Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ogla Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:17:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Ogla Khan on 29/12/2008 00:17:11 I support this!
|
Ym'ir
Fate of Norns
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:18:00 -
[92]
I support this
|
dookes
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:18:00 -
[93]
Signed. o7
|
Vampirasu
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:18:00 -
[94]
I support this! Great idea!
|
Taedron
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:18:00 -
[95]
supporting this
|
Marissja
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:19:00 -
[96]
i fully support this
|
Geltan sakimuir
Shiva
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:19:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Geltan sakimuir on 29/12/2008 00:19:49 support this , great ideas
|
Lady'In'Red
Fortunes of The Sebiestor Republic
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:19:00 -
[98]
supporting this
|
PCP Houk
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:19:00 -
[99]
I, too, support this.
|
Alitar Semiramis
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:20:00 -
[100]
I support this, it's great to see the CSM coming with these ideas.
|
|
Han Shuu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:20:00 -
[101]
This gets my support
|
Sala Cameron
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[102]
I support this.
|
Dealer Dan
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[103]
I've tried to make money in 0.0, I've done everything from ratting with fighters assigned to mining high-end ores with a maxed out hulk or moon mining. When you figure in the logistics, the skillpoints, the capital investment and the inherent risk of any 0.0 activity, none of it can compare to the money that one can make in highsec. There is no reason to live in 0.0 unless you enjoy the pvp, which is more often decided by lag or timezones than skill or organization. There need to be more incentives for people to move into 0.0, and more limitations to growth of alliances to make room for new organizations.
|
Nippy Jap
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[104]
i like it, gets my vote :P
|
Malkai
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[105]
supporting this
|
An Anarchyyt
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[106]
Yay
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Itzena
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:21:00 -
[107]
\/
|
Rahab
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:22:00 -
[108]
nice idea
|
Drave McClay
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:26:00 -
[109]
Yes.
|
Unimportant Target
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:26:00 -
[110]
The current reliance on capital ships to effect sov mechanics leaves many new players feeling helpless. I'm not just talking about the dreads needed to siege properly configured POSes, but the carriers and jump freighters needed to keep sov holding towers fueled and defended. With all the effort CCP is going through to attract new players, there should be more things to keep them interested once they've downloaded the trial. Small, meaningful pvp objectives for subcapital pilots would go a long way towards keeping new players happy.
|
|
Erinyen Guerilla
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:26:00 -
[111]
/signed
4 letters: d o i t !!!
|
GenericAchuraFemale26527
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:28:00 -
[112]
0.0 is boring and tedious, please try and fix that. Thanks.
|
Captain Blackbeard
Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:29:00 -
[113]
|
Ex2 Wombat
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:30:00 -
[114]
The idea of being able to upgrade 0.0 stations with agents is a good one, and should be relatively easy to organize.
|
Scarnhorst
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:31:00 -
[115]
Supporting this
|
Utari G'Denoik
Gallente Rogue Knights of Eve
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:33:00 -
[116]
Faction warfare bunkers should be employed in 0.0 for sovereignty. The 0.0 bunker might be something akin to a stripped down station, no where near the size, yet larger than a POS. This docking solution should support modules such as hangar, maintenance and repair ... and that's it. This type of setup should require Anchoring 5 and Starbase Defense 5 with a long anchoring delay.
As a sovereign military installation, it would also be cool to see a series of bunkers communicate with each other so you could see the number of people in those system ... maybe not 'who' but some type of available intel from anchored (and unprotected) radio beacons or something like we see in the missions.
Maybe it's just a case of bringing more of the mission functionality the story lines have for NPCs to the actual game in 0.0. |
Chin LoPan
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:39:00 -
[117]
Agree that 0.0 needs some love, and like the ideas about being able to upgrade your sov space by better rats and minerals. However, I urge caution on some of the ideas about allowing small "roaming HAC" gangs to be able to relatively easily destroy static infrastructure. The ability of light hitters to be able to easily damage infrastucture structures is unrealistic and outside the role of these ships...their job is to disrupt infrasture by attacking ships, namely miners and ratters. The Doolittle Raid on Imperial Japan in WWII, as a similar "hit and run", was insignificant in terms of its effect on the infrastructure it targeted. Second, there comes the risk that this creates a whole new headache, trying to defend static structures that are easily popped by any 10-man HAC gang in 5 minutes. There is a whole new risk/reward issue here. Third, this sort of takes away a role for Battleships. They can't hit fast movers for defense, and now they wouldn't be needed to attack infrastructure...so what would they be good for??
I guess what I am getting at is, why is it so bad that "small groups" are not able to do much against a stronger numerically superior foe that is entrenched with sovereignity? Yeah, changing mechanics to minimize the need for monster capital and sub-capital blobs is a good thing, and should be pursued. But don't throw out the baby with the bath-water and make holding 0.0 space more of a headache than it is worth by swinging the pendulum so far over that non-sov-holding "roaming" corp/alliances get all the fun and the defenders are left guarding easily popped static structures. |
boeses frettchen
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:41:00 -
[118]
supporting that
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:42:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Utari G'Denoik Faction warfare bunkers should be employed in 0.0 for sovereignty. The 0.0 bunker might be something akin to a stripped down station, no where near the size, yet larger than a POS. This docking solution should support modules such as hangar, maintenance and repair ... and that's it. This type of setup should require Anchoring 5 and Starbase Defense 5 with a long anchoring delay.
As a sovereign military installation, it would also be cool to see a series of bunkers communicate with each other so you could see the number of people in those system ... maybe not 'who' but some type of available intel from anchored (and unprotected) radio beacons or something like we see in the missions.
Maybe it's just a case of bringing more of the mission functionality the story lines have for NPCs to the actual game in 0.0.
I have never and will never ever ever support turning 0.0 into faction warfare. The people who want to engage in faction warfare can do so by...
ENGAGING IN FACTION WARFARE
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
sinsation
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 00:45:00 -
[120]
hai, a step in the right direction, I guess
P.S. Static Plex, bring em back, give people something to fight for.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |