Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1685
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:46:10 -
[391] - Quote
Mikhem wrote:Structure capture mechanism is planned to be returned to old way which means capital ships taking away hit points. I propose hybrid model (old and new) for structure capture.
1. First you need to destroy structure shields and structure goes to reinforcement. Then you need to destroy armor + reinforcement and then structure to zero.
2. Then structure gets full hit points and structure is in freeport mode and command nodes are activated. Who wins this command node warfare gets structure control. Shooting structure with capital ships when it is in freeport mode is useless.
Comments are welcome for my idea.
Structures have to be destroyed to drive the market in producing them, otherwise gradually construction will die as the number of structures reaches a saturation point. Capture mechanics serve no purpose except in sov warfare to define area control, and even then it should only be on an area and not on physical assets. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1122
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:09:00 -
[392] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Part of the point is that currently people do not risk assets in a POS despite theoretical 'risk' to them. It seems to me that people do, see my previous post.
I wonder how many of those were owned by people who quit, it would be also interesting to see how many were as a result of hyperdunking?
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 03:39:42 -
[393] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:[quote=gascanu]
No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this.
I think you're missing your Dev tag |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 04:08:07 -
[394] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents.
Wow, you really believe that??? I've lived in Null for the better part of a year and it is much safer and considerably more lucrative than it was in highsec. Maybe you should leave your CODE fleets and go experience more of the game, you seem that have a warped view of it. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1685
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 08:48:10 -
[395] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents.
Wow, you really believe that??? I've lived in Null for the better part of a year and it is much safer and considerably more lucrative than it was in highsec. Maybe you should leave your CODE fleets and go experience more of the game, you seem that have a warped view of it.
It's one thing that does confuse me when people go to hisec where people stay to try to avoid combat and then complain that the players there are risk averse...
It all depends on what you mean by risk averse anyway. Many people will risk billions of isk in manufacture etc which is at the mercy of the markets but will avoid PvP combat by any and every means they can. Risk is still risk however whether it is on the market, sat in a barge, running through null for relics or simply shooting someone. |
Nathan19601 Deninard
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 16:00:45 -
[396] - Quote
In a previous patch, skynet was removed to ensure that players were risking their capitals if they wanted to use their fighters/bombers. I am wondering, since the citadels will eventually be replacing the POSes, if assigning fighters could be considered again. Now that there will be no shield to hide behind, I see no reason to hold back on a key feature to differentiate fighters/bombers from the drones. Even though assigning may not be used as often as it was, it would be nice having the option to do it.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:10:32 -
[397] - Quote
I had some fun in the other thread because I was looking to link in the war dec system to having a structure in space, to have a reason to fight, but talking over there is a waste of time.
Earlier I said that my alliance coalition could not take one down, I realised I was wrong, we could and fairly easily too.
Looking at the numbers, 75 to 225 BS to reach damage mitigation, its more like 50 to 225, the repair of the structure does not kick in until there is no damage incoming for 15 minutes, we know that people will play the adjust timer trick to adjust TZ's, because if its being shot it is still vulnerable, so as long as its being shot it will continue to bleed EHP.
Take a Talos 1200 DPS, I could reinforce an XL Citadel shield 108,000,000 on my own in 25 hours, with my corp at full strength it would take 3 hours, with my alliance 2 hours, with my Coalition it would take 1 hour. I really cannot see what the problem is, are people seriously telling me that people cannot do this, 25 people taking one hour to reinforce that shield with 20% resists it would take 1 hour and 15 minutes. That is a normal player session in Eve.
One of the things we do not know is the weapons system and that is an important missing piece, but this only applies if someone is manning it, so the trick would be to keep it from repairing itself while the player is on-line by using small fast cheap ships then switch to all out damage when RL reared its ugly head for the defender. But even then a proper logi fleet set up could defeat this too.
And I see people moaning about this, its just crazy, no one in their right mind will put one of these up unless they are able to drive an attacker away for 15 minutes in hisec to get it to repair itself.
My Coalition in Stain could take one of these down in hisec without too much effort if its put up by a one man corp.
I have shot SBU's for hours, I have shot IHUB's for hours, it seems that the hisec mercs and ganker/griefiers are such weak willed souls, they cannot even take down large POS's, not because they lack the numbers or ships, but because they do not have the will to do it.
CCP if you seriously adjust the design of XL Citadels to take account of such pathetic willpower than I really have to question your commitment to Eve is hard and have to stand up to your face and scream at you, its only hard if you are a carebear.
Seriously what a load of weak willed quick fix moaning minnies these hisec ganker griefers are.
I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1674
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:16:28 -
[398] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec... They do have defenses you realize. Bringing a fleet of gank Taloses is likely to end.... badly if the defenders show up.
The original design called for a single attacker with an entosis link fit to be the minimum to "take down" a XL citadel. Version 2 is slightly stronger, but still will require you to show up to actively defend. Perhaps you should wait until the full defense are described by the dev team until you declare these structures too feeble to defend and dead in the water. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:33:59 -
[399] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec... They do have defenses you realize. Bringing a fleet of gank Taloses is likely to end.... badly if the defenders show up. The original design called for a single attacker with an entosis link fit to be the minimum to "take down" a XL citadel. Version 2 is slightly stronger, but still will require you to show up to actively defend. Perhaps you should wait until the full defense are described by the dev team until you declare these structures too feeble to defend and dead in the water.
What a one man corp, don't forget that I would bring in logi too, I have been in a fleet of 25 fleet Talos with 5 logi that reinforced a heavily gunned and manned Large POS in null sec and lost two ships which did not call for reps in time. We did not kill it as they brought allies, but that was null sec. Could the defences be worse than that, perhaps but even then that's not terrible, I could switch to Megathrons and that would still do it easily.
The entosis link idea was a none starter, you should discard it, I had already said to myself that I would never put up a structure with the entosis link it was a no brainer to me, its ok for sov space because its an object to apply system affects or an object in space to flag ownership which is not manned, a Citadel is different. its manned and lived in, so an entosis link working on a manned object seems stupid in terms of lore.
The XL Citadel is too feeble and is not something that a small alliance could realistically put up in hisec, Marmite could take one down in my opinion.
Yes I am waiting, but if it has the same ability as a large POS it won't change the equation much that is for certain.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1676
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:44:56 -
[400] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: The XL Citadel is too feeble and is not something that a small alliance could realistically put up in hisec, Marmite could take one down in my opinion.
Yes I am waiting, but if it has the same ability as a large POS it won't change the equation much that is for certain.
The devblog said it will take 30 minutes to reinforce across the board which is much faster than the current large POSes with subcaps, and much slower than with capitals and/or supers. But it will feature fearsome weapons and defenses, which on the XL I am sure will trump the near useless weapons featured on the current large POSes. Assaulting a defended XL will require a significant force I am sure, while assaulting an undefended one will be much easier.
The whole design is such that 10-15 people can take an undefended one in 30 (x3) minutes (using cruisers for a M, battleships for a L, and dreads for a XL). The unknown is how difficult it will be to take down a defended citadel. I predict it will be quite difficult to do so - that is require 5-10 times the number of defenders.
But we will have to wait and see how CCP balances them. |
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:15:16 -
[401] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick.
Wow,when did wh people become such bears? We used to be HC man. Only space where you can really END your opponent..... |
Don Aubaris
136
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 17:13:15 -
[402] - Quote
It's not bad that POS'ses are reviewed, simplified etc..., and the proposals don't look too bad. However I wonder when will they start to understand that people in high sec are not interested in High Sec Citadels that can be attacked. Even if it's only for 3 hours.
I mean really... High Sec War is tedious and pointless. There is nothing to fight over. Nor should there be. In the worst case you just go and play another game while it lasts. The only ones who enjoy it are a few bullies who like to attack people who don't want to fight. Piracy should be be where the violence in high sec ends.
There are builders and destroyers in this game, and any possible combination in between. HighSec should be the area of the peaceful builders. Setting up a personal POS/Citadel should be any builders dream. Instead of doing research/manufacturing in stations, you should only get 1-2 slots in stations. You want more : get your own citadel. With the restriction that you can't build capital stuff for example. For that you need to move to more dangerous space.
Make Concord protect those high-sec citadels. Give the owners the possibility to invest in some automatic weapons to protect their (un)docking clients against pirates. Make those citadels the specialized research/invention/Manufacturing hubs instead of the stations.
That would be a lot more logical high sec.
PS1. the compensation for current POS material and what to do with the existing fuel seems , as usual, an afterthought for the DEVS. Some more attention to it would be welcome.
PS2. The naming is horrible to my taste...small/medium/large/extra-large : mini/small/ medium/ large would have been better considering your small is not behaving like medium. A difference in logical naming wouldn't hurt then. |
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 05:11:25 -
[403] - Quote
Hm...as one of those weird people in this world that likes playing healers in games, I'm disappointed that remote repair has NO interplay with this system - someone on page 1 suggested it shorten the timer or increase the damage input required from the attackers to keep the timer delayed. I actually liked seeing small corps of newbros field little repair fleets of cap chained T1 logi to bring shields/armor back up to save a structure, and RR parties bringing back up POSes or Outposts have been enjoyable experiences to me to shoot the breeze with Corp/Alliance/Coalition-mates in a sort of lower key group activity.
So I wish you guys could work RR mechanics in somehow.
However, that gripe aside, I like the direction this is going, so kudos for listening and at least doing something (granted, we're still not seeing the FULL picture since we haven't see what you guys are planning for Capitals yet, which might complete the mental image for us when we get around to that.) |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
378
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:51:21 -
[404] - Quote
looking good, i'm liking a lot of what i'm reading in this thread. well done CCP, more of this please. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
281
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:57:58 -
[405] - Quote
Any updates/thoughts on some of the feedback in the thread? e.g. the use of the Target Spectrum Breaker mechanic?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Sallyanne Pimbrook
Corwan Academy Kanen Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 14:40:19 -
[406] - Quote
Hi I have read the Dev Blogs about Citadels. Exciting times are ahead, I hope. I have three issues I would like to comment on. Your goal is to have lots of players use the Citadels as their "Home" . To attract players to make a Citadel their home there are a few things that should be concider:
1. Scan contents of Citadel..... I was very unhappy to see that you were planning to make the Citadels so that any person flying by could scan the contents of my Citadel. I would never want to put any thing of value into my Citadel. If I did then any person that scanned my Citadel would want to declare war and try to take it. Right now POS contents can not be scanned. I feel that should carry over to the new Citadels and other new big structures.
2.Loss of implants..... good grief this did not make me happy either. My implants cost more than my ship. Sometimes a person will have to dock and logout of Eve and real life gets in the way and they can't log back in for a week or so, vacations, family emergancies, work. These real life events are not always something one can plan ahead. If I logged out while in my Citadel and someone declared war and blasted my Citadel, then I would be returning to Eve to find that not only had real been rough but now, in my Eve life, my Citadel was gone and my implants were too.
3.Cost of Citadels..... In the "I feel safe..." Blog I noticed, in the Citadel example, the pretended amounts that you were tossing around like candy. 50 Billion isk, 80 Billion isk !!! Surely you are not planning on the M Citadel to cost any where near that amount. Citadels are to take the place of POS and Outposts. Outpost may cost billions of isk to put up but POS do not. Lots of people put up a small POS in high sec for lots of reasons. But the bottom line is that profits and convenience out weigh the cost. Now I can set up a small POS with a reprocessing array in a good high sec system and mine and refine my ore and make a nice profit and the inital cost is around 200 million. That is not too much and I am happy but if the cost of a M Citadel is 1 billion or more then I will just use the NPC stations and not bother with the Citadels. It would take me months of mining to even recoup the inital cost of the Citadel much less make a profit.
I am really looking forward to the new structures and hoping that they will be a profitable and interesting part of my Eve life.
Sallyanne Pimbrook
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2562
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 09:44:02 -
[407] - Quote
Sallyanne Pimbrook wrote: 1. Scan contents of Citadel.....
2.Loss of implants.....
3.Cost of Citadels....
*snips* Could you reference where you got 1. from, as I think you may have mixed up being able to scan the current fittings of the Citadel, I.E. what guns and services it is currently fitted with & being able to scan the entire cargo list.
2. Well yes, many people have yelled at CCP about that and that logging off in space should not be a better option than logging off in a Citadel, and 'hopefully' they will listen though it seems to only be because of Wormholes that they have any chance of listening.
3. Well yes, M Citadels should be vastly cheaper. |
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 21:30:03 -
[408] - Quote
I'd like to see M class citadels at 200 to 400mil NOT more at all |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1708
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 08:15:16 -
[409] - Quote
Citadels themselves won't be so expensive as such, it'll be the rigs on them that give bonuses to the services that will cost large sums.
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
322
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 20:36:05 -
[410] - Quote
Are there any plans to create window for structures that show all services structure contains? Below is list of all important information. 1. Who can dock structure? 2. Structure docking payment? 3. What services are available in structure. 4. Who can access services? 5. What is payment for these services?
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
|
Titus Madullier
Shades of Chaos Gatekeepers Universe
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:00:22 -
[411] - Quote
I have a question about the tethering on the undock
Since you are going to replace pos in the future with these, can you stay tethered and give out mining or pvp boosts?\
Will you getan weapon timer for that and go untethered? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
459
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 07:09:11 -
[412] - Quote
The released prices are around 600M for meds, 7B for large and 70B for XL. Then you need to fit it. Mods go all the way up in price as well.
But this is the price i expected. I just want them to shoot back even if i am on holiday. Eve is still a game.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Servjen
Giant Industrials
53
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:59:56 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Leatien Cesaille wrote:While I do like the idea of shooting things instead of shining pretty lights at it (that's why I prefer hybrid weapons over lasers), something bothers me about this system as presented in the blog. Probably somebody has pointed it out already, but reiteration is always good on the Interwebs, isn't it?
So from what I gather the structure enters the vulnerable timer at a predetermined time but the repair timer starts the moment it gets shot at and will repair the structure to full after the timer runs out. Even if it has been damaged in the previous vulnerability phase.
There are two problems I see with it.
First, there is no real reason to have this vulnerable state going on longer than the repair cycle since all the defender has to do is shoot his own structure once at the beginning (with an out of alliance char if necessary) to start the repair timer and the structure will be as good as new after that relatively short time. An attacker planning to attack near the middle or end of the vulnerable timer will have to start anew. To be fair the current entosis mechanic has a similar consequence that not being on field the moment the vulnerability starts puts you at a potentially huge disadvantage but it still takes time and effort to capture nodes distributed over several systems. It's far more difficult to block an attacker from several systems than from just the system the station is in. Shooting your own structure to help repair it faster seems counter-intuitive to me... There are two ways to address this: If you want to have both attacker and defender to be present on the field the moment the new vulnerability starts just start the damn thing in the repair phase right away. If you do want a bit of flexibility for the attacker to properly deploy at any time or break through a gatecamp during the vulnerability window apply the repair to previously shot down HP pools at the end of the vulnerability window regardless if a repair timer has run it's course or not and allow multiple repair cycles to occur during a single vulnerability period that only deal with damage to the current pool.
Second, I don't think it's right that everything is repaired. What a repair cycle should do is either repair the damage done to the current vulnerable pool or the one before it - and only that one. So let's say the structure is in structure vulnerable mode, survives a vulnerability period uncontested it doesn't get it's shield and armour repped to full but just the armour. It will need a second vulnerability window to get repped to full. To be fair to prevent delaying tactics by a single player (or small force) that has no real hope to actually apply enough dps to be a threat I would like to see some sort of threshold. For example, as the damage to the current pool doesn't exceed - say - 25% the next pool gets repped too after the repair cycle. Or you could just go with repping the current and previous pool although than this is only really relevant if the structure is already in structure. The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster". The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself
So after the 24h anchoring invulnerability timer the repair timer automatically start without any outside influence, yours or 3th party?
This is where I put my signature, right?
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
291
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 16:53:54 -
[414] - Quote
So any update? thoughts on the feedback here e.g. use of target spectrum breaker mechanics as a 'natural' damage cap?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
44
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 23:57:18 -
[415] - Quote
If we stand back and consider these changes from a very broad perspective, we can make certain predictions based on the economic cost of both offensive and defensive actions.
All war is an economic contest. If one side can cause more economic loss than they suffer when mounting offensive actions, offensive actions will prevail. Alternatively, if a defensive posture can inflict more economic cost on the offensive side than it suffers before being overwhelmed, a committed and robust defence will break an offensive enemy.
It is fairly simple logic to reason that an equilibrium can only exist where defensive postures are sustainable. If offensive strategies yield dividends, they shall be favoured and shall prevail as the dominant strategy. The strong will eclipse the weak, and a state of constant war shall persist until one single offensive alliance has destroyed every weaker party.
The logic here is that offensive beats defensive, and the bigger force has the option to go on the offence, while the weaker is forced to adopt defensive strategy.
Why does the larger force have the initiative to adopt an offensive posture?
Well, each side must balance the enemy forces, or leave themselves obviously exposed to localized defeat. Only the larger side in a stand off has a remainder of forces with which to plan offensive actions. The weaker force will always commit 100% of its forces to a balanced defence, or it must otherwise leave some areas of its line completely exposed with no counter to the enemy. And so the enemy takes the complete initiative on that front, achieving easy wins due to an absence of local opposition.
Students of history may note that static equilibriums between tribes, nations and states have only ever occurred when technological advantages have been spread more or less equally across the world, and where the defensive strategy thus prevailed. Where technology has allowed an offensive strategy to prevail, the stronger side has spread with great speed and across huge distances.
Turning back to Eve, we can predict, with reasonable conviction, that if the Citadel cannot destroy a great ISK value of ships in the vulnerability window than it costs to establish and lose against a committed offensive action, then Citadels will be an obvious waste of time and a certain losing proposition for all players.
If, by contrast, a manned citadel can easily destroy a greater ISK value of attacking ships than it costs to replace after being overwhelmed, then a defensive strategy can use the economics of attrition to defeat a stronger adversary who wishes to use size and strength to prevail with an offensive strategy. The defensive side will lose structures, but over time they can bleed the aggressor dry and prevail through economic might.
At first glance, it seems the greatest difficulty shall be the operation of logistics in the offensive fleet. If the offensive fleet can stop expensive assault ships being destroyed, at all, or even delay their destruction significantly, then the person manning the citadel is never going to inflict a sufficient economic cost of the offensive fleet that can make a defensive war posture effective over time.
It is false logic to imagine that "support fleets" can affect this balance, simply because we must assume that support fleets will suffer ISK losses in direct proportion to the enemy losses they inflict. This is unless they can target and fire from a position of invulnerability, or given some other clear, significant battlefield advantage for the defending forces.
I will wait for the early data to emerge, but at first glance I fear the changes fall well short of allowing a committed defence to inflict the kind of economic harm to a committed offensive fleet that would permit the rational adoption of a defensive posture by a serious party to war.
Unless an assault on a citadel with a competent defence force means serious cost for ANY attcking force, in blood and isk, citadel owners shall become goon fodder and that truth will erode player confidence in the strategic worth of structures. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6879
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 20:42:26 -
[416] - Quote
Pestilen Ratte wrote:Unless an assault on a citadel piloted a competent defensive player means serious (greater than cost of the citadel once destroyed) cost for ANY attacking force, in blood and isk, citadel owners shall become goon fodder and that truth will erode player confidence in the strategic worth of structures. Objective spotted in your citadel of words.
In other words, your isk on field
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!!
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1463
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 14:41:38 -
[417] - Quote
Automated defenses may not fend off a properly sized attacking fleet, but pos's do get some great comedy kills. Plus, if you're going to kill someone on a pos solo or with a small group, you need to at least somewhat know what you're doing. Those defenses make them dangerous to be around if you're not welcome there, and that shouldn't be removed.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
aldhura
Bartledannians Nite Owls
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:39:02 -
[418] - Quote
This makes sense
"We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold."
and to make it even tastier for the attacker we will...
"We are aware that the long process of sieging a Citadel (up to one week) is considerably longer that whatGÇÖs currently in place in Wormhole space. We do know that controlling traffic in Wormhole space to be a taxing activity, which is why we are considering having further variations in place there so that the total siege doesnGÇÖt exceed 48 hours there."
If you want the wh, it should be taxing.. why make it easy, its not like support can be cyno'd in..
Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting
Nite Owls Alliance is recruiting
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |