|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1107
   |
Posted - 2016.03.23 14:09:45 -
[1] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game.
There is a downside to IHUB flipping mech the way I see it - it doesn't incentivise people to blow the thing up except in situation when people who invade a system aren't looking forward to settling there. I'm not sure if hardware not going boom more often is within EVE philosophy and/or economical model.
On a side note, when CCP declared sov changes, I was actually expecting this kind of thing instead of what we have ended up with.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1111
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 11:51:15 -
[2] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:literally worse than reddit
Glad you've finally figured that.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1111
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 12:18:14 -
[3] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cry moar Lucas.
It's what you do best. Boorish, but expected.
Dishonest and boorish. Hallmarks of your posts.
To be honest, he is not exactly wrong. Things that are tied to entosis currently do little beyond paining the map. Fights happen over assets that are more valuable in terms of practical usefulness. This could not be said about old pre-entosis sov structures, by the way.
Although when it comes to reasons behind current events in the North, I'd give more credit to jump changes. It gives people more reason to get involved with static warzone, prevents staggering response to every attack from defender's main forces and makes fighting without everyone cooperating to fight as a single fleet every time more viable.
But I may be underestimating other reasons.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1116
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 10:05:12 -
[4] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If they want proper occupancy sov they should just scrap entosis, scrap the structures and make it pure occupancy based, then the only way to take as well as hold a system is to actually live in it rather than this timer based crap.
Actually, structures are fine. One have to shoot them and tank them if they want to do something about it.
Complete sov removal as a means to actually achieve occupancy sov? I'm pretty sure people are finally started to see the sandboxey light.
Xeno Szenn wrote:I think the Russians are over extended as well but that is beside the point.
Russians would fold as fast as Imperial fringe should they experience same pressure that people are putting on Imperium. But somehow their strategy works fine for them so far. Guess being mostly neutral, not trying to maintain high profile in EVE-related media while going out of their way to create an image of extremely obnoxious space dictators who own New Eden (and you too!) kinda helps with that. General playerbase being physically incapable to sh*tpost on public forums makes it more convenient to maintain such a policy in practice.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1116
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 10:06:03 -
[5] - Quote
Doublepost.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1117
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 13:08:17 -
[6] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Dark Lord Trump wrote:Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. This has been said and debunked multiple times. Please go back and reread the thread and let me know once done. Ta.
To be honest, so far the only thing that was established is that you are uncomfortable defending your space. Current levels of offensive action aside (anyone would be in trouble in such situation), I don't think that your ability to keep space under your flag in the long run means that your are not overextending. I was under impression that doing so comfortably would be a sign of "proper" size. Which of course is inversely proportional to amount of people you pissed off enough that they drop anything fun they were doing and go camp/sovlaser your systems instead.
I give you that this means not making determined enemies is a better solution than any current sov mechanics, but then again, this comes down to what to use as a baseline for what sov holder should get.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1117
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 13:19:39 -
[7] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's a simple case of numbers, when you have over a thousand enemies drop into your space and you have a 150 man fleet to defend, it's not overextension if you lose space. If we were overextended we wouldn't be able to defend against even a balanced attack, which clearly we were able to do. It's pretty simple to understand, if you have 1000 people in a single system and a 2000 man fleet flies in and roflstomps you, you didn't lose because you were overextended.
I specifically said "Current levels of offensive action aside". I fully understand that under current circumstances sov will be lost no matter the mechanics behind it.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
|
| |
|