Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
FistyMcBumBardier
New Caldari Bureau of Investigation
125
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 17:38:01 -
[91] - Quote
This is a good change, not just for Caldari combat pilots, but for everyone of New Eden. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2810
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 17:45:20 -
[92] - Quote
I'd leave it be.
Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while).
As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing.
Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with.
Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
101
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 17:46:44 -
[93] - Quote
DO IT!
Being able to gate camp with a citadel is beyond stupid. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 17:49:39 -
[94] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I'd leave it be.
Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while).
As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing.
Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with.
Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all.
Eh, you'll have a good five weeks or so for the dozen? More? fortizars your coalition built in nullsec for the express purpose of serving as Point Defense drags to farm killmails. I think you'll get your money's worth.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Absocold
Origin. White Legion.
12
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 18:26:39 -
[95] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:yes, please more rubberband fixes
bubble drag range isnt a problem, citadels on gate grids are.
This. |
Yuri Serafim
Catastrophic Overview Failure COF Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 18:55:05 -
[96] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:No, and i hate bubbles
Eve is sandbox - players in nullsec should be allowed to do as they like. Don't take or nerf tools we have.
Citadel camping is only possible if person warp directly between the gates. If they use bookmark, any celestial they will not fall into the citadel trap.
You stated few times, people can only have citadels, if they control some area of the space, if this is my space i should be allowed to do as i like.
If someone is afraid of bubbles - they can use nullified ships.
THIS GUY GETS IT
Also, this change would make it impossible to put catch bubbles outside the lock range of POSes to catch people warping from a very specific direction.
But really, it's not that hard - just bounce celestials. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
98
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 19:19:51 -
[97] - Quote
DO EET NAOW |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
320
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 19:40:54 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. Wait a minute. What is the problem again? If it's the lack of information on bubble mechanics - then yes, I can agree, more clarifications would help. If it's citadel camping - then no, I dont see it as a problem. Could you explain why it is? If anything, I'd say interceptor bubble immunity is much worse of a problem for this area of gameplay which is gate camping. |
Max Groote
Aliastra Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 19:51:34 -
[99] - Quote
This is a really reasonable change and it makes a lot of sense. The people saying "don't warp gate to gate" don't realise that a gate camp can actually be dealt with by a small group of players, while a citadel cannot. The "don't nerf tools we have" argument doesn't make much sense either, because we would still have the no-risk Intel source that was the watchlist by that logic. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 19:57:36 -
[100] - Quote
Querns wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:I'd leave it be.
Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while).
As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing.
Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with.
Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all.
Eh, you'll have a good five weeks or so for the dozen? More? fortizars your coalition built in nullsec for the express purpose of serving as Point Defense drags to farm killmails. I think you'll get your money's worth. Grr PL? I'd like to see a bit more compelling argument. So for the sake of it, could you explain exactly how is "citadel camping" detrimental and why? |
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:01:26 -
[101] - Quote
Max Groote wrote:This is a really reasonable change and it makes a lot of sense. The people saying "don't warp gate to gate" don't realise that a gate camp can actually be dealt with by a small group of players, while a citadel cannot. The "don't nerf tools we have" argument doesn't make much sense either, because we would still have the no-risk Intel source that was the watchlist by that logic. A competent gate camp would not let you through unless you're in travel-ceptor. While "citadel camp" is trivial to avoid.
Obil Que wrote:Are solo pvp'er incabable of creating tactical bookmarks, using non-direct gate to gate travel, or shooting the offending bubble outside the range of the PDS? I guess they are too leet for that bullcrap. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
293
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:20:47 -
[102] - Quote
I would agree to anchored bubbles, but leave a hic with unlimited range. something is actually at risk then |
Miss Everest
Elysium Accord
5
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:22:42 -
[103] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with this tactic as stated previously. Dont do it.
You will just lessen the game and help the carebears who dont know how to use simple tactics to avoid a IMMOVABLE object.
That and or they lost a blingy and are crying about it. Either way its sad.
But seriously, use a ceptor, cloak, bouce off another object, or use a tac like everyone else. It isnt hard! |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
293
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:23:41 -
[104] - Quote
Are we getting the updated GFX changes to anchored bubbles with this change? |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:24:29 -
[105] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like. Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss! |
Cade Windstalker
467
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:44:20 -
[106] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like. Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss! EDIT. I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels?
This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7.
Simply removing the ability for Citadels to camp Stargates with bubbles fixes the major issue with Citadel guns, and avoids all of these issues. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
259
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 20:58:06 -
[107] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss!
EDIT. I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels?
Why not just make it so that citadels can't be anchored on grid with gates? Fix citadels, not bubbles which have worked fine for years |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:04:40 -
[108] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels? This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7. Absolutely not. If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS). If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment. |
Melanoq
No Clams
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:13:09 -
[109] - Quote
I support this change wholeheartedly |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
259
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:39:57 -
[110] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates?
Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels.
Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate? |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1510
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:48:37 -
[111] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels. Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate?
Cloaky dictor?
/devilsadvocate |
Nadarob Skillane
Bridge not Jump Short Bus Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:48:54 -
[112] - Quote
Im sorry, but this idea is total bullshit. You had a feature in game. People adapted and used that feature, and now you are going to break it because some people whined like 12 year old girls about it.
Bubble wall citadels are probably the easiest type of camp to bypass. ONE ping negates the entire thing and the citadel cannot counter it, Also, there are relatively few systems in which this type of citadel actually works. The system has to be arranged in such a way that the citadel bubbles can catch every celestial at a single wall. Even in those systems where it DOES work, it generally only works on one of the gates.
Before people start bitching at me: Yes. I DO have a citadel set up like that. Yes, I AM the guy that set up the one that Asher bitched about in Reddit.
If you are in nullsec on a roam and you dont have a ceptor burning ahead of you to get pings when needed, then you are doing it totally wrong. A single ceptor burning a ping totally negates the effect of a Citadel bubble wall in about the 30 seconds it takes to make a ping.
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 21:56:46 -
[113] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels. Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate? Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested. |
Nadarob Skillane
Bridge not Jump Short Bus Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 22:02:38 -
[114] - Quote
Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested.[/quote]
So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ?
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 22:06:04 -
[115] - Quote
Like this:
Skia Aumer wrote:if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
261
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 22:51:25 -
[116] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested.
My point since post #1 in this thread has been to get citadels off gates. Don't respond to me with your own agenda when I never responded to you, mate.
Get citadels off gate grids. Gates are a great place for small gang fights, making a citadel on a gate vulnerable means exactly nothing to a small gang. What do you think, small gang roams have 7 day siege plans for citadels when roaming? |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
136
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 22:52:41 -
[117] - Quote
Nadarob Skillane wrote:Skia Aumer wrote: Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested.
So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ?
If nobody is there to man the guns the citadel poses no threat to you, it's just another drag bubble you should have avoided by burning yourself a ping or warping to a celestial in the first place while traveling through null.
But you tell me, why should you be able to make an unmanned, invulnerable citadel vulnerable? What would be the purpose of the invulnerability at all if you can force such a thing?
I see no problem with a citadel being used offensively outside of it's vulnerability timer becoming temporarily vulnerable. I'd honestly give it the same 1 minute weapons timer any player gets, the same one used to prevent tethering.
As far as the bubble changes go it's just simply a bad idea. And the idea of adding timers or allowing hostile entities to scoop someone else's bubbles are even worse. Literally ideas out of the mouths of those too lazy to realize they are in null and should know the proper ways to travel through hostile space does not include simply warping gate to gate.
And for you solo roamers. I have one thing to say to you. Get good. Travel the paths you wish to travel ahead of time in a ceptor if you must. It's always good to familiarize yourself with the lay of the land and set up pings where needed ahead of time. You'll find you'll catch more people off-guard if you appear in their system faster because you had previously set up a ping to bypass their drag bubbles. Or knew ahead of time to come in a nullified cyno ship to bypass their complete bubblefucking of a gate with friends on standby to jump in (that being outside of solo-roam category but you get what I'm saying I hope) .
Moral of that story is if you want your kills, do your due diligence and come prepared to hostile space! If you want to do off the cuff roams, don't complain when you get caught and killed by the locals and demand changes to support such a lazy playstyle.
EDIT- fixed the messed up quote I quoted. |
Cade Windstalker
468
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 23:11:12 -
[118] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Absolutely not. If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS). If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment.
I know they don't auto-aggress, if they did I would say this was just a flat terrible idea and you may as well remove the vulnerability timers entirely. Instead you're creating a situation where you have to strictly manage who can and can't gun your Citadels because they're now, effectively, giant gank bait that can't dock up.
I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.
Skia Aumer wrote:Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates?
I don't, I never said anything of the sort, I think they serve a very useful purpose on gates, but I'm not really sure being a one-man camp is particularly useful or beneficial to the game.
I'm all for them being support on Gates, and being able to assist in engagements on them if used properly, but the current one-man-gank-squad does seem to have gotten a bit out of hand. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
136
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 23:19:07 -
[119] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.
I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam *cough* |
Cade Windstalker
468
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 23:39:26 -
[120] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.
I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam *cough*
This sort of thing should make some amount of sense and encourage good gameplay though, this is just letting someone who doesn't know what they're doing screw their entire alliance with a role that, otherwise, had good reasons to be available to a large number of people, because the Citadel is worthless as a defense platform without it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |