These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Galatea] First batch of sov capture iterations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1161 - 2015-08-26 07:37:36 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Which is a problem in itself if you can screw an entire gate grid with several dozens of large bubbles for hundreds of kilometers and completely immobilized such a group.
So you think the problem is bubbles? So should all ships be nullified? Or should people just not be allowed to use defensive measures in their space?

Bubble are a powerful way for people to held defend their borders. Alone they do nothing but they improve the ability of a defender to keep people out. Nullified ships are intended to get past them so they can scout, set up cynos, etc. The problem comes when nullified ships are given advantages on a strategic level like they have now. You can now threaten sov with nullified ships, or like in our case just blast enormous numbers of them about with a couple of support fleets to stop other people getting to them very easily.

I'm honestly curious about what you think should be done, if anything to balance out the system as it is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1162 - 2015-08-26 07:47:11 UTC
It is not the bubbles in itself, it is how people use them. A handful of bubbles to cover a gate is fine, hundreds of bubbles to break the grid, to prevent warp for hundreds of kilometers, to create lag and make brackets and overview hard/impossible to read (CCP, where are the bubble improvements that you hinted at FF2014. Stop your work on SKINS and actually improve the game!).

Again: Exhaustion of game mechanics to the extreme is a problem.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1163 - 2015-08-26 07:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
That rarely if ever happens. I've not yet seen enough bubbles to create lag and if you don't have a ships only combat overview tab you're doing EVE wrong.

In any MMO (hell, in any game - seen speed runs?), people are always going to push the mechanics to the extreme. In EVE moreso due to the types of players and how into the game they get. The trick is that the mechanics should be balanced enough that it doesn't screw the opposing side out of fun. Losing should also be an entertaining experience.

Edit: And it seems a little unclear reading back so I'll clarify. That doesn't mean that the extreme will always win. Mechanics should also be flexible enough for people to counter.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1164 - 2015-08-26 08:30:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
I'm not that insane to have bubbles in overviews that matter, it's the graphical effects that cause these issues.

Right now, this tactic is primarily employed in some ratting systems or rarely to slow down incoming opponents known to be in non-nullified ships. But this is only because of ceptor nullification. If ceptors were out of the picture for sov defenses, these grid tactics would become a whole lot more enticing for people like your coalition. They actually already are as the Mitten's recording clearly demonstrates.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1165 - 2015-08-26 08:36:31 UTC
They're already enticing if we fee threatened. As we've already discussed, nullified ships aren't really going to do much alone. If we were worried about invasion then they would keep out most unwanted attention. If people are forced to cyno in attack forces, they'll have a much harder time when they need to disengage.

For defenders, bubbles are useless since you can be over 100km away and switch of an attackers entosis link. Suicide ECM is a thing which is quite funny now.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1166 - 2015-08-26 08:43:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
blast enormous numbers of them about with a couple of support fleets to stop other people getting to them very easily.

Or just blast enormous fleets with a couple of support ceptors, which is more accurately reflecting what was done.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#1167 - 2015-08-26 08:44:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
And again: In this particular case, where is the difference between 100 Trollceptors and 100 Cruisers or BC? As long as players (and one group in particular) have nothing better to do than to exhaust mechanics to the extreme, the situation itself is not going to change.
Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot.

BCs can easily avoid all the camps completely by using wormholes
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1168 - 2015-08-26 08:49:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:


@FT Diomedes
What would that solve? Make you as a single-TZ entity in Null sec vulnerable in 2 windows out of which one you can potentially not defend your stuff in?


Rivr, I think you misread my post.

Quote:
The attacker will always get the initiative - he chooses the date and place for the fight. The defender gets to choose the vulnerability window...


Another way of saying that is that the spaceholding alliance [Defender] gets to choose the vulnerability window. In other words, he chooses the time zone for the fight. The attacker still gets to pick the date and the place he will attack.

I would also give the defender the opportunity to set multiple vulnerability windows. That way an alliance strong in both EUTZ and USTZ could provide defensive content, if they so desired.

As an incentive to have a larger vulnerability window, or multiple vulnerability windows, I'm thinking some sort of lowered sovereignty cost, lowered fuel cost, etc.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1169 - 2015-08-26 09:48:03 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
And again: In this particular case, where is the difference between 100 Trollceptors and 100 Cruisers or BC? As long as players (and one group in particular) have nothing better to do than to exhaust mechanics to the extreme, the situation itself is not going to change.
Interceptors can easily blast through gatecamps and bubbles, able to have their own bubbles deployed on grid to cause defenders who aren't in interceptors problems. BCs cannot.
BCs can easily avoid all the camps completely by using wormholes
If they are there, they can find them and they can get to them, yeah. That's their reward for their effort.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1170 - 2015-08-26 09:51:58 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:

Citation needed.


