Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:36:51 -
[3361] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here.
So what about alliances that are renting regions and regions, where every system is being rented, but effectively the alliance is still holding sov, albeit it in the sister rental alliance.
|
Saffear Stormrage
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Skeleton Crew.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:38:17 -
[3362] - Quote
looking at the wide variety of comments, suggestions and good ideas, I feel more than ever that a lot more discussion is required. Still I am not behind the 4 hour window of vulnerability - I am not for any size window. One of the biggest strengths in EVE online is the diversity of players. onces you box in the time frame you make a bunch of little sandboxes, while some can adapt, for the most it will cause further granulation of the sandboxes until you have neat little packaged entities that have little or No interaction with each other. If that is what you wish - go for it, I for one will not be apart of it, I am certain there are others besides myself that love the wide open sandbox - mostly unrestricted by Time or location. Please find a solution for this before you make changes, - Other notes - I love small gang as much as the next pilot however having Sov solely based on small gang warfare will result in the same boring stalemate Faction warfare is in. TCU's being a name on a map only - so then why? Just sayin Saf- |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:58:23 -
[3363] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Use it or lose it is the message here.
And the problem with that is that most of it's not worth living in. As in, so bad you might as well be grinding missions in Egglenaert instead.
Instead of being given to the ubiquitous little guy, that sov is going to be used as a DMZ between the areas actually worth having.
If you want to force people to live in their space to defend it, fine.
Just make it worth living in in the first place. Or is that too much to ask?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:05:28 -
[3364] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Your right, sadly. Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having. Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are. Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.
My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.
NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.
Small alliances are not going to go for sov worth having, at least initially, to do so is ignoring reality and those that try will fail. Taking poor sov systems however is fun and not expensive now and doable. So what if people come in and roll it over, the whole idea is to be able to compete and this allows people do so, even if it means that their efforts are in the end nothing more than grinding away and getting swatted, before this system you could not even do that. ..... EDIT: If people have not seen one theme on my posts about Sov, its to do it because I want to do it and I think I can have fun doing it, but my motive has nothing to do with ISK generation because I know it is not going to be worth it. CCP has to look at the value of low true sec systems. Yes I can make ISK out of them if I try but so much is loaded against you, I would for example run around in a PvP ship blapping belt rats just because I can, small ISK generation but why not while waiting to blap aGoon interceptor with a 20m or 80m module, but my past experience in this game is that people will just do everything they can to stop you operating there, so for me its plant your flag, have fun around the PVP generated from that.
This is exactly why the new sov system makes me want to invest time in taking SOV. Not because I think it will the glorious start of a new space empire, but because it will be fun to do so. When I was in alliance leadership of sov holding alliances it was a lot of work but also a lot of fun.
I don't care about shi**y metrics like isk/hour, if I did then I would probably run Sisters of Eve L4's out of Osmon like half the russians in EVE do(Russians seem to find the sweet spots so much better than EU/US players). Even -1.0 systems dont generate as good a ratio iskwise as those missions do. A lot of times you can get over 4000/lp ratio. But I hate running missions almost as much as I hate running anomalies.
Sov is fun because it poses some challenges to me and the players I fly with that which are not there when living in HS, LS or NPC Null. Also its a great way to have younger players get their legs kneedeep in pvp since pvp always comes to you. Not only in the form of sov attacks, but often also in the form of roaming gangs. I am guessing that roaming gangs will routinely have an entosis module on a ship to provoke a fight, but if they get the fight most of them wont use it. Maybe goons are different in this, and so be it.
The goon campaign in this thread is interesting to follow on many levels. First of they dont like the change and want to show a way for it to be used in griefing in order to change the mechanics before they are implemented on TQ. Secondly they tell everyone that they will do whatever it takes to ruin the game for those who dare to nibble at their vast areas of empty space. Third is that their players enjoy this and will have fun making others miserable. Its their isk/RL money which goes to pay for subscription and they have their right to play the game however they want.
Sov like this will enable me to have more nullsec fun without the f**cking structure shooting which POS Sov and Dominion SOV entailed. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:27:43 -
[3365] - Quote
I find the complaints about the 4h prime time window quite strange.
Since essentially we have it even now for sov structures, only the window is 6h wide, not 4, and can be set per structure, not per alliance, which makes defending vast unoccupied areas easier (what this update is aimed to get rid of).
But that is a technicality, since alliance is, well, a social construct. What's behind an alliance is a community, and an alliance is just a way to formalize the relationship. Not, strictly speaking, necessary. There are functioning examples of organized communities within EVE online not reliant on the organization opportunities provided by game mechanics (sans ingame chat channels and mailing lists). So splitting an alliance for shifting timer purposes does not take away from the community. Perhaps unfortunately, since big communities that try to alleviate internal conflicts (for some reason shooting blues is a crime, not a virtue) are pretty much the root of evil. |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:32:17 -
[3366] - Quote
I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... |
Silent Twilight
Red October.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:48:54 -
[3367] - Quote
To avoid swarming trollceptor attacks on SOV, but still give an option of a small agile capturing ship, perhaps there should be specialized cruiser and/or smaller hulls for Entosis Link, which would otherwise fit only only on larger classes. If this ship isn't good for 1 vs 1 combat, it would require some armed escort in inhabited and gatecamped hostile territory. And dedicated hull would also be a clear sign of a threat for SOV, preventing every single neut or red in a ceptor or Cynabal being perceived as a possible Entosis carrier. |
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:52:03 -
[3368] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... I've been asking people the same question... *tumbleweeds* Also, will it be a straight build, or invention/chance based? How numerous exactly are Drifters anyway? Queue supply/demand... |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:53:23 -
[3369] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... 1. It's not that given that drifters will drop BPCs. Can't have that much a limiter on such a core mechanic as SOV. Probably they will have NPC-sold BPOs and built mainly from PI products to control damage that will be caused to the PI market by removal of SBUs. 2. Drifters are notoriously easy to kill. It's true that you'll have to lose a single ship while killing a drifter (unless you drop caps on them), but you are free to choose what ship to lose. A single trash-fit atron with a couple of webs is more than enough to kill the first layer of shield and trigger the doomsday, after which a drifter is easier than some dedspace overseer ships. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
858
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 13:53:32 -
[3370] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here.
This is manifestly untrue. There are plenty of people in this thread who are concerned about these changes who do live in our space. People who have actually built a home in 0.0. People whose alliances are less than 500 people.
The only people in this thread consistently in favor of this proposal are those who live elsewhere: lowsec, highsec, WH's, NPC 0.0. People who just control valuable moons are largely unphased by these proposals.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
296
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:10:00 -
[3371] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:This is manifestly untrue. There are plenty of people in this thread who are concerned about these changes who do live in our space. People who have actually built a home in 0.0. People whose alliances are less than 500 people. I think people from both sides are underestimating the dedication that's going to be needed to RF everything AND THEN return to finish the job two days later - at least against people occupying their space.
But perhaps the 1:4 scaling isn't enough - make it 1:6, 1:8 in favour of the defender on these structures? How much is needed to make the troll attackers reconsider their lives? Ofc this then falls into the trap of allowing goons upto 60 or 80 minutes to form up the required blob they need to fight their own defence
edit: relevant link as to how goons fight without their blob |
Mellianah
Aideron Robotics
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:23:36 -
[3372] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Duffyman wrote:I have a question. Dev blog says build price of Sov lasers are 20 and 80m respectively. This leads me to assume that the Drifters will drop blueprints. So the real cost of the mods will be way higher than their build cost right? Does this influence the real worth of the mods or do you guys think that this bears little influence? Because Drifters are hard to kil... 1. It's not that given that drifters will drop BPCs. Can't have that much a limiter on such a core mechanic as SOV. Probably they will have NPC-sold BPOs and built mainly from PI products to control damage that will be caused to the PI market by removal of SBUs. 2. Drifters are notoriously easy to kill. It's true that you'll have to lose a single ship while killing a drifter (unless you drop caps on them), but you are free to choose what ship to lose. A single trash-fit atron with a couple of webs is more than enough to kill the first layer of shield and trigger the doomsday, after which a drifter is easier than some dedspace overseer ships. True enough. Most things are speculation right now... My reason for linking Entosis modules with dead Drifters, is speculation on the Antikythra Element which people are saying is salvageable from Drifter wrecks on Sisi. As for Drifters being easy to kill, I'm reasonably sure their AI will be tweaked some more before they're finished. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
848
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:51:39 -
[3373] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Use it or lose it is the message here.
And the problem with that is that most of it's not worth living in. As in, so bad you might as well be grinding missions in Egglenaert instead. Instead of being given to the ubiquitous little guy, that sov is going to be used as a DMZ between the areas actually worth having. If you want to force people to live in their space to defend it, fine. Just make it worth living in in the first place. Or is that too much to ask?
Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
To look at null income levels using bounties alone is to look at missions and ignore LPs. Disingenuous at best.
So as I said we might see a rebalance, but it might not be the one ANYONE expects.
The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd. A DMZ holds value - even if that is not liquid isk. Even more so now with phoebe and mid point requirements.
There's a WHOLE lot more to the null landscape than "line members find making isk hard". |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
983
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 14:58:37 -
[3374] - Quote
Any time I see this much whining and butthurt and general antimony, I can't help but think that CCP is on to a good idea.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:00:50 -
[3375] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec.
This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
Quote: As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
That's not personal level income, by any means.
Quote: The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd.
If you weren't being deliberately dishonest, it would make perfect sense.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:20:37 -
[3376] - Quote
xttz wrote:For those still concerned about the rigid use of 4-hour alliance prime times, please check out some proposed tweaks found here. I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if system vulnerability were linked to how often it were used, making it much easier to contest those that never see a soul. Of course this is also another reason to fix the current Industrial Index. Something is clearly wrong when the EVE map looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png Mining needs to make more of an impact on that index, and ideally there should be more metrics that factor in too. Commonly touted ideas include:
- Production jobs
- Moon mining or reacting starbases
- POCO usage
- Research
That'd be interesting. I like the concept behind the mechanic, although it would be better if the prime time wasn't on a daily basis in the first place.
If you had a vulnerability period (can we call it vulnerability period because prime time sounds terrible) every couple of days then it would give players a chance to play other aspects of the game and enjoy the fact that they have managed to keep their space safe for the next couple of days. I don't think that making it happen on a daily basis would be conducive for good gameplay. I see Eve a long term strategic game at its core, and so a longer period between engagements would be more fitting with what most players would expect from a game like this.
Also I think CCP need to look at active defence that rewards players further for operating in their own space and putting in some effort to actively defend. So on top of the variable mechanic above, you could also reduce the vulnerability period further by doing activities such as supplying your structures with fuel such as strontium, and carrying out maintenance with hull repairing logistic ships.
On top of this I'd like to see some anchorable structures such as guns and defences, they could be limited by the PG and CPU of the structure they are anchored at, and also would be expensive and slow to construct and anchor so that they aren't easily replaceable should attackers destroy them. Allowing players to base build in some form or another is a good aspect of any strategy game.
So my overall suggestion would be to implement the variable mechanic mentioned above, along with spreading the vulnerability period so that it occurs between another variable safe period of around 5 to 10 days. This will stop things getting to boring and predictable. On top of this make the vulnerability period quite a bit longer, for instance 12 hours at a minimum which could be reduced by a factor of 2 if you are actively defending and making use of occupancy bonuses as described above. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
446
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:21:24 -
[3377] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
My highlighting.
Dude, you are so utterly wrong. Here, let me enlighten you.
You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place? Please do try to stay on topic though. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
849
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:23:27 -
[3378] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way. Quote: As I mentioned early in the thread but stopped the derail - there is a LOT more to "null income" than anoms and drops. PI, moon goo is HUGE income - there is no denying that. SRP programs are not cheap - but they are there.
That's not personal level income, by any means. Quote: The other thing that sits badly here is "the space is worthless, but no-one else can have it either" is...odd.
If you weren't being deliberately dishonest, it would make perfect sense.
Calling me a troll because it dfoesn't suit your viewpoint doesnt make my points invalid.
The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. If that income is not making it down to line members - that is an issue to take up with your leadership.
Just because it is not convenient to "woe is me, ratting isnt good enough" doesn't make it untrue.
Yes, ratting alone doesn't meake eye watering income, but the other areas DO. I've not paid for a loss in a loooooong time. If you can't see how that is income of a different nature well I don't know what to tell you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
708
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:24:07 -
[3379] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Nope - but people need to adjust their expectations. It's ALREADY mostly worth it to live in, the problem is a wealth distribution one among grunts.
Yeah, how dare people expect that the most dangerous space in the game would pay off better than L4 missions in highsec. This is the part where people can tell that you're just here to troll, by the way.
People pick the best mission space like Osmon and blitzing it very efficiently and compare it to the worst ratting space in 0.0 which is low truesec and camped to hell and back.
We all agree that 0.0 at the grunt level needs improving, but level 4's in the main are not that good outside of certain select LP mission hubs. And I also disagree with safe, look at Inaya next to Osmon...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12038
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:26:32 -
[3380] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is.
But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread.
afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income.
No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income.
Individual income should not be worse than highsec.
Period.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:30:38 -
[3381] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period.
So getting ships back from an SRP program is not a profti for an individual? I mean, he doesn't have to pay for it. Granted it's no liquid isk in his pocket but an income none the less.
If you fail to see that then maybe CFC should stop the SRP program, see how ppl will respond to their loss of income. Wait this isn't an individual income so it shouldn't matter.
CFC High command can thank me later for this huge extra income I generated. ,0001 % will do.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
850
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:32:39 -
[3382] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period.
"Individual" income is dictated BY THE LEADERSHIP and not CCP. If you have an income problem - speak to the directorate. CCP do not force to not share communal wealth, there is no mechanic enforcing this.
Point is, you need to accept that if null income is rebalanced, maybe it won't go the way you like. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell how we all need to ignore the moon income, but CCP cannot and will not.
As I've said, I've no problem with a null rebalance - but people best be careful what they wish for. |
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
446
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:32:42 -
[3383] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:afkalt wrote:I see every effort is still being made to stop changes that punish those who don't live in space they 'own'
Good job.
