These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Next set of Sov and Capital Movement Iterations

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#201 - 2015-09-13 02:38:47 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."

1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).

2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.


corrected for accuracy.

Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.


Let me ask you question, since blind self-serving brush strokes annoy you so much and how you have basically said you are the broad minded and fair for everybody guy in this discussion, how come you aren't clamoring for CCP to allow the construction of capital combat ships in space other than your front yard.

It must annoy your broad-minded scope of the game to know that nobody outside nullsec can make ships that can effectively hold nullsec space, well except nullsec cartels of course, you can make them till they fly out your rear end.

You can make capital ships in lowsec.

You don't need capitals to take sov or defend sov. In fact, capital ships receive a hefty penalty to cycle time of entosis links.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#202 - 2015-09-13 02:40:43 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:

"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."

By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.

We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us.

These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#203 - 2015-09-13 02:46:16 UTC
Saisin wrote:
The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose

This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#204 - 2015-09-13 03:05:26 UTC
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
"We are very interested in your feedback on these proposals and we hope that you'll join in a productive and civil discussion in this blog's forum feedback thread."

1. by productive we mean all your comments will benefit nullsec cartels (otherwise they will be ignored).

2. by civil we mean....well again, unless you are supporting nullsec we don't want to hear it.


corrected for accuracy.

Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.


Let me ask you question, since blind self-serving brush strokes annoy you so much and how you have basically said you are the broad minded and fair for everybody guy in this discussion, how come you aren't clamoring for CCP to allow the construction of capital combat ships in space other than your front yard.

It must annoy your broad-minded scope of the game to know that nobody outside nullsec can make ships that can effectively hold nullsec space, well except nullsec cartels of course, you can make them till they fly out your rear end.

You can make capital ships in lowsec.

You don't need capitals to take sov or defend sov. In fact, capital ships receive a hefty penalty to cycle time of entosis links.


Thanks for the correction.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#205 - 2015-09-13 03:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:

"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."

By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.

We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us.

These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


You didnt but a fair number of your alliance threw their weight behind gutting Fozziesov i was in on the conversation.

And before the gutting it required nothing more than a 'token' defense on your part.

That you are unwilling to send a small handful of you masses to go and scout the perimeter of your holdings, yes that kind of lazy i find unreasonable and shouldn't be protected by game mechanics.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2015-09-13 03:33:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15.
Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.

Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#207 - 2015-09-13 03:55:13 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:

"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."

By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.

We did nothing. CCP decided the changes, not us.

These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


You didnt but a fair number of your alliance threw their weight behind gutting Fozziesov i was in on the conversation.

And before the gutting it required nothing more than a 'token' defense on your part.

That you are unwilling to send a small handful of you masses to go and scout the perimeter of your holdings, yes that kind of lazy i find unreasonable and shouldn't be protected by game mechanics.

We do patrol our perimeters. If you feel we are too inattentive at the task, go contest some of our sov. The only difference, post-Vanguard, is that you can't do the deed in an uncatchable ship class.

Also, while no one can deny that goons are fat, "throwing our weight" accomplishes absolutely nothing. We don't have some magic back-channel with CCP to bend the game to our whims. We're just fat guys on the internet.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#208 - 2015-09-13 03:59:24 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15.
Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.

Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.

I can confirm that the sky is, indeed, falling.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#209 - 2015-09-13 03:59:59 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15.
Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.

Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.


Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#210 - 2015-09-13 07:18:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15.
Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.

Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.


Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov.


Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#211 - 2015-09-13 07:38:45 UTC
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose

This is patently false. I want all interdiction nullification removed from the game.


Point taken.
Nullification for a 400Mill+ ship with skill point loss on destruction is not going to be removed from the game. The WH community, for one, would not allow it, and they would be right. Nullification has a role to play, like moon goo (which is what *I* would like to see removed from the game, but this is another topic....).
Nullification on a fast and cheap ship is the current problem, and it is not a problem just because of Entosis but because it is also a nearly risk free form of movement across Null Sec in particular.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#212 - 2015-09-13 07:39:58 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
RiP FozzieSoV Summer '15.
Long life to nullsec cartels and pre-planed thousand ship fights.

Its as if countless F1 monkeys cried out in joy, but they still won't log in again.


Said the npc alt bitter about having to commit to attacking sov.


Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them.


This is true, some of them even need NPC anomalies to protect their extra ESS incomes, because they can't be bothered to do the defense job themselves.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#213 - 2015-09-13 08:00:29 UTC
Querns wrote:
...
These changes do not "gut" Aegis sov. They simply shift the balance of the mechanics to demand a token amount of commitment from an attacker. If you think that is unreasonable, then we have no grounds for agreement.


Yes they would.
You can't perceive it, perched on top of your gold-plated ivory tower (do you undock from time to time, by the way?)

The entosis link is already a token amount of commitment. A module that is worth around 30 to 50 Million in T1 form, or 100 to 130 Mill in T2 form is not an insignificant cost that you have to bring to the destination (in the middle of enemy territory) and use on a ship that can be easily destroyed by any competent and properly equiped reaction force. Even with an entosis fit cheap ship, this is around 50 to 150 Millions that have to be commited for each entosis action.

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Patrick Yaa
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#214 - 2015-09-13 08:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Patrick Yaa
Saisin wrote:

Only the already established powers drowning in moon goo ISKs can consider it worthless value, as you do.
For most of us, though, the value of the entosis modules already represent a commitment to the attack.




There are already several parts to a commitment. Ressources, be it pilots, time or ISK are just one part of it.
Sov was never meant to be cheap, and shouldn't be. 130M is not a small sum, yes, but it is also not unexpendable and doctrine ships are double that price for logis and BS doctrines. ( if not more).
So saying "Oh, look, I bought sov wand, where's my system" is not the right way to argue imo.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#215 - 2015-09-13 08:31:12 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?

I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?


Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ?

Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#216 - 2015-09-13 11:06:41 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Was there ever consideration of a final 'coup de grace' phase to structures?

I.e. the entosis process essentially cripples the target e.t.c e.t.c but then there is a small amount of hit-points to chew through at the end to finish the job, perhaps broadly equivalent to a well tanked Battleship?


Why, if its not going to be significant what's the point ?

Significant enough to warrant putting some hardware on the field (and generating a killmail), not too significant to avoid Dominion era grind.


and you also get a killmaill; you know, the things "we all love" ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#217 - 2015-09-13 11:11:37 UTC
Querns wrote:
Reppyk wrote:
We're now almost back to the "good era" of no-fatigue and sov-that-can-defend-itself.

Well done CCP, one step forward, 2 steps back. Straight

Regeneration only occurs if no one bothers to show up for the timer. Have you considered committing to your attempts at sov conquest?

Why?
What does it have to offer?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#218 - 2015-09-13 11:11:54 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Kinis Deren wrote:

Said the coward hiding behind a 40k meat shield and still QQs about game mechanics not favoring them.


You run away from me with 18 to one odds and only ever engage when you have every pilot available. How about fighting me when I am patrolling dek in my geddon rather than trying to drop on afk ratters for a change? Oh that's right, your organisation requires you to have an 84% green killboard to stay in. That explains why you lot are so angry over having to use ships that can be caught by defenders.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#219 - 2015-09-13 11:50:30 UTC
Querns wrote:
159Pinky wrote:
So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled

Do they not have cynos or wormholes where you live?

Not every one has access to hundreds of titans and or wants to spend hours probing out wormholes that may or may not be there when the timers you want to create are vulnerable.

CCP again didn't look for balance and instead took the easy road of a straight nerf.
Why not "balance" entosis ceptors with a fuel adjustment ? Simply increase the amount of stront required per cycle to 3 for the warmup and 2 per cycle. Someone who is actually wanting to attack sov is only going to have enough fuel for 1 or 2 attempts, unless they have friends with them to supply more stront.

Or making it so an active entosis ship can receive remote reps but the ship is immobile for the duration of the cycle. A solo ceptor is not going to last long if defenders turn up but a group who wants content (aside from trolling) can bring logi with them.



My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#220 - 2015-09-13 12:07:11 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Because wormholes are a thing.

So?