Go look up, its not exactly hard.

Orca Platypus wrote:

So despite being stated at least twice that was about evasion built T3 nullified cruisers you still gewned and demonstrated typical reading comprehension failure in attempting to switch the context back to trollceptors?


So you a don't know t3 fits, glad you have admitted you infact have no experience with any of these ships being used.

Orca Platypus wrote:

ad gewnminem at its finest.


This is about all you have to input into this debate, grr gons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1171 - 2015-08-26 09:55:20 UTC
Hide posts. It's a winner when people stop quoting the guy. He has noting to add to this discussion.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1172 - 2015-08-26 09:56:37 UTC
For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.


The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1173 - 2015-08-26 10:09:57 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY


No.

Not ever.

Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1174 - 2015-08-26 10:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
FT Diomedes wrote:
Another way of saying that is that the spaceholding alliance [Defender] gets to choose the vulnerability window. In other words, he chooses the time zone for the fight. The attacker still gets to pick the date and the place he will attack.

I would also give the defender the opportunity to set multiple vulnerability windows. That way an alliance strong in both EUTZ and USTZ could provide defensive content, if they so desired.

As an incentive to have a larger vulnerability window, or multiple vulnerability windows, I'm thinking some sort of lowered sovereignty cost, lowered fuel cost, etc.

That is already possible. Not for one system, but for spread over your entire sov holdings. You can set vulnerability windows on a system-by-system basis.

I have not misread it, I have thought it out further ahead the road. Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#1175 - 2015-08-26 10:56:03 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.

why should someone be disallowed the chance to entosis something if they control the grid in an inty? you are not gonna suggest that someone can entosis the structure in an inty when the defender controls the grid, are you?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1176 - 2015-08-26 11:20:53 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY


No.

Not ever.

Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space.



Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1177 - 2015-08-26 11:21:48 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
For the bilionth time, if entosis is to represent peopel controling the grid, allow it only on ships that peopel woudl only get to that place if they really control the grid, like battlecruisers and battleships taht are stoo slow to evade all type of conflict and just go troll someone without any control of any grid.

why should someone be disallowed the chance to entosis something if they control the grid in an inty? you are not gonna suggest that someone can entosis the structure in an inty when the defender controls the grid, are you?



Because if you control the grid, it wil be no problem for you to bring a BC.

But an inty , while it can be used while you control the space, it can ALSO be used when you do NOT control the space.

Simple logic, even a goon can understand.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1178 - 2015-08-26 11:23:44 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY


No.

Not ever.

Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space.



Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now?



No, but it will be used on structures imminently.

So what happens when you want to kick someones stuff over, but you only have small hole access? Or it's a wolf rayet and bringing big stuff is straight up Lol ?


See, you're all arguing like null is the only area affected here, which granted it CURRENTLY is, but with no regard for the fact that the mechanic will be used EVERYWHERE.

What "works" for null, doesn't work everywhere.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1179 - 2015-08-26 11:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
afkalt wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The system will work wonderfully if thta is made.. BC and ABOVE, ONLY


No.

Not ever.

Think past the end of your nose as to why. Hint: it is not k space.



Sorry I do not visit much w space. Entosis is sued in anythign there right now?



No, but it will be used on structures imminently.

So what happens when you want to kick someones stuff over, but you only have small hole access? Or it's a wolf rayet and bringing big stuff is straight up Lol ?


See, you're all arguing like null is the only area affected here, which granted it CURRENTLY is, but with no regard for the fact that the mechanic will be used EVERYWHERE.

What "works" for null, doesn't work everywhere.



If it comes to be used in wormhole space then it might be soemeting to solve then. But as of now, it is like to worry with the imminent invasion of the aliens.. that there are no evidences of... but you know.. might happen.

A simple example of how to solve that is to create a specific frigate or destroyer type that CAN exceptionally fit the entosis but has very very bad infiltration capability.

ON the wolf r type of system, that is not supposed to be a problem, after all you are supposed to use the entosis when you CONTROL THE GRID. The systems where a BC cannot enter although are a real issue I would tend to agree.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1180 - 2015-08-26 11:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
No, it is not "worry with the imminent invasion of the aliens" it is happening. 100% confirmed.

Go read the new structure blogs. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/shake-my-citadel/


Controlling the grid is one thing, but why would we take a non small ship there in the first place? This isn't null, mate, we can't just YOLO some BCs through the gates because the pathways can and DO close behind you at a moments notice. Equally you don't drag along a slowass ship "just in case" and going back for one isn't always an option and nor can we bridge one in.

What happens when we log off in system to siege the system? We need to pour useless ships (except for one role) into the hole blowing the mass limits along the way thus closing it to other more useful ships?

You're assuming mechanics and pathways to be the same out there and they simply are not.