The people with something to fear here are those who do not live locally. No one else. Size is not a factor in terms of letting 'little' guys in. They could be crushed today and can be crushed tomorrow. The difference is that if you're not living in and using your own space then it's easy to take - and rightly so.
Use it or lose it is the message here. So what about alliances that are renting regions and regions, where every system is being rented, but effectively the alliance is still holding sov, albeit it in the sister rental alliance.
Will the renter defend it though or QQ to the parent alliance that "somone is invading my space man, do something about it!". It seems N3 won't be there to help you from what I'm hearing and the CFC don't care about their pubbie pets.
Tbh, I can't wait to smack up some renter ships with my blasters
On the other hand, what's to stop a renter from revolting against their slumlord and taking the sov for themselves?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
709
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:35:58 -
[3384] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread. afkalt wrote:The bottom line is NULL as a WHOLE has massive income. No, that's not the point. You can scream "Grr Moons!" until you pass out, it means nothing. SRP is not individual income. Moons are not individual income. Individual income should not be worse than highsec. Period. So getting ships back from an SRP program is not a profti for an individual? I mean, he doesn't have to pay for it. Granted it's no liquid isk in his pocket but an income none the less. If you fail to see that then maybe CFC should stop the SRP program, see how ppl will respond to their loss of income. Wait this isn't an individual income so it shouldn't matter. CFC High command can thank me later for this huge extra income I generated. ,0001 % will do.
This is the key aspect that so many people who cry about level 4's miss, to break into 0.0 means that you have to compete against SRP. In the Goons all they have to do is to earn the ISK to buy the ship at the start, once they have that they get it replaced if they lose it n combat, at one point people were getting ships replaced when they got caught ratting, that is how good the SRP was in some alliances.
And yet people go on and on about level 4's, most of us think the people doing this are trolling, however it is possible that they are so fixed on ISK per hour that they ignore the more strategic aspects of the game.
Please stop Kaarous!
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kinis Deren
StarHunt Mordus Angels
448
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:37:45 -
[3385] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kinis Deren wrote: You do know there is a Phase III coming and probably will address the risk/reward issue with null sec after the null restructuring is in place?
What I know is that it exists, not what it's content is. But please, keep acting like your rumor mongering has any relevance on the thread.
If you got out of your bonus room more often, stopped sucking CFC appendages and listened to what CCP Fozzie has said on recent podcasts then you'd know it isn't rumour mongering. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:46:07 -
[3386] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Please stop Kaarous! *chuckles* Never going to happen |
Josef Djugashvilis
2907
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:55:59 -
[3387] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Please stop Kaarous! *chuckles* Never going to happen
Whilst I undersatand the sentiment, I do not want Kararous to stop.
It never fails to amuse me that no matter what the source to the contrary, from CCP down, dear Kaarous can always find some metric to claim that hi-sec folk are spoilt rotten and that null-sec folk are on their uppers relatively speaking.
If null-sec corp bosses keep most of the dosh for themselves, why should anyone not affected care?
This is not a signature.
|
Syntax Nox
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:10:54 -
[3388] - Quote
Thought i would throw some ideas out
Keep sbu's, if you want to E-wand out side of prime time you have to sbu or just keep the sbu mechanic as is. As a sand box game it seems like any time zone should be able to invade at any time not just some one else's prime time. This would also limit the crying about E-trolls.
Battlecruiser or above can only fit E-wand, cruiser maybe also
You have to go through tcu before you can attack ihub. Lots of isk and time go into upgrading ihub it should be at least a little tough to destroy such a key piece of sov space infrastucture. This way there wont be a bunch of claimed systems with no infrastucture.
Just a few thing they may have been mentioned. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
147
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:19:18 -
[3389] - Quote
a Sliding scale would be good.
a no index no useage system has a 24 hour vulnerability timer.
Soverenty takes 3.5 hours per level
military index takes 0.5h per level Industry index takes 0.5h per level
so a maxed usage system would have a vulnerable timer of 1.5 hours per day a system that has a tcu only and no usage has between 24 hours and 6.5 hours vulnerability per day
so a level 5 ratting system at max sov with no miners will have 4 hours per day a lvl 2 mining system with lvl 2 sov will be vulnerable for 16 hours during a day
ive been trying to balance these figures for an hour and they still don't seem to balance very well. they probably need to be percentage baised.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
297
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 16:31:01 -
[3390] - Quote
I think some kind of sliding scale for vulnerability is definitely necessary...whether to base it purely on indices or make it more complex by also basing it on other factors:
number of sov systems number of players in an alliance truesec (higher truesec means it should be 'safer' and more easy to hold?)
Also potentially with fuzzy edges instead of hard limits - the defence multipliers get stronger the further you move away from the middle of primetime rather than having a hard cut off.
No idea on what the grand final equation might look like but something with those and other variables might be the key. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |