess that is ok.....? I guess I am not understanding the outrage. How does having to slowboat through some bubbles meaningfully affect sov warfare?
It dimishes the commitment to living in space, you have a greatly reduced need for real pilots in space when a fleet can be formed based on intel alts x jumps out knowing full well you can block and hide behind anchorables- - the enemy can't move quickly.
Don't mistake me, I may be an alt, but I live in WH are we are facing far greater problems than null will with these mechanics come citadels:
You currently need needed an entosis alt/system, we will need an alt/structure and "living" out of our space is impossible by comparison as anomalies do not work the same way.
So that said, I have sympathy with the complaints - which is why I suggest align lower bounds and a lower max speed. It allows people living in places to have a (pretty trivial) odds of catching people by active piloting/living but keeps a low bar with regard to "passive" defences. I was vehemently against removing the mass penalty, for example, I wanted it pushed even higher.
I want to see active fleets rewarded, I don't want passive defences to be the one stop shop for defence. They will be, once again.
A lot of people hate nullification but it's the only decent counter to anchorable spam. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:08:23 -
[100] - Quote
Unnecessarily so :) Both figures show the information in the units that is important. I wouldn't want to have to convert to second for the first, or minutes in the second.
Reppyk wrote:Have you considered that many people are interested in the fight and not in the sov/ihubs/whatever ? Have you considered that, since the nodes will regen, a lot less fights can be expected ? Have you considered that, since the anom buff, you can park 600 pilots in the same constellation and they all have something to grind, making our current universe way too big for the low population in 00 ? Have you considered that the game does not need a better, juicer carrot, but on the contrary a lower density of the riches, that would create conflicts after ~4 years of relative peace ? Have you considered that everything you are whining about has nothing to do with sov?
Baron Holbach wrote:this 5 day max fatigue is joke ... most of capital pilots (if they are playing) are active player who would usually want to play more than once a week in weekend.... while i agree its nice that you can't ***** youself 2hard when over jumping - in large picture its quite useless change - i never managed to get much over day of fatiqu for playing smart... i once once managed to jump my fatiqu over week and that was last jumps to move my titan and i just made those jumps knowing i never have change to use it and while logged off and inactive it has all the time in world to wait until fatigue goes away
PLEASE INCRASE BLACK OPS FATIQU BONUS - THIS 50% IS TOTAL JOKE... 90% LIKE JF WOULD ACTUALLY GET THAT SHIP BACK TO GAME AS SOMETHING FUN TO USE AGAIN :P with current 50% bonus ja bit more max range it still means you can do 3-4 jumps a day unless you want to wait hour between jumps ... what usually means 1 change for hotdroop :S Both the items you suggest would roll back power projection limitations, which have been painful but beneficial in my mind. Any thoughts on how you could prevent the rampant power projection issues from before Phoebe, if what you suggest comes to pass?
afkalt wrote: It is still a hilarious design goal fail.
Tell me, if a minimum align time of 4s and a speed limit of 3k was enforced...what would the problem be?
You should not be able to hide behind anchorables so easily, it is every bit as big a flaw as the current model - except now it is in sov holders favour, so I guess that is ok.....?
So lemme get his straight - you want the sov, but you find it too difficult to coast the 20 seconds it would take you to clear the bubbles? |
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:08:45 -
[101] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Have you considered Actually finishing something you started or is your group just not competent enough to hold it? Have you considered that many people are interested in the fight and not in the sov/ihubs/whatever ? Have you considered that, since the nodes will regen, a lot less fights can be expected ? Have you considered that, since the anom buff, you can park 600 pilots in the same constellation and they all have something to grind, making our current universe way too big for the low population in 00 ? Have you considered that the game does not need a better, juicer carrot, but on the contrary a lower density of the riches, that would create conflicts after ~4 years of relative peace ?
But they aren't. They want to troll the sov holders in a "made you respond" kind of way. Or catch some dewey eyed newbie who's all "I got dis notification thingy wats that guys i'm on fire :v" and pod him so their killboard goes up one more notch. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:09:55 -
[102] - Quote
afkalt wrote:It dimishes the commitment to living in space, you have a greatly reduced need for real pilots in space when a fleet can be formed based on intel alts x jumps out knowing full well you can block and hide behind anchorables- - the enemy can't move quickly.
Don't mistake me, I may be an alt, but I live in WH are we are facing far greater problems than null will with these mechanics come citadels:
You currently need needed an entosis alt/system, we will need an alt/structure and "living" out of our space is impossible by comparison as anomalies do not work the same way.
So that said, I have sympathy with the complaints - which is why I suggest align lower bounds and a lower max speed. It allows people living in places to have a (pretty trivial) odds of catching people by active piloting/living but keeps a low bar with regard to "passive" defences. I was vehemently against removing the mass penalty, for example, I wanted it pushed even higher.
I want to see active fleets rewarded, I don't want passive defences to be the one stop shop for defence. They will be, once again.
A lot of people hate nullification but it's the only decent counter to anchorable spam. The amount of time that a bubble wall delays an attacker is a scant minute or two, at most. This matters for catching ratters, but not for contesting sovereignty. Use scouts to find bubble walls. Use cynos to avoid bubble walls. Use an alternate route. Use nullified strategic cruisers. Send in a team to blow up the bubble walls before the campaign starts and/or the vulnerability timer; anchorable bubble fields take a long time to erect due to their requirement of an industrial ship to haul the largest ones. Stealth bombers are very good at catching and murdering industrials.
This is a molehill, not a mountain.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:11:29 -
[103] - Quote
Also, as an aside, if you dislike bubble walls, you are going to HATE the new structures CCP is adding. CCP is talking about adding a variety of structures that can be used to detect hostiles and augment travel in sovereign space. I believe that players should be able to invest in their systems and see some benefit from it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
134
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:12:39 -
[104] - Quote
Just make it so that entosis links can't be fitted on frigates imo.
Also I would suggest caution with rolling back fatigue, there has a great many positive changes coming out of the pheobe expansion and I hope that you won't go any further than as proposed here.
The days when PL drop 100 archons from the other side of the galaxy are thankfully gone; and as a result I am finally seeing some medium sized gang fights involving capitals without them being third partied. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
298
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:12:55 -
[105] - Quote
Querns wrote:peaSTAR wrote:so with the jump timer changes 5 days of fatigue max. this means the uni has shrunk even more now.
does this mean fatigue timers will be adjusted ? (reduced) being as a quick response fleet will only be able to jump 3 times before hitting 1 days 7 hours 17 mins of fatigue,after that time it will be 7 days 19 hours 38 mins, unless your allowed to go over the 5 day max period this is not going to be of any use.
thanks for the stupidity ccp.sandbox game,becoming more like a matchbox game Considering that you can jump an unlimited number of times by waiting out 50 of the 60 minutes of fatigue a 5LY jump grants you, I fail to see the concern. A 5d fatigue, 5LY jump grants 1h12m of cooldown.
Based on this equation: Cooldown (minutes) = Max ( fatigue / 10, 1 + ( distance in lightyears * ( 1 - bonus ) ) )
Max Fatigue is 5 days (5*24*60) = 7200
7200/10 = 720 minutes
so, 12 hours reactivation, when you jump with max Fatigue
My math may be messed up, but if you were relying on a popular online calc, I think it has gone wonky on you
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:14:29 -
[106] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:So lemme get his straight - you want the sov, but you find it too difficult to coast the 20 seconds it would take you to clear the bubbles?
Most likely, he is trying to contort his personal vendetta towards anchored bubbles with respect to their efficacy at protecting ratters by implying that they are a relevant defense for sovereignty.
To that, anyone incensed at the existence of anchored bubbles would do well to train into a Proteus; they can be fit for warp disruptor range and to ignore bubbles, all while having superlative EHP. Use one to get initial tackle and light a cyno, or simply wait for the rest of your gang.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1978
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:15:40 -
[107] - Quote
Querns wrote:Also, as an aside, if you dislike bubble walls, you are going to HATE the new structures CCP is adding. CCP is talking about adding a variety of structures that can be used to detect hostiles and augment travel in sovereign space. I believe that players should be able to invest in their systems and see some benefit from it.
I have enough problems with planning on dealing with the hell of vulnerable structures which will not shoot wihtout an alt in there, in systems with no local and inconsistent routes home, even from a mere 2 jumps out.
At least you guys can sit a few jumps out and the gates wont collapse behind you, can monitor local. We're going to have to park a toon on every structure just in case.
Believe me, your problems are nothing next to mine |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:15:54 -
[108] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Querns wrote:peaSTAR wrote:so with the jump timer changes 5 days of fatigue max. this means the uni has shrunk even more now.
does this mean fatigue timers will be adjusted ? (reduced) being as a quick response fleet will only be able to jump 3 times before hitting 1 days 7 hours 17 mins of fatigue,after that time it will be 7 days 19 hours 38 mins, unless your allowed to go over the 5 day max period this is not going to be of any use.
thanks for the stupidity ccp.sandbox game,becoming more like a matchbox game Considering that you can jump an unlimited number of times by waiting out 50 of the 60 minutes of fatigue a 5LY jump grants you, I fail to see the concern. A 5d fatigue, 5LY jump grants 1h12m of cooldown. Based on this equation: Cooldown (minutes) = Max ( fatigue / 10, 1 + ( distance in lightyears * ( 1 - bonus ) ) ) Max Fatigue is 5 days (5*24*60) = 7200 7200/10 = 720 minutes so, 12 hours reactivation, when you jump with max Fatigue My math may be messed up, but if you were relying on a popular online calc, I think it has gone wonky on you Yeah, I was using an online calculator, and working quickly because I was at work and didn't want to commit too much time to it. That being said, the reality being worse than I thought only strengthens my initial point.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:18:56 -
[109] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Also, as an aside, if you dislike bubble walls, you are going to HATE the new structures CCP is adding. CCP is talking about adding a variety of structures that can be used to detect hostiles and augment travel in sovereign space. I believe that players should be able to invest in their systems and see some benefit from it. I have enough problems with planning on dealing with the hell of vulnerable structures which will not shoot wihtout an alt in there, in systems with no local and inconsistent routes home, even from a mere 2 jumps out. At least you guys can sit a few jumps out and the gates wont collapse behind you, can monitor local. We're going to have to park a toon on every structure just in case. Believe me, your problems are nothing next to mine
Don't worry Once more of the Citadel info comes out and the WHers complain about the POS's turning into Citadels and not firing back... you will have the rest of EVE yelling at you next that you should always have someone online and use your space more :P While they themselves never rolled WH's to make isk and Micromanaging WH mass so your fleet can return to your own hole :P |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:19:41 -
[110] - Quote
Querns wrote: I don't follow -- how does anything you talked about limit skirmish warfare?
...I'm not sure how it does, either. I'm a little bit addled today. |
|
Casandra Elise McIntire
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:20:14 -
[111] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8
That would mean flying a T3, which some groups are unwilling to risk. Some groups, feel that trolling in interceptors are the only option they have to ensure positive KB stats and receive funding for said trolling. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1979
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:20:36 -
[112] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Don't worry Once more of the Citadel info comes out and the WHers complain about the POS's turning into Citadels and not firing back... you will have the rest of EVE yelling at you next that you should always have someone online and use your space more :P While they themselves never rolled WH's to make isk and Micromanaging WH mass so your fleet can return to your own hole :P
Actually, my isk is on YouWereNeverMeantToLiveThereAnywayGäó |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:21:05 -
[113] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Also, as an aside, if you dislike bubble walls, you are going to HATE the new structures CCP is adding. CCP is talking about adding a variety of structures that can be used to detect hostiles and augment travel in sovereign space. I believe that players should be able to invest in their systems and see some benefit from it. I have enough problems with planning on dealing with the hell of vulnerable structures which will not shoot wihtout an alt in there, in systems with no local and inconsistent routes home, even from a mere 2 jumps out. At least you guys can sit a few jumps out and the gates wont collapse behind you, can monitor local. We're going to have to park a toon on every structure just in case. Believe me, your problems are nothing next to mine I didn't say I had problems. I said that the stuff CCP is planning is going to be significantly more effective at "passive defense" than the 45 seconds someone loses slowboating through a bubble wall.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
939
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:24:25 -
[114] - Quote
If you don't announce a significantly more comprehensive capital rebalance by the end of next week then you can say goodbye to my patronage. |
Sarah Saoirse
Yet Another Meaningless Alt Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:29:57 -
[115] - Quote
Now that jump fatigue is being capped, the 365 day cooldown on pod jumping seems a bit excessive. Could we have another look at that please, and possibly scale it back to 30 or even 90 days. 365 days is rather punishing, and a shorter timer would at least make it a viable option again for established players wanting to move out to 0.0. |
Sakido Cain
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:30:22 -
[116] - Quote
drunklies wrote:The fatigue limit should be set at 24 hours, though the cumulative effect on the jump reactivation timer should continue to scale. This allows for people to play each day, but would prevent the dog piling and such that fatigue wishes to prevent.
This is honestly the best statement I have seen in regards to fatigue. There should not be any reason to limit this to more than 24hrs. This cap would still allow for groups to wage war, but would prevent the dog piles when 2 factions decide to duke it out somewhere. It would also give groups the option to call in for assistance a day or two before they plan on having a major fight. Allowing for strategic warfare, but preventing unwanted 3rd parties crossing the galaxy to hit a fight they found out about after it started.
The current system is similar to cutting off your leg, because you have an ingrown toenail. The proposed changes are better, but you are still cutting off the toe rather than just the nail. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:40:35 -
[117] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Don't worry Once more of the Citadel info comes out and the WHers complain about the POS's turning into Citadels and not firing back... you will have the rest of EVE yelling at you next that you should always have someone online and use your space more :P While they themselves never rolled WH's to make isk and Micromanaging WH mass so your fleet can return to your own hole :P A more constructive thing to do would be to keep bringing up the issues and get CCP to address them. Perhaps I'm on a high after seeing these changes, but they do seem receptive to feedback. Perhaps citadels should have different rules in WHs?
Incidentally, WHs were never intended to be inhabited and chained akin to sov, so ..
159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled Don't be silly - people live in those systems, and the bubbles will be a massive annoyance to them more than it will ever be to entosis gangs. The only place you'll see bubble masses are at dead ends where traffic is low and ratting is high - same places they are right now.
Primary This Rifter wrote:If you don't announce a significantly more comprehensive capital rebalance by the end of next week then you can say goodbye to my patronage. I don't think that is what CCP meant by a 'cooldown' window of max 5 days...
Sarah Saoirse wrote:Now that jump fatigue is being capped, the 365 day cooldown on pod jumping seems a bit excessive. Could we have another look at that please, and possibly scale it back to 30 or even 90 days. 365 days is rather punishing, and a shorter timer would at least make it a viable option again for established players wanting to move out to 0.0. You know you can travel to the station you want to set a clone in, and set it there as many times as you like, right?
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:41:23 -
[118] - Quote
uggh.. sometime delete this dbl post =/ |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:42:09 -
[119] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Don't worry Once more of the Citadel info comes out and the WHers complain about the POS's turning into Citadels and not firing back... you will have the rest of EVE yelling at you next that you should always have someone online and use your space more :P While they themselves never rolled WH's to make isk and Micromanaging WH mass so your fleet can return to your own hole :P Actually, my isk is on YouWereNeverMeantToLiveThereAnywayGäó
LOL I remember that when they first came out .. First day we had a Large Caldari dropped in a c3 :P |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
221
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:47:25 -
[120] - Quote
Sarah Saoirse wrote:Now that jump fatigue is being capped, the 365 day cooldown on pod jumping seems a bit excessive. Could we have another look at that please, and possibly scale it back to 30 or even 90 days. 365 days is rather punishing, and a shorter timer would at least make it a viable option again for established players wanting to move out to 0.0.
I made it out to null without an issue.. used a Ares. Established players have no problems shifting around gates. We know how to move around them. Hell. Before the lands of No SP loss for Pods, you either ate the cost of 100m+ to update your clone from PodX.. Or you Ceptored the 50+ jumps to the next staging system. Bought what you needed there and got ready to rock and roll. It's the players who don't want to settle in a region and constantly roam around that have issues. Not those Established. Those Established just JC where needed or Ceptor. 10x Clones means alot of space you can drop your fun, especially with Restrictions lifted on standings for clones. |
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:52:40 -
[121] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:CCP caving in to the nullbear whine - the devblog.
If you don't live in null, what difference does it make to you? These changes are needed in null, either you are upset cause you are one of the entities trying to abuse the system or you just can't stand that those in null work for and fight for areas you can't or won't try to hold yourself.
Don't blame fixing bad game design for making it harder for you to troll those you can't fight any other way then by abusing bad conceptual design. |
Sarah Saoirse
Yet Another Meaningless Alt Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:54:36 -
[122] - Quote
Potential suggestion for a rework on jump fatigue.
- Increase the "baseline" jump drive reactivation timer to 30 minutes. - No jump fatigue if you wait out the 30 minutes. - Allow the base reactivation timer to be clicked off, ending the timer but incurring 6x the remaining time as fatigue - Fatigue still applies a penalty to the reactivation timer, which can't be dismissed.
Example: 1st jump: Pilot jumps to a cyno. 30 minute reactivation. They are in a hurry, so they right click and dismiss the timer, allowing them to jump again. They now have 3 hours jump fatigue. 2nd jump: They jump again, they get a new 30 minute timer, which they can dismiss, plus 18 minutes of penalty. They can dismiss the timer after the 18 minutes of penalty, and end up with another 3 hours added to their remaining 163 minutes. or about 5:45 minutes, 3rd jump: Assuming they click off the timer and jump, they now have 35 minutes of penalty, plus the base 30 minutes. They can click off the timer after 35 minutes to take another jump. 308 minutes left on the fatigue, plus a new 180 minutes. 8 hours and change of fatigue, They have 49 minutes penalty, and another 30 minutes base before they can jump again.
Pilots are still confined to the roughly 10-20 LY range of rapid force projection as now, but the penalties grow more slowly, and pilots are better aware of the consequences since they have to make a separate choice to incur fatigue. A long range capital deployment is still possible, but not quick enough to dogpile onto every single tackled carrier. The exponential scaling is no longer as bad, but the increase from a 5 minute "base" to a 30 minute base keeps the speed of deployment down.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1881
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:58:33 -
[123] - Quote
The only other suggestion I've liked for Jump Fatigue was to make fatigue clear if you jump to your capital system. This benefit should only work if you install an ihub upgrade that requires a Strategic Index of 3 or more (to curb any potential use of changing your capital to a warzone.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
222
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:02:49 -
[124] - Quote
Sarah Saoirse wrote:Potential suggestion for a rework on jump fatigue.
- Increase the "baseline" jump drive reactivation timer to 30 minutes. - No jump fatigue if you wait out the 30 minutes. - Allow the base reactivation timer to be clicked off, ending the timer but incurring 6x the remaining time as fatigue - Fatigue still applies a penalty to the reactivation timer, which can't be dismissed.
Example: 1st jump: Pilot jumps to a cyno. 30 minute reactivation. They are in a hurry, so they right click and dismiss the timer, allowing them to jump again. They now have 3 hours jump fatigue. 2nd jump: They jump again, they get a new 30 minute timer, which they can dismiss, plus 18 minutes of penalty. They can dismiss the timer after the 18 minutes of penalty, and end up with another 3 hours added to their remaining 163 minutes. or about 5:45 minutes, 3rd jump: Assuming they click off the timer and jump, they now have 35 minutes of penalty, plus the base 30 minutes. They can click off the timer after 35 minutes to take another jump. 308 minutes left on the fatigue, plus a new 180 minutes. 8 hours and change of fatigue, They have 49 minutes penalty, and another 30 minutes base before they can jump again.
Pilots are still confined to the roughly 10-20 LY range of rapid force projection as now, but the penalties grow more slowly, and pilots are better aware of the consequences since they have to make a separate choice to incur fatigue. A long range capital deployment is still possible, but not quick enough to dogpile onto every single tackled carrier. The exponential scaling is no longer as bad, but the increase from a 5 minute "base" to a 30 minute base keeps the speed of deployment down.
I would abuse the hell out of that system. Hell I would love it now. The whole purpose of Fatigue was to punish those jumping across the regions and putting a Big hamper on it. With your system, I would easily Burn to the Max Fatigue and just keep doing it until I was where I had to go. When i was done.. I would burn that Fatigue again and get back.. After Burning the region everyone just landed in. Around the world In a day Exactly what this system was meant to kill. But if they bring that back.. I look forward to throwing Capitals around regions and Lolling as I hear people cry about power projection in local and forums.
|
Sarah Saoirse
Yet Another Meaningless Alt Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:18:10 -
[125] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Sarah Saoirse wrote:Potential suggestion for a rework on jump fatigue.
- Increase the "baseline" jump drive reactivation timer to 30 minutes. - No jump fatigue if you wait out the 30 minutes. - Allow the base reactivation timer to be clicked off, ending the timer but incurring 6x the remaining time as fatigue - Fatigue still applies a penalty to the reactivation timer, which can't be dismissed.
-snip-
I would abuse the hell out of that system. Hell I would love it now. The whole purpose of Fatigue was to punish those jumping across the regions and putting a Big hamper on it. With your system, I would easily Burn to the Max Fatigue and just keep doing it until I was where I had to go. When i was done.. I would burn that Fatigue again and get back.. After Burning the region everyone just landed in. Around the world In a day Exactly what this system was meant to kill. But if they bring that back.. I look forward to throwing Capitals around regions and Lolling as I hear people cry about power projection in local and forums.
The fatigue would still apply it's penalty to reactivation timers on subsequent jumps. So you'd still be cooling off for possibly hours between jumps. Only the 30 minute "base" could be dismissed, not the penalty. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
222
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:20:49 -
[126] - Quote
Querns wrote:The only other suggestion I've liked for Jump Fatigue was to make fatigue clear if you jump to your capital system. This benefit should only work if you install an ihub upgrade that requires a Strategic Index of 3 or more (to curb any potential use of changing your capital to a warzone.)
Since all this stuff is supposed to keep Empires in the Regions they live, why not have it Reduce the timer of the Sov holding Entities WITHIN their owned Sov. They can skip around the Region they own while Fatigue occurs but at a reduced rate. But once they leave that Region to Deploy the Wear and tear of being away from the Shipyards takes a heavier toll on the engines. This lets the Caps move around, Rorquals shift areas as needed again, and Buffs Logistics moving around in their home helping to Establish these Deepspace Markets that CCP wants Sov holding Entities to create.
For Example in your own space you might have a 70-90% reduction to Fatigue, While outside of it you wind up Cringing like we tend to now. Maybe even a new iHub upgrade that installs in levels or one upgrade that reduces Fatigue in systems for those with Positive standings. Make the ihub upgrade like Sov 3-5. This gives homefield advantage to the citizens of that area while also letting them head out and fight if they need. This also would give Advantage to the Defenders using JB networks or moving their own fleets around to respond to large assets in its area.
X mixed subcap and Super capital fleet invades area. Citizens are able to respond to the Subcaps while also having the ability to move around and cut off the Super capitals from fleeing due to homefield advantage not killing the response time of getting in front of the retreating Capitals. This would also give entities that are unable to throw around massive fleets to counter Capital Invasions a way to shift around them and amass a larger counter fleet while the enemies wait out the ability to Jump. Hopefully a stronger reason for everyone to get involved in saving their turf instead of just waiting on final timers or moving out assets hoping the invaders leave the sov in boredom. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
222
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:22:01 -
[127] - Quote
Sarah Saoirse wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Sarah Saoirse wrote:Potential suggestion for a rework on jump fatigue.
- Increase the "baseline" jump drive reactivation timer to 30 minutes. - No jump fatigue if you wait out the 30 minutes. - Allow the base reactivation timer to be clicked off, ending the timer but incurring 6x the remaining time as fatigue - Fatigue still applies a penalty to the reactivation timer, which can't be dismissed.
-snip-
I would abuse the hell out of that system. Hell I would love it now. The whole purpose of Fatigue was to punish those jumping across the regions and putting a Big hamper on it. With your system, I would easily Burn to the Max Fatigue and just keep doing it until I was where I had to go. When i was done.. I would burn that Fatigue again and get back.. After Burning the region everyone just landed in. Around the world In a day Exactly what this system was meant to kill. But if they bring that back.. I look forward to throwing Capitals around regions and Lolling as I hear people cry about power projection in local and forums. The fatigue would still apply it's penalty to reactivation timers on subsequent jumps. So you'd still be cooling off for possibly hours between jumps. Only the 30 minute "base" could be dismissed, not the penalty.
Anything that makes me move quicker.. Makes me move quicker. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1888
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:26:22 -
[128] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Querns wrote:The only other suggestion I've liked for Jump Fatigue was to make fatigue clear if you jump to your capital system. This benefit should only work if you install an ihub upgrade that requires a Strategic Index of 3 or more (to curb any potential use of changing your capital to a warzone.) Since all this stuff is supposed to keep Empires in the Regions they live, why not have it Reduce the timer of the Sov holding Entities WITHIN their owned Sov. They can skip around the Region they own while Fatigue occurs but at a reduced rate. But once they leave that Region to Deploy the Wear and tear of being away from the Shipyards takes a heavier toll on the engines. This lets the Caps move around, Rorquals shift areas as needed again, and Buffs Logistics moving around in their home helping to Establish these Deepspace Markets that CCP wants Sov holding Entities to create. For Example in your own space you might have a 70-90% reduction to Fatigue, While outside of it you wind up Cringing like we tend to now. Maybe even a new iHub upgrade that installs in levels or one upgrade that reduces Fatigue in systems for those with Positive standings. Make the ihub upgrade like Sov 3-5. This gives homefield advantage to the citizens of that area while also letting them head out and fight if they need. This also would give Advantage to the Defenders using JB networks or moving their own fleets around to respond to large assets in its area. X mixed subcap and Super capital fleet invades area. Citizens are able to respond to the Subcaps while also having the ability to move around and cut off the Super capitals from fleeing due to homefield advantage not killing the response time of getting in front of the retreating Capitals. This would also give entities that are unable to throw around massive fleets to counter Capital Invasions a way to shift around them and amass a larger counter fleet while the enemies wait out the ability to Jump. Hopefully a stronger reason for everyone to get involved in saving their turf instead of just waiting on final timers or moving out assets hoping the invaders leave the sov in boredom. That'd just lead to an Eye of Terror situation where large entities hold chunks of sov along a 5LY corridor to expedite travel across the map. CCP has been pretty adamant about making that infeasible.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Karer II
Legion of xXDEATHXx Support Legion of xXDEATHXx
484
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:43:16 -
[129] - Quote
Good direction, CCP. Idk why all last fixes didn't implemented in base version of mechanics but... good direction.
There are still actual some small important points:
- restriction for interceptor is good. But it is just part of problem, imho. I'm sure, CCP have statistics about ships which used for entosing. By my experience all of them just cheap ****. So, risk/price doctrine still broken in this part of game. If somebody want to have sov then all what he need after september patch it is... frigate. I think trash in sovwar must be eliminated. As well as another problems like invisible on directional scan combat recons and etc. Nullsecs is about fights and large battles. Not capture the flag and spread out micro gang of cheap small ships.
- how about transfer of sov structures? Remotely of course. And not only between corporations, but between alliances too. Players will can to kill structure remotely but can't transfer it? All structures has cost. And not in isks only. Time is most important cost. Killing structure in one alliance, placing same structure in another alliance is way of hemorrhoids but not comfortable method. Plus one more thing. Now all structures owned by executor corporation. A lot of alliances have big restrictions of access to executor. You know, disbands or another cool things. In most alliances characters in executor corporations just to set standings, change wardec and etc. They are low SP characters in the main. And by mechanics they must fly from system to system just for few clicks? Two days ago my alt characters spend 2 hours in attempts to pass one small camp. Not best example of good interface for game about distant future space.
- station settings can't be set remotely. After capture of station settings just reseted. Administrator must fly to system, change settings even station was his 2 days ago. It is not a bug of new mechanics but now administrator always in executor corporation and problem much bigger. Why not to set checkbox "use alliance standings" by default? Why not to create interface of default station settings for alliance?
- names of command nodes still too long. Is it really so complex to make them shorter? Two months looks as enough time to fix it.
- where cool, comfortable and fast interface for campaign in constellation? It is hard job to coordinate entosers in fleet. Well, maybe it is too hard for implementation in next patch. But it is very important and must be in base mechanics.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
224
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:00:23 -
[130] - Quote
Querns wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Querns wrote:The only other suggestion I've liked for Jump Fatigue was to make fatigue clear if you jump to your capital system. This benefit should only work if you install an ihub upgrade that requires a Strategic Index of 3 or more (to curb any potential use of changing your capital to a warzone.) Since all this stuff is supposed to keep Empires in the Regions they live, why not have it Reduce the timer of the Sov holding Entities WITHIN their owned Sov. They can skip around the Region they own while Fatigue occurs but at a reduced rate. But once they leave that Region to Deploy the Wear and tear of being away from the Shipyards takes a heavier toll on the engines. This lets the Caps move around, Rorquals shift areas as needed again, and Buffs Logistics moving around in their home helping to Establish these Deepspace Markets that CCP wants Sov holding Entities to create. For Example in your own space you might have a 70-90% reduction to Fatigue, While outside of it you wind up Cringing like we tend to now. Maybe even a new iHub upgrade that installs in levels or one upgrade that reduces Fatigue in systems for those with Positive standings. Make the ihub upgrade like Sov 3-5. This gives homefield advantage to the citizens of that area while also letting them head out and fight if they need. This also would give Advantage to the Defenders using JB networks or moving their own fleets around to respond to large assets in its area. X mixed subcap and Super capital fleet invades area. Citizens are able to respond to the Subcaps while also having the ability to move around and cut off the Super capitals from fleeing due to homefield advantage not killing the response time of getting in front of the retreating Capitals. This would also give entities that are unable to throw around massive fleets to counter Capital Invasions a way to shift around them and amass a larger counter fleet while the enemies wait out the ability to Jump. Hopefully a stronger reason for everyone to get involved in saving their turf instead of just waiting on final timers or moving out assets hoping the invaders leave the sov in boredom. That'd just lead to an Eye of Terror situation where large entities hold chunks of sov along a 5LY corridor to expedite travel across the map. CCP has been pretty adamant about making that infeasible.
Ahh Okay |
|
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
468
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:02:39 -
[131] - Quote
Put back the fatigue to more than 7 days and put some fatigue on the bridgers too ...sick of 400+ pilots drops.
And good job for the trollceptor
Now it's time to make some stars collapse like in real universe. You did it for jove solar systems space You must shake the universe more often.
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
you shall all bow and pray BoB
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
796
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:11:26 -
[132] - Quote
Alain Colcer wrote:Please forbid using entosis links on interceptors, interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, Recons and Stealth bombers.
Why recons? They have a bunch of utility highs, may as well use them. Same for Hictors.
I've never seen an Entosis dictor so I'm not even sure why that's mentioned, and if you read you'd have noticed they stated Interceptors will no longer be able to fit entosis links.
Aryth wrote:One bit of feedback. I would increase the timer from 20 minutes to 4 hours. Otherwise I can see waiting for all other fulldirs to go to bed and nuking stuff in the middle of the night. I don't know what harm a 4 hour timer does other than meaning you can't start it 4 hours before DT.
What's wrong with a little chaos? Leave it at 20, if someone is on to stop it, it can be stopped, if not we get to see yet another alliance disbanded by a rouge director. Makes for a good news story when there aren't many massive events.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1894
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:11:35 -
[133] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:Put back the fatigue to more than 7 days and put some fatigue on the bridgers too ...sick of 400+ pilots drops.
And good job for the trollceptor
Now it's time to make some stars collapse like in real universe. You did it for jove solar systems space You must shake the universe more often. People taking a titan bridge accrue fatigue. Same for blackops BS bridging, though they accrue half the amount.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:16:23 -
[134] - Quote
Mynna's rubber band jump fatigue solution is still the best idea i've seen presented to keep the wrecking ball dead while making jump drives still a useful thing to have. |
Hal Morsh
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
408
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:27:13 -
[135] - Quote
Taru Audeles wrote:Took you guys long enough to understand what mess you got yourself and US paying customers into. You should have never released this mess in the broke state you did. It is a SMALL first step to fix it. Please keep it up and push for faster changes. This is not enough to bring FozzieSov to a semi usefull state.
Provi Invasion and MoA trolling should give you enough fancy statistics of your epic failure.
Sounds like someone got their station services turned off.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
Sarah Saoirse
Yet Another Meaningless Alt Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:41:44 -
[136] - Quote
The quickest and surest fix to Entosis sovereignty is to make attackers have a little skin in the fire. Immobilize ships with an active Entosis link, so that they have to control the grid or die. You can still poke to try to get fights, but you run the risk that the attacker responds quickly and kills you. This is a fair tradeoff for being able to force fights with a T1 frigate.
You should have to commit. Period. No commitment, no reward.
|
Lykouleon
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1631
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 01:59:33 -
[137] - Quote
I'm disappointed that the hilarity of offlining SOV through a right-click gone wrong has been averted (somewhat). In time, I may recover from this loss.
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
|
Kyoko Sakoda
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
270
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 02:38:07 -
[138] - Quote
I feel like these are decent changes but they are obviously tweaks that aren't addressing a very fundamental problem that I see. Warning: I've not participated in sov warfare in like 7 years.
I know that one of the objectives of the new sov system is to make sub-caps and small roaming fleets more important. That's cool and admirable. We all want that. But even with the removal of Interceptors from the sov field that leaves a lot of other pathways for low-risk capturing (namely T3D/Cs). But I think Fozzie had it a bit wrong when he said this:
Quote:The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
I disagree. Yes, everyone should be able to use an Entosis, but there still is not enough risk/reward involved in the capture mechanic. And yes, there are new things like the regeneration of capture progress, but I'm speaking of the ships themselves. You should be encouraging more risk taking in attacking fleets.
Why don't you consider giving BCs and BSs (esp. T2 BCs) a bonus to reduction in cycle time or reduction or dissolution of the warm up cycle?
BCs in particular are thought of as "the Leadership ships" and thus are a great choice to add some additional risk/reward into the system. The BCs and BS generally can have great tanks, which mitigates some of the risk inherent in not being able to receive remote assistance while still presenting a more vulnerable target that should need some escort.
I feel the 4000m/s speed limit, removal of Entosis from Interceptors, and even the penalty of capital ships are a patch on a larger problem. We've been waiting for the BCs and BSs to play a larger role on the field. Why not give them some more reason for battlefield presence? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
298
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 02:44:36 -
[139] - Quote
6 week release cycle, had to wait friggin 18 months for these iterations |
Traumatica
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 02:47:22 -
[140] - Quote
What if there was some sort of module that let you destroy sov structures AND other players ships |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1698
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 03:51:08 -
[141] - Quote
Knocked it out of the park!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2330
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 04:04:41 -
[142] - Quote
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Nullsec was in danger of being owned by more then 2 boring entities. Changes had to be implemented quickly to make sure this never came to be.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5832
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 04:13:52 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for? Saying "we didn't want that outpost anyway" and actually meaning it.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Eyrun Mangeiri
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 05:31:02 -
[144] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I want to see active fleets rewarded, I don't want passive defences to be the one stop shop for defence. They will be, once again.
A lot of people hate nullification but it's the only decent counter to anchorable spam.
As the defender should commit something to defend their space the attacker should also commit something. Defending space with bubbles is equally as bad as attacking space with a uncatchable 50m ISK hull.
I can see what you see not - vision milky then eyes rot. When you turn they will be gone - whispering their hidden song.
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 06:52:52 -
[145] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Nullsec was in danger of being owned by more then 2 boring entities. Changes had to be implemented quickly to make sure this never came to be.
Yea man, all that space was flipping and being taken from the Imperiums corpse like han.....
Oh wait, that didn't actually happen. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4639
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 06:54:12 -
[146] - Quote
Eliminating Interceptors is a good start - but Entosis links should be restricted to Command Ships only.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Baron Holbach
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
32
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 06:57:59 -
[147] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Eliminating Interceptors is a good start - but Entosis links should be restricted to Command Ships only.
bc hulls would be more better idea (command ships, bc, faction bc) |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
1746
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 07:25:22 -
[148] - Quote
Removing entosis from inties, not a huge deal.
Passive recharge, medium deal. I think the idea is good but the times for auto recovery seem a little on the quick side.
Reducing fatigue cap from 30 days to 5 days, kind of a big deal.
By having a jump-as-much-as-you-want-its-gone-by-next-weekend cap the Phoebe changes enter a worst of both worlds realm. Constant capital/super force projection becomes much more trivial while maintaining the frustration level for short term/small gang applications like black ops bridging and suitcase carriers.
If a reduction is in order, I'd strongly encourage to reconsider revising the reduced number upwards to something like 10-15 days. That would still be a significant reduction while maintaining the intended anti-projection effect.
Otherwise why bother having it at all?
Hero of the CSM
Alek the Kidnapper
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
|
Kimimaro Yoga
Paragon Trust The Bastion
49
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 07:29:34 -
[149] - Quote
Very happy to see these changes implemented. I'm all for having the ability to conduct asymmetrical warfare, but magic wanting a few things then not showing up for the timers isn't warfare, it's just trolling. Creating boring busywork for the holders of space.
To make it clear just how little the current system is generating fights, my alliance has largely stopped responding to the initial entosis attacks because there's never any fighting involved, just a rage form followed by watching the attacker rush off. Attackers actually committing to holding the grid is virtually nonexistent. Removing entosis from interceptors will greatly reduce the troll factor (although I would have liked to see entosis links function like siege mode, stopping all further movement until the cycle is done. Control the grid, or GTFO). And while I agree with the earlier comment that the regen windows may be just a bit short, as a genuine attacker who gets slowed down could too easily miss the window entirely, regen itself is a great idea. Attacker doesn't show up to contest a timer? Then the defender shouldn't have to waste their time sitting around.
Concerning the unspecified modifications to the fatigue numbers: Please consider the following usage cases. #1. Capital fleet takes one single jump, followed by a couple gates. Shoots a hostile POS, and instead of jumping home spends twenty minutes sitting idle in order to get down to 11 minutes fatigue (and thus not preventing them from participating in an op later that day). One jump out and one back means you're done for the day? Harsh. #2. Capital fleet takes two jumps out, with a gate or two in between. Maybe 15 LY, in order to brawl with some hostiles. Capital fleet now has so much fatigue that people are unable to jump home in a reasonable time frame, let's say three hours from undock to docking back up. So the fight simply doesn't happen, as capital pilots don't usually want to logoff in unfriendly space and hope to find an escort home the next day. Or maybe the fight does happen, and now you have pilots not logging in for days because they have trouble getting home safely. #2 works the other way as well. Most capital groups don't want to attack larger entities with their capital ships because staging two jumps away from your targets is too far, and staging within 5LY of your targets is generally impracticable.
If the fatigue per LY jumped were lowered by say 25%, this would largely eliminate the above complaints. One jump out, one jump back wouldn't mean sitting around waiting for fatigue to clear, and two jumps out would be done a lot more often. The timer before a second jump is allowed could be increased to help limit the rapid movement problem, but currently capitals are hard to use to fight within an entire region (let alone going to the next region over) because fatigue builds up so fast.
Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
26
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 07:33:12 -
[150] - Quote
Casandra Elise McIntire wrote:Ravcharas wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8 That would mean flying a T3, which some groups are unwilling to risk. Some groups, feel that trolling in interceptors are the only option they have to ensure positive KB stats and receive funding for said trolling.
Or some groups feel, that if they bring this the other side will just drop more and more ships. Right now they already drop supers and titans on bomber and cormorrant fleet. Why on earth would I bring a T3 entosis ship? |
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
540
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 07:39:28 -
[151] - Quote
Terrible, poorly considered changes that only cater to the whiny minority. Why give jump fatigue immunity to people who dont even play the game, but only to log in when pinged to drop in a 100% risk free situation?
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
469
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 07:58:10 -
[152] - Quote
Disappointed with the sov changes Team 5-0 have come up with. A quick glance through this very thread clearly reveals who this will benefit. I guess sov null will remain safer than low sec for the average capsuleer and we'll be back to blue donuts, renter space and wastelands by winter.
You came so close CCP to making sov null an active combat zone but now it will quickly return to ISK generation for the blobs and a meaningless once a year orchestrated 4000 man fight. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
470
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 08:15:59 -
[153] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled When they put a limit on cloaks so you have to at least put in an effort to be at the keyboard for your alts.
Oh will that be implemented at the same time they netf your 40k + meatshield?
HTFU goonie & pay attention to local & intel channels and you'll be safer than in hi sec vOv |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
242
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 08:25:28 -
[154] - Quote
Quote:It will no longer be possible to online Entosis Links on Interceptors
oh look, it only took CCP 3+ months to come to the same conclusion playerbase reached in the first few days of testing: trollceptors are BAD
but yea, we know nothing you guys know better, ask for feedback and then promptly ignore it till subscription numbers go down, then rebalance "stuff"... and on and on going in circles...
on the other issue, while reducing the fatigue to some more playish lvl is good, you are again missing the mark, buffing cap range, at least on carriers/rorq, coupled with some range related progresive fatigue, will be a much better solution for small aliances/corps/individual players moving caps around. 5 lys is way to short, but yea, keep living the dream... |
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well
2993
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 08:30:10 -
[155] - Quote
Finally.
Death to trollceptors online
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
1750
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 10:09:29 -
[156] - Quote
Kimimaro Yoga wrote:currently capitals are hard to use to fight within an entire region (let alone going to the next region over) because fatigue builds up so fast. That's supposed to be the entire point.
Welcome to the conversation bro ;)
Hero of the CSM
Alek the Kidnapper
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
|
Ben Ishikela
55
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 10:43:03 -
[157] - Quote
So what about removing the "nullified" feature from interceptors instead? (and give it to shuttles. as i find it stupid as an engineer to not implement a nullification drive into ships that do not suffer from any drawbacks.)
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd+fleethangar+dock+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
|
Kimimaro Yoga
Paragon Trust The Bastion
49
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 11:07:39 -
[158] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Kimimaro Yoga wrote:currently capitals are hard to use to fight within an entire region (let alone going to the next region over) because fatigue builds up so fast. That's supposed to be the entire point. Welcome to the conversation bro ;)
Well yanno, except for the part during the Jump fatigue roundtable where a member of CCP (Larrikin?) stated that capitals should be able to fight within a region to a region and a half. I was trying to point out that that is not the case, now it's rare to use capitals to cover more than a 10LY distance. This is way smaller than most regions. If CCP wishes a two jump out, two jump back, 3 hour op to be practical, then the fatigue multiplier needs to be lowered a bit.
Also I am less concerned with the specific numbers per se than the fact that there appears to be a mismatch between what CCP thinks is practical under the current system, and what players are generally willing to do given the risks of the current system. Right now people are told that if they have any fatigue at all, don't even bother showing up for a fleet. Please do not participate if you are contaminated, go play something else instead. http://i.imgur.com/sQjPUCi.jpg A fairly small reduction in the multiplier would significantly alleviate the disincentive of having even a "little" fatigue, while making no real difference to longer-distance travel.
Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:16:56 -
[159] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Disappointed with the sov changes Team 5-0 have come up with. A quick glance through this very thread clearly reveals who this will benefit. I guess sov null will remain safer than low sec for the average capsuleer and we'll be back to blue donuts, renter space and wastelands by winter.
You came so close CCP to making sov null an active combat zone but now it will quickly return to ISK generation for the blobs and a meaningless once a year orchestrated 4000 man fight. I, too, make vague apocalyptic statements with no effort spent towards linking effect to cause.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:18:34 -
[160] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Terrible, poorly considered changes that only cater to the whiny minority. Why give jump fatigue immunity to people who dont even play the game, but only to log in when pinged to drop in a 100% risk free situation?
How is a reduction to the maximum accumulated jump fatigue immunity? It's still faster to wait 50 minutes after each jump over the long haul.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:24:20 -
[161] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:Casandra Elise McIntire wrote:Ravcharas wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8 That would mean flying a T3, which some groups are unwilling to risk. Some groups, feel that trolling in interceptors are the only option they have to ensure positive KB stats and receive funding for said trolling. Or some groups feel, that if they bring this the other side will just drop more and more ships. Right now they already drop supers and titans on bomber and cormorrant fleet. Why on earth would I bring a T3 entosis ship? You're posting under a very strange delusion.
The Imperium doesn't scale its response to the amount of isk on the field. We bring the maximum suppressive force, every time. The idea is that you shouldn't attack our sovereignty, and we will roll up the largest newspaper we can at any given time and hit you in the nose with it until you stop moving.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
136
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:31:31 -
[162] - Quote
Aryth wrote:One bit of feedback. I would increase the timer from 20 minutes to 4 hours. Otherwise I can see waiting for all other fulldirs to go to bed and nuking stuff in the middle of the night. I don't know what harm a 4 hour timer does other than meaning you can't start it 4 hours before DT.
Probably the most usefull bit of feedback in this thread so far. 20 mins is not enough time if your directors are offline and can only respond to a notification pulled via the API that could already be 30 minutes old.
WTB : An image in my signature
|
Mixu Paatelainen
Soggy Biscuit.
215
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:36:27 -
[163] - Quote
Plusrep. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
547
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:36:45 -
[164] - Quote
Querns wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Terrible, poorly considered changes that only cater to the whiny minority. Why give jump fatigue immunity to people who dont even play the game, but only to log in when pinged to drop in a 100% risk free situation?
How is a reduction to the maximum accumulated jump fatigue immunity? It's still faster to wait 50 minutes after each jump over the long haul.
The people who cry most about jump aids don't play the game on a daily basis, they can afford to play dota for five days before another option to helicopter **** comes. Which means that the behaviour that caused the whole projection nerf will be possible again, while the majority of players still enjoy the full power of the nerf.
Now I personally think that Phoebe had only positive effects, but even if some changes were needed, this 5-day cap was literally the worst possible way to go about it. It removes the consequence of fast travel for super blobbers, while fixing nothing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16621
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:44:55 -
[165] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:
Or some groups feel, that if they bring this the other side will just drop more and more ships. Right now they already drop supers and titans on bomber and cormorrant fleet. Why on earth would I bring a T3 entosis ship?
Ask your leadership who have banned you from anything bigger than interceptors, bombers and t1 destroyers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:46:12 -
[166] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Querns wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Terrible, poorly considered changes that only cater to the whiny minority. Why give jump fatigue immunity to people who dont even play the game, but only to log in when pinged to drop in a 100% risk free situation?
How is a reduction to the maximum accumulated jump fatigue immunity? It's still faster to wait 50 minutes after each jump over the long haul. The people who cry most about jump aids don't play the game on a daily basis, they can afford to play dota for five days before another option to helicopter **** comes. Which means that the behaviour that caused the whole projection nerf will be possible again, while the majority of players still enjoy the full power of the nerf. Now I personally think that Phoebe had only positive effects, but even if some changes were needed, this 5-day cap was literally the worst possible way to go about it. It removes the consequence of fast travel for super blobbers, while fixing nothing. You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16621
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:53:02 -
[167] - Quote
Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:54:28 -
[168] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump. Yeah, same for my Hel. I remember returning from Fountain and outrunning ishtars. It was great.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Akballah Kassan
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 12:54:37 -
[169] - Quote
Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -
Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind? |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1883
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:03:30 -
[170] - Quote
With the max. Fatigue reduced to 5 days, will the max. jump drive cooldown also be reduced to the equivalent time or stay at 3 days when you reach max. Fatigue?
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1699
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:10:54 -
[171] - Quote
Querns wrote:baltec1 wrote:Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump. Yeah, same for my Hel. I remember returning from Fountain and outrunning ishtars. It was great.
This is still only a viable way for a blob to travel. It is hardly a viable way for a small corporation to move their capital ships. Only the apex fleet can afford to move the way you are advocating.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:24:08 -
[172] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Querns wrote:baltec1 wrote:Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump. Yeah, same for my Hel. I remember returning from Fountain and outrunning ishtars. It was great. This is still only a viable way for a blob to travel. It is hardly a viable way for a small corporation to move their capital ships. Only the apex fleet can afford to move the way you are advocating. There's also less need for a smaller force to move far enough for gate travel fits to be relevant.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
4105
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:28:27 -
[173] - Quote
Team Five 0: "Mkay, we mostly cancel setting our pants on fire... for the time being... and subject to further iterations".
Nice for listening, CCP! Well done!
Now, onwards to sorting that little hemorrage of PvE highsec PvErs...
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16623
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:40:27 -
[174] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Querns wrote:baltec1 wrote:Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump. Yeah, same for my Hel. I remember returning from Fountain and outrunning ishtars. It was great. This is still only a viable way for a blob to travel. It is hardly a viable way for a small corporation to move their capital ships. Only the apex fleet can afford to move the way you are advocating.
I solo fly my dread.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1700
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:50:38 -
[175] - Quote
Querns wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Querns wrote:baltec1 wrote:Querns wrote: You are overreacting. On the fourth jump, you are already sucking down a 3 hour cooldown timer. Meanwhile, proper shield supercaps fit for gate travel can cover the same amount of distance in 15 minutes. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
My dread moved like a cruiser so its far easier and faster to use gates rather than jump. Yeah, same for my Hel. I remember returning from Fountain and outrunning ishtars. It was great. This is still only a viable way for a blob to travel. It is hardly a viable way for a small corporation to move their capital ships. Only the apex fleet can afford to move the way you are advocating. There's also less need for a smaller force to move far enough for gate travel fits to be relevant.
How are the "smaller" alliances supposed to get out to the underpopulated regions of space and bring new blood to 0.0?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3319
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 13:57:07 -
[176] - Quote
Querns wrote:159Pinky wrote:Casandra Elise McIntire wrote:Ravcharas wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled interdiction nullifier subsystems m8 That would mean flying a T3, which some groups are unwilling to risk. Some groups, feel that trolling in interceptors are the only option they have to ensure positive KB stats and receive funding for said trolling. Or some groups feel, that if they bring this the other side will just drop more and more ships. Right now they already drop supers and titans on bomber and cormorrant fleet. Why on earth would I bring a T3 entosis ship? You're posting under a very strange delusion. The Imperium doesn't scale its response to the amount of isk on the field. We bring the maximum suppressive force, every time. The idea is that you shouldn't attack our sovereignty, and we will roll up the largest newspaper we can at any given time and hit you in the nose with it until you stop moving.
It's a particularly odd delusion considering that one of the explicit goals of the new sov system was getting sov holders to actively respond to threats in their space. Why would supercap pilots be exempt from that requirement?
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1930
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 14:04:12 -
[177] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: How are the "smaller" alliances supposed to get out to the underpopulated regions of space and bring new blood to 0.0?
Considering the relative uselessness of capitals in the new sovereignty system, I would say they do it by taking gates in the subcapital ships that are actually relevant to the task.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 14:25:10 -
[178] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:159Pinky wrote:
Or some groups feel, that if they bring this the other side will just drop more and more ships. Right now they already drop supers and titans on bomber and cormorrant fleet. Why on earth would I bring a T3 entosis ship?
Ask your leadership who have banned you from anything bigger than interceptors, bombers and t1 destroyers.
Good trolling, I fly what I want, when I want to. But I don't see the need to bring anything bigger/more expensive when something smaller does the trick as good.
@ Scatim Helicon : I have no dissilusion as to CFC getting anyone a fair fight. That's not your modus operandi. Your FC's rely on big toys to win/suppress a fight. Which in the end is a valid tactical solution ( until super - titans changes come .... )
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
120
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 14:44:00 -
[179] - Quote
- 5 hour jump fatigue cap is good, and keeps the shock value without missing the point.
- No Intytoaster is placating to a red herring (and almost says as much in the way it was presented)
- The passive regen is too much, should be days not hours, and certainly not minutes
- SOV dropping should also be hours not minutes, but definitely not days
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3301
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 15:07:18 -
[180] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:a fair fight.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
497
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 15:30:54 -
[181] - Quote
"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1931
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 15:36:50 -
[182] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy. Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6844
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 15:42:06 -
[183] - Quote
Maybe they voluntarily paint everything in a particular light...
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
299
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 16:21:34 -
[184] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:With the max. Fatigue reduced to 5 days, will the max. jump drive cooldown also be reduced to the equivalent time or stay at 3 days when you reach max. Fatigue?
max reactivation will be capped at 12 hours |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
225
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 18:44:57 -
[185] - Quote
It's a start with the prevention of trollceptors but perhaps I'm missing something because I still don't see how these changes rebalance the sov mechanic towards forcing the attacker to commit to a fight. Trollceptors were simply a tool used due to the flaw in the overall Sov system and Interceptors will simply be traded out for very fast Faction Frigs instead.
This goes to the heart of the problem with the new sov system. Under Dominion Sov, due to having to grind through Hit Points, an attacker would not commit to such an act unless they were serious about attempting to remove the defender from their space. That underlying commitment has been completely removed in this new system in favour of allowing the attacker to attack on a whim and it's the aspect of the new sov mechanic that needs to be changed. In short, make it so that attacking Sov is a serious undertaking that requires commitment to your cause and not something that's done purely to **** off the defender.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
335
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 19:31:41 -
[186] - Quote
Quote:It will no longer be possible to online Entosis Links on Interceptors Well done !
Without listening to a(ny) of the goons and others, or that (in game) poser Mittens,
you will not nerf the Interceptors ship roles into the ground, e.g. bubble nullification
Quote:Ability to self-destruct sov structures Voting for UAxDEATH seems to pay off, or at least his fellow russians in game rioting
Quote:The Parallax release will also contain a significant iteration to the Jump Fatigue mechanic. This change is designed to reduce the damage that a character can inflict by overjumping, reducing the maximum possible fatigue from 30 days to 5 days
Even after that less then stellar hosting of CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue compared to previous CSM Townhalls,
you are still listen to constructive player based feedback, and implementing them asap, +1 CCP Fozzie & co
Regards, a Freelancer
PS: CSM Little Things - Jayne's List
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?
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
597
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 19:31:57 -
[187] - Quote
+1 on proposed changes to trollceptors and jump fatigue.
However, eliminating only trollceptors will just result in another FOTM Entosis Link subcap troll ship. It would be more logical that Entosis Links should be *extremely large and power-hungry* devices which only can be mounted on supercaps - thus, forcing supercaps to always be risked and committed in every attempt to change sov. Mounting an Entosis Link should also severely compromise the offensive power of the supercap, ex. requiring sacrificing the DD on Titans and the fighters on SCs.
Yes, this is yet another suggestion to try to help defeat supercap proliferation.... :)
Side note: It never made any sense that sov could be theoretically achieved by a couple of small subcap ships, just because the Entosis Link would fit on a ceptor. At the very least, achieving sov should require using battleships. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 19:41:13 -
[188] - Quote
You know, come to think of it, why not limit entosis link to battleships and larger?
It would solve two problems at the same time: trolling and general uncommitted behavior will cease, and battleships will gain a stable role in the new sov system. It may also serve as incentive to bring capitals, since capitals can be used against battleship fleets. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5550
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:26:25 -
[189] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:
- 5 hour jump fatigue cap is good, and keeps the shock value without missing the point.
- No Intytoaster is placating to a red herring (and almost says as much in the way it was presented)
- The passive regen is too much, should be days not hours, and certainly not minutes
- SOV dropping should also be hours not minutes, but definitely not days
5 Day cap.
Which means a 12 hour cooldown cap.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1989
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:26:33 -
[190] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:You know, come to think of it, why not limit entosis link to battleships and larger?
It would solve two problems at the same time: trolling and general uncommitted behavior will cease, and battleships will gain a stable role in the new sov system. It may also serve as incentive to bring capitals, since capitals can be used against battleship fleets.
Because wormholes are a thing. |
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
279
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:30:45 -
[191] - Quote
Was there ever been consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?
I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1735
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:45:55 -
[192] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -
Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind? Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
Zappity
the 57th Overlanders Brigade A Band Apart.
2454
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:54:36 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -
Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind? Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender. I think that is too strong. It is basically a couple of free defenders. I thought the point was to undo the damage caused by trolls, not to make it harder to take sov.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:57:10 -
[194] - Quote
I am disappointed at the way this balance pass is handled. There are no doubts that all items in this announcement needed some tweakings, but CCP is swinging the pendulum way too far, when their processes are all designed to iterate with smaller touches.
Forbidding interceptors from Entosis is a significant step back from the original design goal. It also helps the established powers more than anybody else, so this is a one sided balance pass.
The reduction of maximum speed to 4k was a good step (even if stasis effects should have been based on current max speed and not theorical max speed). Why ban entosis on interceptors, where other cheap frigates can reach 4k and keep the entosis? because they do not have the nullification property. So this is clearly their nullification properties that set the interceptors apart from the other frigates, trigering this heavy handed removal.
The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose, as it is a great complement to the 10 jump clones they can already have per toon. This is the less visible power projection tool that the game still has, and it favors largely the bigger groups, veterans and power players groups. By choosing an entosis ban for intys over a rework of their nullification capabilities, CCP has caved into delivering a tweak that is mostly benefiting current +¦ull sec sov holders. If interdiction nullification of interceptors had been nerfed, all play styles would have been affected in some ways, while achieving the goal needed (i.e. making it more difficult to bring entosis behind enemies defense lines).
The regeneration of uncontested assets was another needed tweak to the Aegis Sov. Some groups out there are skirmishers, with no intent of taking sov. Other groups are sov holders, and the tediousness of restoring sov via entosis after skirmishes has been highlighted previously and is an obvious issue.
A first pass to cut down the nodes in half as well as slightly reduce the time it takes to entosis nodes and station services has been done in Galatea. This second pass introduces the regeneration of assets in favor of the defender. This is fair and expected. But what is completely out of whack are the times introduced in that pass! The regeneration is too fast. In less than 6 hours after nodes spawning, a system can revert to normal after an attack!
This will kill the sirmisher play style, to the delight of current sov holders. Without skirmishers we are going to go back to the stagnation of the blue donut. The rapid regeneration of assets will make any effort to entosis as a skirmish tactic useless, as there will be no real need to intervene for the defender. Everything will go back to normal in a day or two, maybe three, without lifting a finger.
The timers should have been set to provide at least a few week long disturbances to the sov owner, with a much much slower regeneration to start with, and a clear benefit of being active to entosis assets back. Furthermore, by announcing such short times, CCP is shooting themselves in the foot and not taking advantage of their iterative capabilities. It is better to start with higher numbers that are slowly adjusted based on data and actual in game behavior analysis rather than going with low numbers, as increasing these numbers after announcing them is psychologically more damaging to the overall approach. I understand CCP may have been burned by the voices out there that called for nerfing the ishtar faster, and it took a few months to get it right, but the "I told you so three months ago" are just vociferous individualities that should be ignored as extreme. Someone will always say the right thing X months before the others, but identifying the right balance for the majority among a very large number of forecasters can only be done by measured adjustments each time, followed up by data and in-game behaviors analysis over time.
I kept the reduction of max Jump Fatigue from 30 days to 5 days as the last bit of disappointing changes coming up. Again, the numbers are swinging too far in the low side. Nobody reasonable contests that the 30 days jump fatigue was a mistake. Economically, it also prompted accounts to be unsubbed for the duration of one month, probably leading to financial losses for CCP. But the concept of j+½mp fatigue has been proven to benefit the game in general, at the expense of a minority of multi-alts veteran power players. There are no doubts capital piloting is the end-game, and getting a player off their capital ships for 30 days was overkill. But changing it to five days and letting players again spam capitals unbridled every week will be detrimental to the game, and kill the current fragile changes that have started to take places. Again, why not try reducing it to 14 or 15 days and see how it goes first?!
I do not know if this approach to balance is specific to a single team or reflects on CCP as a whole. I hope someone at CCP still has the power to make sure the balancing does not start to swing widly again. My impression is that these changes, if the numbers are kept as they are, will singlehandely remove all the skirmishes potential that is a valid play style for the 50mill to 100mill skill points players that do not want to simply be an income stream for some other older player. Skirmishers are the only way in game that smaller entities can nip at larger ones to slowly weaken them. Kept as it is announced, this update will make skirmishing a waste of time and resources.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Patrick Yaa
Starcade Group Elemental Tide
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 21:00:32 -
[195] - Quote
How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture. This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress. At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.
Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
546
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 21:03:02 -
[196] - Quote
Patrick Yaa wrote:How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture. This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress. At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.
Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly.
This seems resonable
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Zappity
the 57th Overlanders Brigade A Band Apart.
2454
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 21:08:21 -
[197] - Quote
Patrick Yaa wrote:How about a "grace period" before nodes regenerate, maybe of 2x-5x the cycle time needed to start the capture. This would provide time for an attacker which is aggressed by the defenders to fight them off and start recapping, without losing his progress. At the same time this would help defenders keep the sov, if noone is actually attacking or they manage to fend off the attackers/keep them engaged and off capturing.
Regen speeds would need to be adjusted accordingly. Yeah, I like this.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
283
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 21:30:58 -
[198] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:... Side note: It never made any sense that sov could be theoretically achieved by a couple of small subcap ships, just because the Entosis Link would fit on a ceptor. At the very least, achieving sov should require using battleships.
there are multiple example in history where small group skirmishers brought down a seemingly unstoppable giant over time.
Tne minutemen of American independance wars are such an example. I am sure the british generals at the time were wondering why tney did not bring up any regular troops against them so that they could squash them more easily with their superior military might....
your real goal with such side note is to insert mechanics in the game that will prevent these skirmishers to grow up until they can become a full force threatening your interests in the first place.
What some see as skirmishing is easily labelled as trolling by others. This depends on your viewpoints and personal interests.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Akballah Kassan
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
67
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 23:25:43 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:Can a Dev just clarify something when an entosis capture event occurs -
Does one attacker capturing a node stop the defensive reset on all the nodes in the constellation or does every node now need an entosis ship attacking it to stop the rewind? Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.
I think that is a poor change.
Role back if nobody attacks fair enough, but as long as somebody is attacking a node there shouldn't be any role back on the other timers. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
498
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:03:01 -
[200] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy. Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.
What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:
"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."
By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
499
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:33:42 -
[201] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy. Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.
Let me ask you question, since blind self-serving brush strokes annoy you so much and how you have basically said you are the broad minded and fair for everybody guy in this discussion, how come you aren't clamoring for CCP to allow the construction of capital combat ships in space other than your front yard.
It must annoy your broad-minded scope of the game to know that nobody outside nullsec can make ships that can effectively hold nullsec space, well except nullsec cartels of course, you can make them till they fly out your rear end.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 02:38:47 -
[202] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy. Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light. Let me ask you question, since blind self-serving brush strokes annoy you so much and how you have basically said you are the broad minded and fair for everybody guy in this discussion, how come you aren't clamoring for CCP to allow the construction of capital combat ships in space other than your front yard. It must annoy your broad-minded scope of the game to know that nobody outside nullsec can make ships that can effectively hold nullsec space, well except nullsec cartels of course, you can make them till they fly out your rear end. You can make capital ships in lowsec.
You don't need capitals to take sov or defend sov. In fact, capital ships receive a hefty penalty to cycle time of entosis links.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 02:40:43 -
[203] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:
"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."
By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time. We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us.
These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 02:46:16 -
[204] - Quote
Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
499
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:05:26 -
[205] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."
1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).
2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.
corrected for accuracy. Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light. Let me ask you question, since blind self-serving brush strokes annoy you so much and how you have basically said you are the broad minded and fair for everybody guy in this discussion, how come you aren't clamoring for CCP to allow the construction of capital combat ships in space other than your front yard. It must annoy your broad-minded scope of the game to know that nobody outside nullsec can make ships that can effectively hold nullsec space, well except nullsec cartels of course, you can make them till they fly out your rear end. You can make capital ships in lowsec. You don't need capitals to take sov or defend sov. In fact, capital ships receive a hefty penalty to cycle time of entosis links.
Thanks for the correction.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
499
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:08:23 -
[206] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:
"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."
By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time. We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us. These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.
You didnt but a fair number of your alliance threw their weight behind gutting Fozziesov i was in on the conversation.
And before the gutting it required nothing more than a 'token' defense on your part. In fact you could completely ignore it if there was no real problem as you seem to be implying.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2330
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:33:32 -
[207] - Quote
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15. Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.
Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:55:13 -
[208] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:
"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."
By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time. We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us. These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. You didnt but a fair number of your alliance threw their weight behind gutting Fozziesov i was in on the conversation. And before the gutting it required nothing more than a 'token' defense on your part. That you are unwilling to send a small handful of you masses to go and scout the perimeter of your holdings, yes that kind of lazy i find unreasonable and shouldn't be protected by game mechanics. We do patrol our perimeters. If you feel we are too inattentive at the task, go contest some of our sov. The only difference, post-Vanguard, is that you can't do the deed in an uncatchable ship class.
Also, while no one can deny that goons are fat, "throwing our weight" accomplishes absolutely nothing. We don't have some magic back-channel with CCP to bend the game to our whims. We're just fat guys on the internet.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:59:24 -
[209] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15. Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.
Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again. I can confirm that the sky is, indeed, falling.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16634
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:59:59 -
[210] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15. Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.
Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.
Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
474
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:18:28 -
[211] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sentamon wrote:RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15. Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.
Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again. Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov.
Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them. |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:38:45 -
[212] - Quote
Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.
Point taken. Nullification for a 400Mill+ ship with skill point loss on destruction is not going to be removed from the game. The WH community, for one, would not allow it, and they would be right. Nullification has a role to play, like moon goo (which is what *I* would like to see removed from the game, but this is another topic....). Nullification on a fast and cheap ship is the current problem, and it is not a problem just because of Entosis but because it is also a nearly risk free form of movement across Null Sec in particular.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:39:58 -
[213] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sentamon wrote:RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15. Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.
Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again. Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov. Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them.
This is true, some of them even need NPC anomalies to protect their extra ESS incomes, because they can't be bothered to do the defense job themselves.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 08:00:29 -
[214] - Quote
Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.
Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?)
The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action.
Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Patrick Yaa
Starcade Group Elemental Tide
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 08:16:22 -
[215] - Quote
Saisin wrote: Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.
There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it. Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more). So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
279
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 08:31:12 -
[216] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?
I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship? Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ? Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
242
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 11:06:41 -
[217] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?
I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship? Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ? Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind.
and you also get a killmaill; you know, the things "we all love" ? |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
715
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 11:11:37 -
[218] - Quote
Querns wrote:Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest? Why? What does it have to offer?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16635
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 11:11:54 -
[219] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote: Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them.
You run away from me with 18 to one odds and only ever engage when you have every pilot available.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
715
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 11:50:30 -
[220] - Quote
Querns wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled Do they not have cynos or wormholes where you live? Not every one has access to hundreds of titans and or wants to spend hours probing out wormholes that may or may not be there when the timers you want to create are vulnerable.
CCP again didn't look for balance and instead took the easy road of a straight nerf. Why not "balance" entosis ceptors with a fuel adjustment ? Simply increase the amount of stront required per cycle to 3 for the warmup and 2 per cycle. Someone who is actually wanting to attack sov is only going to have enough fuel for 1 or 2 attempts, unless they have friends with them to supply more stront.
Or making it so an active entosis ship can receive remote reps but the ship is immobile for the duration of the cycle. A solo ceptor is not going to last long if defenders turn up but a group who wants content (aside from trolling) can bring logi with them.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
|
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 12:07:11 -
[221] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Because wormholes are a thing. So? |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
715
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 12:33:25 -
[222] - Quote
Patrick Yaa wrote:Saisin wrote: Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.
There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it. Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more). So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo. I think you missed the point..
Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income. Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much. Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 13:10:29 -
[223] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 13:14:29 -
[224] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled Do they not have cynos or wormholes where you live? Not every one has access to hundreds of titans and or wants to spend hours probing out wormholes that may or may not be there when the timers you want to create are vulnerable. CCP again didn't look for balance and instead took the easy road of a straight nerf. Why not "balance" entosis ceptors with a fuel adjustment ? Simply increase the amount of stront required per cycle to 3 for the warmup and 2 per cycle. Someone who is actually wanting to attack sov is only going to have enough fuel for 1 or 2 attempts, unless they have friends with them to supply more stront. Or making it so an active entosis ship can receive remote reps but the ship is immobile for the duration of the cycle. A solo ceptor is not going to last long if defenders turn up but a group who wants content (aside from trolling) can bring logi with them. Blackops BS can bridge ships with a much smaller investment, at superlative range. Strategic cruisers can take this bridge, and strategic cruisers are the backbone of contemporary warfare.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 13:15:16 -
[225] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Patrick Yaa wrote:Saisin wrote: Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.
There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it. Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more). So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo. I think you missed the point.. Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income. Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much. Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income? Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 13:28:14 -
[226] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Reppyk wrote:We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself. Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest? Why? What does it have to offer? If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
551
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 13:50:16 -
[227] - Quote
Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.
There are no ships in this game that cannot be caught.
If you cannot kill a ceptor, then you have no business holding sov. Alternatively, cry to CCP until the play the game for you. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 14:08:19 -
[228] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught. There are no ships in this game that cannot be caught. If you cannot kill a ceptor, then you have no business holding sov. Alternatively, cry to CCP until the play the game for you. Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Patrick Yaa
Starcade Group Elemental Tide
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 15:21:23 -
[229] - Quote
Querns wrote:[quotetree...] Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught.
I thought this at first as well, but: smartbombs
also, b2t |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1940
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 15:35:02 -
[230] - Quote
Patrick Yaa wrote:Querns wrote:[quotetree...] Outside of pilot error in piloting or fitting, interceptors cannot be caught. I thought this at first as well, but: smartbombs also, b2t That is true -- you can counter interceptors by parking five or more titans, packing officer smartbombs, on a stargate.
I rescind my earlier complaint; this is clearly the intended counter and reasonable for sov holders of all shapes and sizes.
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
1801
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 16:09:12 -
[231] - Quote
Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.
I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 16:28:53 -
[232] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Sov is cheap - For the large well established groups living off passive income. Until CCP do something to balance moon income - sov will never be worth much. Being able to hold moons in nulsec without holding sov makes the effort of holding sov pointless. Why bother taking sov when all you need is super or capital superiority to safeguard (and increase) your passive income?
Absolutely! I'd like to see moon income linked to controling a TCU so that both flag and major top down income source can be contested at the same time (and I mostly push that forward because siphons have been made mostly useless because of the API ratting them out)
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 16:37:35 -
[233] - Quote
Querns wrote: It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.
Isn't catching or preventing the entosis the same thing, or do you absolutely have to get to kill the entosis ship? Seems to me you are after easy kills more than true game balance. No skirmishers will engage if they are 100% sure of losing their ship (or like cynos, it will be done with the smallest possible cost to them)
Skirmishers by nature are hard to catch but it can still be done, or they can be driven away easily. You simply do not want to have to deal with skirmishers in "your" game.
I do agree that there is still some tweaks needed for entosis ships. - One of the suggestion I like is a cloaking cooldown of 10mn or so after the entosis becomes inactive. - Another is applying web effects to current maximum speed instead of the ship's top speed. - and of course, reducing the effect of nullification for intys to only not be dragged by bubbles, but still have to burn out of a bubble to initiate warp. These tweaks would be better than a heavy handed ban of entosis on interceptors.
. But overall, an entosis ship can be caught. There are plenty of ships that can go above 4000m/sec and can warp while the entosis ship is restricted in its options. There are long range ECM that can do the trick without even catching up with the ship.
There are solutions that have already been easier to put into effect since Galatea.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 16:41:08 -
[234] - Quote
Querns wrote: If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.
you mean "if you can't fight my way, where I will squash you with my superior forces, you have no business in my sov" This is a very one sided view of game balance, and does not recognize skirmishers as a valid play style.
Why should we recognize your play style then, if you don't recognize ours?
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 17:01:19 -
[235] - Quote
Querns wrote: Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.
Of course! It is a top down income, so it is not passed to the alliance, but kept by the toons of the players that directkly benefit from it, while alliances endoctrinated lemmings are there to provide the meat sheid and means to protect this personal income, in exchange for paying rent or taxes.
Moon goo is to high level alliance leaderships like gold mines, or international help funds, or diamonds, are for nepotists dictators in the real world.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1941
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 17:09:08 -
[236] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Querns wrote: It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.
Isn't catching or preventing the entosis the same thing, or do you absolutely have to get to kill the entosis ship? Seems to me you are after easy kills more than true game balance. No skirmishers will engage if they are 100% sure of losing their ship (or like cynos, it will be done with the smallest possible cost to them) Skirmishers by nature are hard to catch but it can still be done, or they can be driven away easily. You simply do not want to have to deal with skirmishers in "your" game.
At what point did I say that the ship had to die? I said interceptors are uncatchable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1941
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 17:10:23 -
[237] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Querns wrote: If you are unwilling to meaningfully contest sov, you have no business doing it.
you mean "if you can't fight my way, where I will squash you with my superior forces, you have no business in my sov" This is a very one sided view of game balance, and does not recognize skirmishers as a valid play style. Why should we recognize your play style then, if you don't recognize ours? Sending one man in an uncatchable ship to generate timers which no one intends to actually contest is not skirmishing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1941
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 17:12:50 -
[238] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Querns wrote: Moongoo comprises a small portion of our alliance income.
Of course! It is a top down income, so it is not passed to the alliance, but kept by the toons of the players that directkly benefit from it, while alliances endoctrinated lemmings are there to provide the meat sheid and means to protect this personal income, in exchange for paying rent or taxes. Moon goo is to high level alliance leaderships like gold mines, or international help funds, or diamonds, are for nepotists dictators in the real world. This is incorrect. Between SRP that pays 150-200% of the cost of the fit ship directly to whomever lost it, the trillions of ISK we've invested into our outposts and infrastructure hubs to allow meaningful nullsec PVE in the forms of ratting, mining, and industry, and the simple act of paying the sovereignty bills due every month, we ensure that the ISK the alliance makes, overwhelmingly, makes it back into the pockets of our line members.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
aussieftw
I'm Fine and You Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 17:31:17 -
[239] - Quote
Great changes, thank you CCP. |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 18:36:09 -
[240] - Quote
Querns wrote: Sending one man in an uncatchable ship to generate timers which no one intends to actually contest is not skirmishing.
one interceptor using entosis on a structure has its speed locked to 4k for the duration of the cycle, and has a high slot fit with entosis. A single combat interceptor could take care of it... We do agree that reducing the capabilities of interceptors to reach their target without being caught (barring smartbombing Titams interdictions on gates) is the real,problem.
Some groups may publicly take the stance that they do not want to take sov, unti they do when the conditions are right by their standards, and not by yours. Another possibility is that a third party decides to step in an area where the inhabitants have been already softened by skirmishers, and multiple timers can be contested. This is part of valid tactics, propaganda and interactions, and not a reason to prevent these tactics in the game.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
121
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 19:21:57 -
[241] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Harry Saq wrote:
- 5 hour jump fatigue cap is good, and keeps the shock value without missing the point.
- No Intytoaster is placating to a red herring (and almost says as much in the way it was presented)
- The passive regen is too much, should be days not hours, and certainly not minutes
- SOV dropping should also be hours not minutes, but definitely not days
5 Day cap. Which means a 12 hour cooldown cap. Doh, yeah, misstyped on that 5 days is good I meant. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 20:41:11 -
[242] - Quote
Saisin wrote: Some groups may publicly take the stance that they do not want to take sov, unti they do when the conditions are right by their standards, and not by yours. Another possibility is that a third party decides to step in an area where the inhabitants have been already softened by skirmishers, and multiple timers can be contested. This is part of valid tactics, propaganda and interactions, and not a reason to prevent these tactics in the game.
Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2332
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 20:59:18 -
[243] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game. I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 21:04:54 -
[244] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Aryth wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game. I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP. One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon. Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 22:35:38 -
[245] - Quote
Querns wrote: Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.
if the issue was truly the speed of ships while entosising, all frigates and ships that can reach these speed while using entosis would have been banned too, not just interceptors.
As this is clearly not what you are advocating, it is clear that the issue you have is about the nullification of the interceptors equiped with entosis, because they are uncatchable until they commit to entosis, and can conduct guerilla style attacks in any places.
You still want to not loose the ability to travel uncatchable in null sec for your own purposes. as the main null sec alliance holder, you are the ones benefiting most from the ability to travel around uncatchable.
This is why the interceptor entosis ban is one sided only, and not balanced.
You do not want entosis ships to slip behind your lines uncatchable, but you are not willing to lose your own ability to travel in null sec uncatchable.
One sided mind set.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2332
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 22:50:56 -
[246] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:Aryth wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game. I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP. One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon. Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.
Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 00:59:15 -
[247] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Querns wrote: Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.
if the issue was truly the speed of ships while entosising, all frigates and ships that can reach these speed while using entosis would have been banned too, not just interceptors. As this is clearly not what you are advocating, it is clear that the issue you have is about the nullification of the interceptors equiped with entosis, because they are uncatchable until they commit to entosis, and can conduct guerilla style attacks in any places. You still want to not loose the ability to travel uncatchable in null sec for your own purposes. as the main null sec alliance holder, you are the ones benefiting most from the ability to travel around uncatchable. This is why the interceptor entosis ban is one sided only, and not balanced. You do not want entosis ships to slip behind your lines uncatchable, but you are not willing to lose your own ability to travel in null sec uncatchable. One sided mind set. No, I want all nullification removed from the game. Period. Traveling is already safe enough with a covert ops frigate; we don't need to be able to ignore bubbles.
I am not sure how much more plainly I can put this.
However, since even I find it unlikely that CCP will remove nullification in TYOOL 2015, I will take the second prize of having the most abusable function of a nullified, sub-2s align ship removed. We'll get there eventually, if only through employee turnover than anything.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 01:00:12 -
[248] - Quote
Sentamon wrote: Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.
The delusions under which you labor are almost like a form of sustenance for my soul.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
502
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 02:26:32 -
[249] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?
I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship? Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ? Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind.
Hardware like a frigate manned by the guy that just started playing the day of the attack, because unrepped BS defense is not enough to make it interesting in anyway.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
502
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 02:37:18 -
[250] - Quote
Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.
Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 02:38:41 -
[251] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught. Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it. Apparently a "modicum of strategy" is multiple titans fit with officer smartbombs.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16639
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 03:49:17 -
[252] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Aryth wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game. I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP. One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Name the location of this gatecamp that protects hundreds of systems.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
502
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 03:58:48 -
[253] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:It's a start with the prevention of trollceptors but perhaps I'm missing something because I still don't see how these changes rebalance the sov mechanic towards forcing the attacker to commit to a fight. Trollceptors were simply a tool used due to the flaw in the overall Sov system and Interceptors will simply be traded out for very fast Faction Frigs instead.
This goes to the heart of the problem with the new sov system. Under Dominion Sov, due to having to grind through Hit Points, an attacker would not commit to such an act unless they were serious about attempting to remove the defender from their space. That underlying commitment has been completely removed in this new system in favour of allowing the attacker to attack on a whim and it's the aspect of the new sov mechanic that needs to be changed. In short, make it so that attacking Sov is a serious undertaking that requires commitment to your cause and not something that's done purely to **** off the defender.
Annoying people is a huge part of the EVE experience and the other 1% is ship spinning.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
871
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 04:04:29 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sentamon wrote:Aryth wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game. I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP. One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon. Name the location of this gatecamp that protects hundreds of systems.
Tama, Rens, Old Man Star of course! Gotta keep the highsec pubbies away from the riches of lowsec!
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
502
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 04:06:48 -
[255] - Quote
Querns wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Querns wrote:Saisin wrote:Querns wrote:... These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement. Yes they would. You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?) The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action. Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do. For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack. It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught. Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it. Apparently a "modicum of strategy" is multiple titans fit with officer smartbombs.
I got smartbombed taking a "shortcut", just before i landed at the gate....strange i dont recall him being in a titan.
But i have to say, if i had enough titans to give up on any kind of decent combat tactics and just toss titans at everything id do the same thing, why not !
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1942
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 04:26:46 -
[256] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I got smartbombed taking a "shortcut", just before i landed at the gate....strange i dont recall him being in a titan.
But i have to say, if i had enough titans to give up on any kind of decent combat tactics and just toss titans at everything id do the same thing, why not ! Pilot error. Should have bounced to a celestial.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16639
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 06:57:16 -
[257] - Quote
Yang Aurilen wrote:
Tama, Rens, Old Man Star of course! Gotta keep the highsec pubbies away from the riches of lowsec!
Those aren't gatecamps, more like system wide thunderdomes
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 07:14:28 -
[258] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.
Buy a malediction. Cram the lows with i-stabs.
Congratulations, you can now not be caught by any thing in the game, except for 6 titans with officer smartbombs (Or a **** ton of BSes) pre-positioned around a gate.
Edit: Baring of course the chance that the pilot is dumb. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
715
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 08:17:31 -
[259] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes. Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them. It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy.
Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue. And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off.
It's only a GF if you out number them 5 to 1 .
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 09:54:43 -
[260] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sentamon wrote:Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes. Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them. It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy. Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue. And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off. It's only a GF if you out number them 5 to 1 .
The only person who comes at us solo is harry forever.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
1996
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 10:39:03 -
[261] - Quote
Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
718
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 11:18:51 -
[262] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Sentamon wrote:Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes. Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them. It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy. Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue. And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off. It's only a GF if you out number them 5 to 1 . The only person who comes at us solo is harry forever. Wow, my response went straight over the top did it? Couldn't respond with anything that might be in context?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Manny theMiner
Corax. The Big Dirty
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 12:19:37 -
[263] - Quote
I don't understand why you are implementing changes to TQ and then seeing what the effects will be. Isn't that why you have the test server? Quit experimenting with my game in real time, trying to make things up as you go, and use the test processes you have in place. Why do i think numbers are dropping? Well, us old guys don't like relearning a completely new set of rules every 6 weeks. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1945
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 12:27:19 -
[264] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Sentamon wrote:Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes. Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them. It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy. Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue. And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off. You've never used blops BS in hostile space? Back in the day, we used to do it all the time. It's pretty safe, even in a safespot, as long as you cloak up and keep an eye on local.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1945
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 12:31:07 -
[265] - Quote
Manny theMiner wrote:I don't understand why you are implementing changes to TQ and then seeing what the effects will be. Isn't that why you have the test server? Quit experimenting with my game in real time, trying to make things up as you go, and use the test processes you have in place. Why do i think numbers are dropping? Well, us old guys don't like relearning a completely new set of rules every 6 weeks. The test server is really poor for testing things that affect emergent gameplay things like sovereignty. For example, testing Aegis Sov on Duality saw most groups fielding nigh-infinite numbers of highly impractical ships to contest sovereignty. It was good to work out the bugs, but didn't really inform anyone on the best way to engage in sov war.
The test server is more useful for testing the raw mechanical functionality of complicated features, e.g.: brain in a box.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 13:03:34 -
[266] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player.
The goal of fatigue was to stop us from 3rd partying our entire titan swarm on fight happening across the map. This goal is still being met.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 13:09:14 -
[267] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Wow, my response went straight over the top did it? Couldn't respond with anything that might be in context?
Let me put it this way. Harry Forever has never had an issue with getting in and out of our space even when he flew a badly fitted destroyer. If he can get in and have fun then anyone with access to things such as blackout have no excuse for failing to get into our space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
1996
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 13:58:09 -
[268] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player. The goal of fatigue was to stop us from 3rd partying our entire titan swarm on fight happening across the map. This goal is still being met.
Can't you still cover a long distance by jumping multiple times? And if so wasn't the long fatigue there to penalize people for doing this? (I'm generally curious as I don't live in low sec)
I just don't see how making it trivial for alliances to more around the map is a good thing. Personally i think wars should be a long/drawn-out process where people have to commit for weeks/months, not just an additional activity you can do to find fights every weekend... Constantly missing move ops? join a group that is invested in their region!
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
231
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 14:05:38 -
[269] - Quote
Quote:This is a simple change to allow corps to willingly drop their sov structures. This will be especially useful for alliances that are willingly dropping control of some space to allow another alliance to take it. It takes the form of a new right click option on sov structures that's only available to Directors in the owning corp, and it will work much like ship self destruct. But, this is stupid! Why I can't just scoop my structure back and carry it away? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1945
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 14:14:24 -
[270] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player. The goal of fatigue was to stop us from 3rd partying our entire titan swarm on fight happening across the map. This goal is still being met. Can't you still cover a long distance by jumping multiple times? And if so wasn't the long fatigue there to penalize people for doing this? (I'm generally curious as I don't live in low sec) I just don't see how making it trivial for alliances to more around the map is a good thing. Personally i think wars should be a long/drawn-out process where people have to commit for weeks/months, not just an additional activity you can do to find fights every weekend... Constantly missing move ops? join a group that is invested in their region! You can cover a maximum distance between 20-25LY before fatigue maximizes and you have to wait 12 hours between each jump.
This is about the distance from YA0 to TVN, for reference. You'd have to endure about four hours of jump fatigue cooldown to do this, get stuck with 12 hours of cooldown at the end, and be capped out for fatigue with 5 days.
Or, you could fit for gate travel and take the same trip in about 22 minutes, assuming you didn't get bubbled along the way.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 14:28:05 -
[271] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player. The goal of fatigue was to stop us from 3rd partying our entire titan swarm on fight happening across the map. This goal is still being met. Can't you still cover a long distance by jumping multiple times? And if so wasn't the long fatigue there to penalize people for doing this? (I'm generally curious as I don't live in low sec) I just don't see how making it trivial for alliances to more around the map is a good thing. Personally i think wars should be a long/drawn-out process where people have to commit for weeks/months, not just an additional activity you can do to find fights every weekend... Constantly missing move ops? join a group that is invested in their region!
No we can't toss caps around like we used to with this change. It will still be faster to move capitals via gates.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
313
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 14:41:00 -
[272] - Quote
My personal experience is that any ship cruiser size and above can relatively be caught in a gatecamp. Yes, instalock camps exist, but they have quite high requirements.
Proof: number of solo cruisers in FW <<< number of solo frigs/dessies
If the gameplay around sov involves keeping someone away from something, it can only be cruiser size+ or the defenders will be in serious trouble. (and Strategic Cruisers are still problematic)
Interceptors banned from Entosis: good. Think about all frigs, dessies and maybe T3 cruisers.
In favor of attackers: Temporary disabling services should hurt the defenders enough so they will not ignore roaming gangs looking for a fight and it should be fairly easy.
But destroying or permanently damaging infrastructure should take WAY more commitment. Not necessarily in numbers (like old structure grind), but in time. And by this I mean not hours playing but say number of successful attacks in a month. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
280
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 17:46:05 -
[273] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?
I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship? Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ? Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind. Hardware like a frigate manned by the guy that just started playing the day of the attack, because unrepped BS defense is not enough to make it interesting in anyway. "Perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?"
'broadly and "perhaps" being the operative words;
more than a lone Frigate could be bothered to sit and chew through, orders of magnitude less than a full-on Dominion era structure.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
290
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 19:28:28 -
[274] - Quote
Manny theMiner wrote:I don't understand why you are implementing changes to TQ and then seeing what the effects will be. Isn't that why you have the test server? Quit experimenting with my game in real time, trying to make things up as you go, and use the test processes you have in place. Why do i think numbers are dropping? Well, us old guys don't like relearning a completely new set of rules every 6 weeks.
I do not believe the test server can effectively test new features on a broad scale. there are too many different parameters, and in particular assets have no value there. The test server is good for mass test, like load testing and stuff like that only.
The iterative approach is the best way to introduce new feature and tweak them as data and play patterns are gathered over time, as long as the balances are done by small increment. Unfortunately, for this announcement, the changes are swinging way too far from where they are now...
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
290
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 19:31:42 -
[275] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Quote:This is a simple change to allow corps to willingly drop their sov structures. This will be especially useful for alliances that are willingly dropping control of some space to allow another alliance to take it. It takes the form of a new right click option on sov structures that's only available to Directors in the owning corp, and it will work much like ship self destruct. But, this is stupid! Why I can't just scoop my structure back and carry it away? I would have prefered that too, but out of the four items in the changes, this is the one that is the most consensual.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
722
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 23:05:34 -
[276] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Sentamon wrote:Querns wrote:Sentamon wrote:
One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.
Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes. Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them. It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy. Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue. And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off. You've never used blops BS in hostile space? Back in the day, we used to do it all the time. It's pretty safe, even in a safespot, as long as you cloak up and keep an eye on local. Key words "back in the day", that was before fatigue stopped your fleet moving more than once every 28 mins (X 3 or 4 to get to the target system - forget it) Yes Blops can be done pretty safely but who wants to spend a week moving a small fleet to a target area, only to find you can't do what you came for because the locals saw you coming 3 days ago and are waiting for you or just stay docked.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1948
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 23:34:43 -
[277] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Key words "back in the day", that was before fatigue stopped your fleet moving more than once every 28 mins (X 3 or 4 to get to the target system - forget it) Yes Blops can be done pretty safely but who wants to spend a week moving a small fleet to a target area, only to find you can't do what you came for because the locals saw you coming 3 days ago and are waiting for you or just stay docked.
Fatigue didn't somehow make it less safe. It's still a perfectly valid way to conduct business. Hell, most of the scant bits of PVP that do slip through our net in Deklein consist of ratters getting dropped on by bombers.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2000
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 07:57:24 -
[278] - Quote
Querns wrote:Rek Seven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.
It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player. The goal of fatigue was to stop us from 3rd partying our entire titan swarm on fight happening across the map. This goal is still being met. Can't you still cover a long distance by jumping multiple times? And if so wasn't the long fatigue there to penalize people for doing this? (I'm generally curious as I don't live in low sec) I just don't see how making it trivial for alliances to more around the map is a good thing. Personally i think wars should be a long/drawn-out process where people have to commit for weeks/months, not just an additional activity you can do to find fights every weekend... Constantly missing move ops? join a group that is invested in their region! You can cover a maximum distance between 20-25LY before fatigue maximizes and you have to wait 12 hours between each jump. This is about the distance from YA0 to TVN, for reference. You'd have to endure about four hours of jump fatigue cooldown to do this, get stuck with 12 hours of cooldown at the end, and be capped out for fatigue with 5 days. Or, you could fit for gate travel and take the same trip in about 22 minutes, assuming you didn't get bubbled along the way.
Thanks for giving me some perspective.
I still think null sec will be become better if it remains difficult for capital fleets to be deployed in different regions. I don't think your more nomadic groups like PL, who exist for nice kill mails and have more capitals than they know what to do with, are good for the game.
By penalizing players for moving around all the time, you reward the players that invest in and develop certain region. Is making war deployment a trivial and fun thing you can do every weekend really good for the game?
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2000
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 08:01:27 -
[279] - Quote
Plus, why isn't fatigue reduction a feature of the upcoming sov structures? This would kill two birds with one stone as there would then be more benefit in owning sov.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 10:46:29 -
[280] - Quote
Team Five 0 wrote:An unattended capture node event will self-complete in < 196 minutes Do you even sov? Let me explain how typically a real sov war goes. First, there are skirmishes - roamings and BO drops. Opponents try each other. Then, someone says "looks like we can take this moon/system/region, so let's do it". They reinforce it, and if timer is right - opposing forces come and clush in those furious battles that are reported on TMC and EN24. After a while, one side realizes they cannot win this war. This is the time they unleash the most powerful weapon out there. That is not a thousand of Megathrons, not a wreaking ball, not even a full fleet of titans. It's weaponized boredom.
Now if you set regen time to 196 minutes, you bring this weapon to the whole new level. Works as follows: 1. Set vuln window at 4 am for attacker (doesnt matter what time it is for defender). 2. Never show for capture event. 3. Boom - headshot! War stopped.
Passive regen is a good thing. But it should take at least 24 hours. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1966
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 13:43:30 -
[281] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Thanks for giving me some perspective.
I still think null sec will be become better if it remains difficult for capital fleets to be deployed in different regions. I don't think making things easy for your more nomadic groups like PL, who exist for nice kill mails and have more capitals than they know what to do with, are good for the game.
By penalizing players for moving around all the time, you reward the players that invest in and develop certain regions. Is making war deployment a trivial and fun thing you can do every weekend really good for the game? The changes don't make it faster to travel. Gate travel is still the superior option.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2002
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 14:27:49 -
[282] - Quote
Querns wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Thanks for giving me some perspective.
I still think null sec will be become better if it remains difficult for capital fleets to be deployed in different regions. I don't think making things easy for your more nomadic groups like PL, who exist for nice kill mails and have more capitals than they know what to do with, are good for the game.
By penalizing players for moving around all the time, you reward the players that invest in and develop certain regions. Is making war deployment a trivial and fun thing you can do every weekend really good for the game? The changes don't make it faster to travel. Gate travel is still the superior option.
No i didn't say it did. I said the reduction in fatigue cap will allow groups like yourself to jump around the map getting involved in a new war or 3rd partying on fights every weekend.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1967
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 15:04:43 -
[283] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Querns wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Thanks for giving me some perspective.
I still think null sec will be become better if it remains difficult for capital fleets to be deployed in different regions. I don't think making things easy for your more nomadic groups like PL, who exist for nice kill mails and have more capitals than they know what to do with, are good for the game.
By penalizing players for moving around all the time, you reward the players that invest in and develop certain regions. Is making war deployment a trivial and fun thing you can do every weekend really good for the game? The changes don't make it faster to travel. Gate travel is still the superior option. No i didn't say it did. I said the reduction in fatigue cap will allow groups like yourself to jump around the map getting involved in a new war or 3rd partying on fights every weekend. Yes, and my point is if we wanted to do this, we would be doing it via gate travel, and not jumping. What part of "jumping is slower than gate travel for the distances we're talking about" am I failing to impress? Lowering the max fatigue cap doesn't affect our ability to wage war or third party.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2002
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 15:49:39 -
[284] - Quote
Querns wrote: Yes, and my point is if we wanted to do this, we would be doing it via gate travel, and not jumping. What part of "jumping is slower than gate travel for the distances we're talking about" am I failing to impress? Lowering the max fatigue cap doesn't affect our ability to wage war or third party.
You are choosing to ignore the fact that gate travel is a huge risk. I don't disagree with the fact that using gates for long range deployments would be quicker but it has nothing to do with the issue. You don't need to worry about "quickness" for a war that is planned weeks in advance... Especially if you are a super alt with nothing but time on your hands.
Of course if doesn't affect your ability to wage ware but it penalizes you for using a safe means of travel to strategically position yourself.
Either way i guess we'll see how it turns out but, to me, it feel like weak backpedaling by ccp.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 16:18:22 -
[285] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:An unattended capture node event will self-complete in < 196 minutes Do you even sov? Let me explain how typically a real sov war goes. First, there are skirmishes - roamings and BO drops. Opponents try each other. Then, someone says "looks like we can take this moon/system/region, so let's do it". They reinforce it, and if timer is right - opposing forces come and clush in those furious battles that are reported on TMC and EN24. After a while, one side realizes they cannot win this war. This is the time they unleash the most powerful weapon out there. That is not a thousand of Megathrons, not a wreaking ball, not even a full fleet of titans. It's weaponized boredom. Now if you set regen time to 196 minutes, you bring this weapon to the whole new level. Works as follows: 1. Set vuln window at 4 am for attacker (doesnt matter what time it is for defender). 2. Never show for capture event. 3. Boom - headshot! War stopped. Passive regen is a good thing. But it should take at least 24 hours.
A 3 hour window of attack is far longer than we used to have for taking out POS and stations.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Eris Tsasa
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 16:18:26 -
[286] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Querns wrote: Yes, and my point is if we wanted to do this, we would be doing it via gate travel, and not jumping. What part of "jumping is slower than gate travel for the distances we're talking about" am I failing to impress? Lowering the max fatigue cap doesn't affect our ability to wage war or third party.
You are choosing to ignore the fact that gate travel is a huge risk. I don't disagree with the fact that using gates for long range deployments would be quicker but it has nothing to do with the issue. You don't need to worry about "quickness" for a war that is planned weeks in advance... Especially if you are a super alt with nothing but time on your hands. Of course if doesn't affect your ability to wage ware but it penalizes you for using a safe means of travel to strategically position yourself. Either way i guess we'll see how it turns out but, to me, it feel like weak backpedaling by ccp.
Gate travel isn't that much of a risk when moving supers/titans. I mean, at that point generally there's back up and you have the option to jump away. When you jump somewhere, if you're caught then, you're low on cap and have a jump timer. That's more risky and scary than gate travel.
In the end, Eve is still a game. A 30 day timer keeping you from playing in any way is less fun in a game type way and more job like. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1967
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 16:27:58 -
[287] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Querns wrote: Yes, and my point is if we wanted to do this, we would be doing it via gate travel, and not jumping. What part of "jumping is slower than gate travel for the distances we're talking about" am I failing to impress? Lowering the max fatigue cap doesn't affect our ability to wage war or third party.
You are choosing to ignore the fact that gate travel is a huge risk. I don't disagree with the fact that using gates for long range deployments would be quicker but it has nothing to do with the issue. You don't need to worry about "quickness" for a war that is planned weeks in advance... Especially if you are a super alt with nothing but time on your hands. Of course if doesn't affect your ability to wage ware but it penalizes you for using a safe means of travel to strategically position yourself. Either way i guess we'll see how it turns out but, to me, it feel like weak backpedaling by ccp. When you're a part of the group with the most supercapitals in the game, it's not a risk at all. You move in groups and fit a cyno. I bought my supercapital after Phoebe, I go on almost every supercapital op we have, and I have not as of yet needed to refuel. Jumping is just not used that much in TYOOL 2015.
You could argue that smaller groups lack this option, but since your concern is about the largest groups, that argument is invalid.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 17:54:25 -
[288] - Quote
And now sov warfare is officially over and sov rolling starts.
Go to hell CCP with your rubber spine. You just had to go and cave in to gewn tears, didn't you? So usually, so habitually, so despite any sensible opinion.
The interceptor change is unacceptable.
#unsubbing |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1967
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 18:38:07 -
[289] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote: #unsubbing
No follow-through.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3322
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 18:41:54 -
[290] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:And now sov warfare is officially over and sov rolling starts.
Go to hell CCP with your rubber spine. You just had to go and cave in to gewn tears, didn't you? So usually, so habitually, so despite any sensible opinion.
The interceptor change is unacceptable.
#unsubbing The Pator Tech School sov dream is over.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
121
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 18:41:56 -
[291] - Quote
Querns wrote:Orca Platypus wrote: #unsubbing
No follow-through. I think we have had overload on "can I has yer stuffs"...surprised we couldn't even muster one here ;) |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2003
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 19:20:55 -
[292] - Quote
Querns wrote: You could argue that smaller groups lack this option, but since your concern is about the largest groups, that argument is invalid.
No, that is on the opposite end of the spectrum and is therefore also what i'm concerned about if you read between the lines of my comments.
But anyway, i've voiced my opinion for what little it's worth and i'll move on... At least all the players in the big power blocks will be happy.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 19:28:31 -
[293] - Quote
Harry Saq wrote:Querns wrote:Orca Platypus wrote: #unsubbing
No follow-through. I think we have had overload on "can I has yer stuffs"...surprised we couldn't even muster one here ;)
He only has interceptors anyway.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 22:12:21 -
[294] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Key words "back in the day", that was before fatigue stopped your fleet moving more than once every 28 mins (X 3 or 4 to get to the target system - forget it) Yes Blops can be done pretty safely but who wants to spend a week moving a small fleet to a target area, only to find you can't do what you came for because the locals saw you coming 3 days ago and are waiting for you or just stay docked.
Fatigue didn't somehow make it less safe. It's still a perfectly valid way to conduct business. Hell, most of the scant bits of PVP that do slip through our net in Deklein consist of ratters getting dropped on by bombers. You might want to look at lossmails for you space before you go making unfounded accusations - I did. I think it was about 1 in 50 for the last 6 months or 4 ships lost to bombers.
That aside, I was discussing attacking space not players,it is easy for bombers or Blops to pick off 1 player at a time. It is a very different thing again to try and use those same ships to take space. And as has been pointed out, a few well placed bubble camps makes Imperium Space all but invulnerable.
Discussion was about entosing systems (viable alternative to ceptors) not ratters or miners getting ganked.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1968
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 22:51:09 -
[295] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Key words "back in the day", that was before fatigue stopped your fleet moving more than once every 28 mins (X 3 or 4 to get to the target system - forget it) Yes Blops can be done pretty safely but who wants to spend a week moving a small fleet to a target area, only to find you can't do what you came for because the locals saw you coming 3 days ago and are waiting for you or just stay docked.
Fatigue didn't somehow make it less safe. It's still a perfectly valid way to conduct business. Hell, most of the scant bits of PVP that do slip through our net in Deklein consist of ratters getting dropped on by bombers. You might want to look at lossmails for you space before you go making unfounded accusations - I did. I think it was about 1 in 50 for the last 6 months or 4 ships lost to bombers. That aside, I was discussing attacking space not players,it is easy for bombers or Blops to pick off 1 player at a time. It is a very different thing again to try and use those same ships to take space. And as has been pointed out, a few well placed bubble camps makes Imperium Space all but invulnerable. Discussion was about entosing systems (viable alternative to ceptors) not ratters or miners getting ganked. Bombers are not the only ships that can catch a blops bridge. More specifically, strategic cruisers can.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
786
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 00:04:21 -
[296] - Quote
I still think that the jump range on non-combat ships needs to be rolled back to the old range of I believe it was 10 LY.
If you want null markets to be active and encourage combat people need to be able to get supplies moved around. I've completely stopped moving stuff since the changes. Things that used to be able to be done in one jump now take sometimes 3 or 4 jumps or even more.
That cutting in half did way more than double the amount of jumps. That much repositioning of cyno alts takes me longer than it does for the fatigue to go away. Then I have to do it all again on the way back up. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1968
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 02:17:32 -
[297] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:I still think that the jump range on non-combat ships needs to be rolled back to the old range of I believe it was 10 LY.
If you want null markets to be active and encourage combat people need to be able to get supplies moved around. I've completely stopped moving stuff since the changes. Things that used to be able to be done in one jump now take sometimes 3 or 4 jumps or even more.
That cutting in half did way more than double the amount of jumps. That much repositioning of cyno alts takes me longer than it does for the fatigue to go away. Then I have to do it all again on the way back up. I agree, non-combat ships such as the Rhea should have a 10LY jump range.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 04:20:07 -
[298] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:An unattended capture node event will self-complete in < 196 minutes Do you even sov? Let me explain how typically a real sov war goes. First, there are skirmishes - roamings and BO drops. Opponents try each other. Then, someone says "looks like we can take this moon/system/region, so let's do it". They reinforce it, and if timer is right - opposing forces come and clush in those furious battles that are reported on TMC and EN24. After a while, one side realizes they cannot win this war. This is the time they unleash the most powerful weapon out there. That is not a thousand of Megathrons, not a wreaking ball, not even a full fleet of titans. It's weaponized boredom. Now if you set regen time to 196 minutes, you bring this weapon to the whole new level. Works as follows: 1. Set vuln window at 4 am for attacker (doesnt matter what time it is for defender). 2. Never show for capture event. 3. Boom - headshot! War stopped. Passive regen is a good thing. But it should take at least 24 hours. A 3 hour window of attack is far longer than we used to have for taking out POS and stations. I genuinely dont understand what you say, as passive regen was about 9 hours for sov structures and 6 hours for POS, iirc. And it was enough pita even then. You know, I can live with this - you dont need to go on that "HTFU" pitch. But the stated goal of the changes was "to ensure the process of taking sov is as fun as possible" and instead boredom is getting buffed, so I just wander - what's happening? |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 07:23:26 -
[299] - Quote
Having not really understood the negative effects of these Sov changes on player behavior CCP went ahead and introduced them into the game turning the maintenance of Sov from one of active player content generation to one of it being a 'JOB' wtf were you thinking would happen, Players would salivate at the idea of logging in with the sole intention of rushing from system to system grinding indexes to gain just a few minutes lee way when some griefer rocks up and starts up his entosis unit,
To date apart from noting the fact that a mail is generated it cause little of no interest..... 'IT GOT OLD VERY QUICKLY' as many said it would. It was a badly thought out concept on day one, it's got no better since then.
Own nothing, Build nothing, Plan nothing, Just blow it all up, you know it makes perfect sense, Fozzie says so.
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 12:33:54 -
[300] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:I still think that the jump range on non-combat ships needs to be rolled back to the old range of I believe it was 10 LY.
If you want null markets to be active and encourage combat people need to be able to get supplies moved around. I've completely stopped moving stuff since the changes. Things that used to be able to be done in one jump now take sometimes 3 or 4 jumps or even more.
That cutting in half did way more than double the amount of jumps. That much repositioning of cyno alts takes me longer than it does for the fatigue to go away. Then I have to do it all again on the way back up.
when read this I just think about CCP fozzieSOV update they must been playing it in there Coffee break
Capture the flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_the_flag
Capture the flag, commonly abbreviated as CTF, is a traditional outdoor game where two teams each have a flag (or other marker) and the object is to capture the other team's flag, located at the team's "base," and bring it safely back to their own base. Enemy players can be "tagged" by players in their home territory; these players are then, depending on the agreed rules, out of the game, members of the opposite team, sent back to their own territory, frozen in place until freed by a member of their own team, or "in jail."
Capture the Flag requires a playing field of some sort. Whether indoor or outdoor, the field is divided into two clearly designated halves, known as territories. Players form two teams, one for each territory. Each side has a "flag" which is most often a piece of fabric, but can be any object small enough to be easily carried by a person (night time games might use flashlights, glowsticks or lanterns as the "flags"). It is also suggested that teams wear dark colors at night time to increase the difficulty of the opponents to see them. If one team has the opposing team's flag on their territory they may be tagged because they have the opposing team's flag.
The objective of the game is for players to make their way into the opposing team's territory, grab the flag and return with it to their own territory without being tagged. The flag is defended mainly by tagging opposing players who attempt to take it. Within their own territory players are "safe", meaning that they cannot be tagged by opposing players. Once they cross in to the opposing team's territory they are vulnerable.
|
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2522
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 13:43:50 -
[301] - Quote
I'm generally not a fan of arbitrary limits and special rules, but in the case of the "no entosis 'Ceptors" change it makes sense. They wanted to limit entosis 'Ceptors, not all entosis frigates, and this is pretty much the only way to do it. Kudos to CCP for trying to fix a specific problem with a scalpel (or a band aid depending on your point of view) instead of a chainsaw.
Whether you think limiting entosis 'Ceptors is a good thing is an entirely different story. I'm on the fence myself.
Also, a big thank you to CCP for deciding to reign in the Jump Fatigue cap to 5 days instead of 30. This will still limit how much capital pilots can do over a day or two without them having to worry about utterly hamstringing themselves if they push their fatigue too far. Waiting until next weekend is a far more appealing option than waiting until next month.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises The Volition Cult
78
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 14:27:19 -
[302] - Quote
i'll count this as yet another grand example of CCP listening to their players. That jump fatiuge change is exactly what I wanted to read. The 5ly range still burns my buttons but since I'm no longer punished for using my carriers, I'll live with it. And here I thought the September release was just going to be a station shader update. Good job, CCP. Keep it going.
p.s. Since you're listening, bring back the chronicles already. geez. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16640
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 16:18:18 -
[303] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: I genuinely dont understand what you say, as passive regen was about 9 hours for sov structures and 6 hours for POS, iirc. And it was enough pita even then. You know, I can live with this - you dont need to go on that "HTFU" pitch. But the stated goal of the changes was "to ensure the process of taking sov is as fun as possible" and instead boredom is getting buffed, so I just wander - what's happening?
People simply tosses carriers at the problem so time to take down a station was considerably shorter. 3 hours is more than enough time. By far the biggest issue with fozziesov is the use of ships built to evade fights.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3324
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 17:05:41 -
[304] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:I'm generally not a fan of arbitrary limits and special rules, but in the case of the "no entosis 'Ceptors" change it makes sense. They wanted to limit entosis 'Ceptors, not all entosis frigates, and this is pretty much the only way to do it. Kudos to CCP for trying to fix a specific problem with a scalpel (or a band aid depending on your point of view) instead of a chainsaw.
Or they could remove the ridiculous broken bubble nullification and we wouldn't even need arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot fit entosis modules.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2525
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 18:36:45 -
[305] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Or they could remove the ridiculous broken bubble nullification and we wouldn't even need arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot fit entosis modules. Bubble-immune 'Ceptors in and of themselves aren't much of a problem. Yes, they're fast and hard to catch which I'm sure is frustrating to sov holders, but they lack the DPS to actually kill much of anything. They need large numbers, or bubble-vulnerable support, to be a real threat to ships and such.
But entosis 'Ceptors actually had the potential to threaten sov structures, which is pretty much the exact opposite of not being able to kill much of anything. Removing that specific combination was precisely the right thing to do given that they don't seem to think that 'Ceptors in general were an issue.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 22:41:45 -
[306] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
People simply tosses carriers at the problem so time to take down a station was considerably shorter. 3 hours is more than enough time. By far the biggest issue with fozziesov is the use of ships built to evade fights.
No it isn't. (It is only a small part of the problem) The underlying problem with fozziesov is exactly the same as it was with Dominion. Groups using blob dominance to troll (and try to extort) small sov holders while the big groups still have no reason to fight each other. That is and always will be the problem with, not only sov but nulsec in general.
(blob dominance - massive amounts of supers/capitals, extreme over shipping, huge invulnerable fleets)
Fozzies jump range nerfs played right into the hands of the super blobs. It may take them a little longer to get there but once they arrive - There is NOTHING to counter them. So they gain control of the space (moons etc), without the cost and burden of holding sov.
-- - -- - -- - -- Until moon mining is fixed, nothing else devs attempt matters. You can't fix sov, you won't create real content when there is broken mechanics that are being ignored.
Moon mining in sov space should require sov - This gives groups a reason to fight. "Lowsec moons will become even more popular, it would unbalance lowsec" - Good, it then allows groups who want to fight for a home in sov the ability and a reason to. Let the large groups who don't want to hold sov fight over a few moons in lowsec - It is after all where 90% of Eve content is generated.
Lastly, now troll ceptors aren't an issue - Remove vulnerability windows. Keep timers and indexes but allow sov to be attacked (reinforced) and or defended 24/7. If your shite gets RF'd, you can set a timer (within 48hrs of it being RF'd) that suits you to defend it but the initial timer should not be restricted to when you can be there to watch. (Eve by numbers = Limited content)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 04:33:58 -
[307] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Skia Aumer wrote: I genuinely dont understand what you say, as passive regen was about 9 hours for sov structures and 6 hours for POS, iirc. And it was enough pita even then. You know, I can live with this - you dont need to go on that "HTFU" pitch. But the stated goal of the changes was "to ensure the process of taking sov is as fun as possible" and instead boredom is getting buffed, so I just wander - what's happening?
People simply tosses carriers at the problem so time to take down a station was considerably shorter. 3 hours is more than enough time. By far the biggest issue with fozziesov is the use of ships built to evade fights. If people do something, then I couldnt care less. But we're talking about unattended event. Defenders do nothing, and the timer is getting won. And attackers cannot do anything, because it's 4 am. No fights. No fun. Flawed mechanics. |
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
183
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 13:04:32 -
[308] - Quote
All you did is make is easier for people who don't care, not to care. You completely misunderstand the problem.
Since you created the mechanics, you should understand that when someone sets a timer, whether that's a solo nobody in an interceptor, or a major alliance, ANYONE can show up for a fight when that timer expires. It doesn't have to be that guy in the solo interceptor. Anyone can. Nobody does. That's your problem. Listen carefully: Nobody cares.
If anyone cared, they'd be showing up to these timers whether they created them or not, but, that would be a waste of time, usually. Because the defender, as often as not, doesn't care. They're not going to show up for a fight, if it actually looks like a fight. Take the sov. What did you achieve? Now you have some sov. Congratulations, but, no fight for you.
Iterating over these mechanics isn't going to make people care about sov again. Stop wasting your energy, and work the actual problem. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:31:06 -
[309] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Since you created the mechanics, you should understand that when someone sets a timer, whether that's a solo nobody in an interceptor, or a major alliance, ANYONE can show up for a fight when that timer expires. It doesn't have to be that guy in the solo interceptor. Anyone can. Nobody does. That's your problem. Listen carefully: Nobody cares. Valid point and good words. Still, I'd prefer the healthy mechanics already in place when (sure it's when, not if) sov itself becomes desirable. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 12:48:03 -
[310] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:davet517 wrote:Since you created the mechanics, you should understand that when someone sets a timer, whether that's a solo nobody in an interceptor, or a major alliance, ANYONE can show up for a fight when that timer expires. It doesn't have to be that guy in the solo interceptor. Anyone can. Nobody does. That's your problem. Listen carefully: Nobody cares. Valid point and good words. Still, I'd prefer the healthy mechanics already in place when (sure it's when, not if) sov itself becomes desirable. Unless CCP make some very drastic changes "if" sov becomes desirable, is far more appropriate.
Sov is worthless because it has nothing to offer you can't get without owning sov.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
|
Leah Agenon
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 01:18:07 -
[311] - Quote
On the topic of Jump fatigue, why not build on the modes that have been implemented for Destroyers and apply it to capitals.
Eliminate fatigues as it exists today, but implement a travel and operation mode. In travel mode the capital has not defenses or weapons capability, In operation mode it is fully functional but no travel capability. Mode switching would be allowed only in station / citadel.
For a JF which has a single one role the only option would be travel. For the rorqual, which has additional roles capability, you could set a travel, operation, and industrial mode. Meaning penalty to weapons if fitted but not industrial operations.
However, when switching from travel mode to operation mode then you implement the fatigue time before the operation mode becomes active.
So let stay I make two consecutive full jumps I would have something like 8 or 10 hours of fatigue. Upon arrival at my destination I decide to go into operation mode it will take the same 8 to 10 hours before that mode become active and my weapons / defense are working.
If I leave my capital in station in travel mode for a week, then when I decide to switch back to operation mode, then the operation mode still takes these 8 to 10 hours to become fully operational. That way people don't circumvent the penalty.
By enabling such scenario you maintain control over power projection, but you do not penalize the pilot potential activity by having to wait hours on travel routes.
Cheers, |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2015.09.27 05:51:21 -
[312] - Quote
Anything introduced into EVE by CCP that detracts from a players personal or group content generation ability or extends the required play time with periods of 'Dead Waiting' at this time in the games current critical state is a really bad idea and will not end well, reducing it is not the answer.
The fatigue mechanics have caused serious issues for players over the past months and while the idea behind it might have appeared appealing to some, Overall coupled with past iteration negatives, (Features), going back a long way in EVE this issue has proven to be one step to far for many players.
Good to see Drakes getting some TLC at last though...Maybe whats left of my lot still playing the game will stop moaning about them now.
Own nothing, Build nothing, Plan nothing, Just blow it all up, you know it makes perfect sense, Fozzie says so.
|
shaun 27
Entropy of Annihilation Circle-Of-Two
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.27 11:32:34 -
[313] - Quote
Not sure if someone has already said this as i haven't seen a response from a dev, but will all existing fatigue timers be completely reset with the changes or will people with maxed timers go into the new 5 day fatigue 12 hour cooloff period cycle. Be nice if you could do a complete reset but heh were see.
Many thanks.
shaun 27 |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
557
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 05:59:52 -
[314] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Anything introduced into EVE by CCP that detracts from a players personal or group content generation ability or extends the required play time with periods of 'Dead Waiting' at this time in the games current critical state is a really bad idea and will not end well, reducing it is not the answer.
The fatigue mechanics have caused serious issues for players over the past months and while the idea behind it might have appeared appealing to some, Overall coupled with past iteration negatives, (Features), going back a long way in EVE this issue has proven to be one step to far for many players.
Good to see Drakes getting some TLC at last though...Maybe whats left of my lot still playing the game will stop moaning about them now.
Fatigue mechanics have not caused any serious issues for players. It may have caused issues to you, because you are terrible at this game, but you cant extend statements like that to "players". |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 07:44:17 -
[315] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:marly cortez wrote:Anything introduced into EVE by CCP that detracts from a players personal or group content generation ability or extends the required play time with periods of 'Dead Waiting' at this time in the games current critical state is a really bad idea and will not end well, reducing it is not the answer.
The fatigue mechanics have caused serious issues for players over the past months and while the idea behind it might have appeared appealing to some, Overall coupled with past iteration negatives, (Features), going back a long way in EVE this issue has proven to be one step to far for many players.
Good to see Drakes getting some TLC at last though...Maybe whats left of my lot still playing the game will stop moaning about them now. Fatigue mechanics have not caused any serious issues for players. It may have caused issues to you, because you are terrible at this game, but you cant extend statements like that to "players". Actually fatigue mechanics have caused lots of issues for many players. The only players affected by fatigue are those who, fly capitals, participate in blops or want to use jump bridges.
Fatigue and jump range nerfs have had a major affect on just about everyone who does more than run around in worm space or never leave empire. Maybe CCP should balance fatigue by introducing it to worm holes - You move through a portal in space, you incur fatigue. After all, jumping through a hole in space where you have no idea where you will land would be far more likely to cause pilot fatigue than jumping through a player generated portal with a fixed destination.
CCP adjusting fatigue mechanics, would to anyone open minded, be an indication they see it as a problem.
Fatigue should be on ships not players - A pilot getting tired because his ship used a jump portal - Just does not make sense.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
557
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 11:27:12 -
[316] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:marly cortez wrote:Anything introduced into EVE by CCP that detracts from a players personal or group content generation ability or extends the required play time with periods of 'Dead Waiting' at this time in the games current critical state is a really bad idea and will not end well, reducing it is not the answer.
The fatigue mechanics have caused serious issues for players over the past months and while the idea behind it might have appeared appealing to some, Overall coupled with past iteration negatives, (Features), going back a long way in EVE this issue has proven to be one step to far for many players.
Good to see Drakes getting some TLC at last though...Maybe whats left of my lot still playing the game will stop moaning about them now. Fatigue mechanics have not caused any serious issues for players. It may have caused issues to you, because you are terrible at this game, but you cant extend statements like that to "players". Actually fatigue mechanics have caused lots of issues for many players. The only players affected by fatigue are those who, fly capitals, participate in blops or want to use jump bridges. Fatigue and jump range nerfs have had a major affect on just about everyone who does more than run around in worm space or never leave empire. Maybe CCP should balance fatigue by introducing it to worm holes - You move through a portal in space, you incur fatigue. After all, jumping through a hole in space where you have no idea where you will land would be far more likely to cause pilot fatigue than jumping through a player generated portal with a fixed destination. CCP adjusting fatigue mechanics, would to anyone open minded, be an indication they see it as a problem. Fatigue should be on ships not players - A pilot getting tired because his ship used a jump portal - Just does not make sense.
I used jump bridges daily when we still were in TRI, did and still do blops and used one of my caps last night. Jump fatigue has not affected my game experience negatively one bit. Capping the fatigue at 5 days is irrelevant to me, never had more than one day.
Fatigue and activation timers fixed the imbalance of biggest ships being the fastest ones. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 13:09:13 -
[317] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:marly cortez wrote:Anything introduced into EVE by CCP that detracts from a players personal or group content generation ability or extends the required play time with periods of 'Dead Waiting' at this time in the games current critical state is a really bad idea and will not end well, reducing it is not the answer.
The fatigue mechanics have caused serious issues for players over the past months and while the idea behind it might have appeared appealing to some, Overall coupled with past iteration negatives, (Features), going back a long way in EVE this issue has proven to be one step to far for many players.
Good to see Drakes getting some TLC at last though...Maybe whats left of my lot still playing the game will stop moaning about them now. Fatigue mechanics have not caused any serious issues for players. It may have caused issues to you, because you are terrible at this game, but you cant extend statements like that to "players". Actually fatigue mechanics have caused lots of issues for many players. The only players affected by fatigue are those who, fly capitals, participate in blops or want to use jump bridges. Fatigue and jump range nerfs have had a major affect on just about everyone who does more than run around in worm space or never leave empire. Maybe CCP should balance fatigue by introducing it to worm holes - You move through a portal in space, you incur fatigue. After all, jumping through a hole in space where you have no idea where you will land would be far more likely to cause pilot fatigue than jumping through a player generated portal with a fixed destination. CCP adjusting fatigue mechanics, would to anyone open minded, be an indication they see it as a problem. Fatigue should be on ships not players - A pilot getting tired because his ship used a jump portal - Just does not make sense. I used jump bridges daily when we still were in TRI, did and still do blops and used one of my caps last night. Jump fatigue has not affected my game experience negatively one bit. Capping the fatigue at 5 days is irrelevant to me, never had more than one day. Fatigue and activation timers fixed the imbalance of biggest ships being the fastest ones. It did.. It also allows supers and titans to be used by certain groups with near impunity in areas where there is nothing to counter them. Pluses and minuses all round. For those in the line of fire of un-contestable supers, more minuses.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 20:31:35 -
[318] - Quote
For those of us looking at more than the individuals aspect of the Jump fatigue mechanics it was not in reference to any one particular ship flown but to the overall effect it actually had on players, This gave rise to some questions being asked as to why they found them a problem in relation in there day to day EVE activities, the results were revealing as it had ramifications far beyond those intended by CCP, that of restrictions in Power projection, That is unless it was there actual intention.
That the mechanics make no distinction between a Titan down to a Pod in relation to the fatigue acquired is the main issue here and I would suggest that anything below the size of BS and variants be exempt above that will remove the current block on player movement in fleets, so removing the perceived reason for loss of player generated content while not actually changing the overall effect of heavy weight power projection reduction the mechanic imparts to the game.
As for it as a feature generating asymmetrical warfare it should be noted that in such a scenario, it is always the winners that win.....The losers always loose, as a concept it will not have the desired effect on EVE even coupled with FozzieSov, Citadels and a Homogeneous Universe, All of which work against the long term future health of the game.
Own nothing, Build nothing, Plan nothing, Just blow it all up, you know it makes perfect sense, Fozzie says so.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |