These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A voice of reason in the Wilderness CSM7 candidate.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
entroncas
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-02-16 23:33:42 UTC
Saracha wrote:
Er I have a have a few issues that if you could address it be great.

Sollana wrote:

But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.


Could you clarify this for me? It seems like you want to be able to just win fights without showing up for them? And what are you talking about wen you reference Dominion, "Dominion gave defenders a chance"? In sov warfare the greatest power is in the hands of the defenders.

[


dominion was the expansion who changed the sov mechanics.

Saracha wrote:

Sollana wrote:


Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.

Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.


You appear to be dangerously misinformed. TiDi operates on a node basis, these nodes tend to be clustered, typically in the same constellation, if there was TiDi in providence it is because someone in providence caused it. The reasons for this are technical, Tidi would not function on a per system basis. [


well according to dev blog your theory go down in there and i will quote part of the blog:

"While I’m here, I want to address another common criticism of TiDi – that it’s a node-level thing, which causes solar systems potentially far away from the fight to be effected."

it seems it's you who is a bit misinformed.

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3412
Hermann Krieger
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-02-16 23:40:20 UTC
Sollana wrote:
Other points I would like to add to my manifesto.

AFK cloaking. A valid tactic or just bullying and harrassment.

Also there should be a method to hunt cloaky ships, we all watched war movies of destroyers hunting submarines, is this not the same. Give destroyers (space charges) that launches micro mines which travel out to a maximum distance based on skills and meta value of module. These micro mines then either explode if the contact any ship or reach maximum range. They do no actual damage but like the warp scrambler they disable the cloaking device for a complete cycle.

Discuss


This is a brilliant idea. You've got my vote.
Trenc Amaroem
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2012-02-17 00:21:35 UTC
Sollana wrote:

With the lock times of pos modules as a base line for proposed gate/station guns, frigates would have no issue escaping unharmed.

This could be infact a reason to use small fast movers, rather than slow bulky battleships. Bring back the nano age ??


I can easily anchor enough bubbles on a gate that a new player in a frigate with a mwd will not burn out of the bubble before being targeted and shot. What is worse is that with that change frigates can no longer engage on gates like in lowsec. I don't see that at a positive to new player gameplay.
Draughnor
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-02-17 00:51:05 UTC
+1
Zawisza Black
Stop Exploding You Cowards
#85 - 2012-02-17 01:07:17 UTC
+1 For Sol

1) Cloak afk camping systems needs to have some drawback or cost to it. It unduly rewards solitary trolls and seems like a huge unnecessary drag on the eve economy. It should take teamwork to dampen the economic output of a null system not one afk idiot.

2) Like the idea of station guns - they would lower station games and station camps which are not fun methods of pvp.
Ta'Amok
Yulai Guard
#86 - 2012-02-17 04:06:23 UTC
+1

POS defensive does need balancing.

The station/gate guns should be an option and would also be an incentive to hold a system longer to get some defensive capabilities. That would also encourage the use of fleets to get a cov ops frig into a system and hot drop a fleet to start an assault in a system., rather than just using them to attack single targets in systems with someone's neut alt lighting the cyno.

Ta'Amok
Rivaner
Unity Ventures
#87 - 2012-02-17 09:40:38 UTC
+1
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-02-17 09:46:02 UTC
Saracha wrote:
Er I have a have a few issues that if you could address it be great.

Sollana wrote:

But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.


Could you clarify this for me? It seems like you want to be able to just win fights without showing up for them? And what are you talking about wen you reference Dominion, "Dominion gave defenders a chance"? In sov warfare the greatest power is in the hands of the defenders.

The actual comment was Before Dominion, you had to kill pos's etc to gain a foot hold and sov 5 was pretty much a long hard slog. Dominion made it too easy to mess with peoples stuff. Looking back on my comments Gate guns , not so much of an Idea, but boosting pos's and station defences is a must. Its too easy to steam roll a system now.

Sollana wrote:

Having armaments in position on gates and station, can be increase with upgrades in the Ihub and be based on sov level (1 battery per gate per level for instance, double that for the station). this would also add a new dynamic to gate camping reds blockading a system, as currently there is no risk in 0.0.


So let me get this straight, your solution to add risk to 0.0 is to add station and gate guns? There is a little problem with this in that it would discourage small gang warfare. Currently a large part of the risk of 0.0 is the small fast roaming gangs. These gangs frequently engage on either gates or stations. Adding guns would just hinder this.

Station Guns yes, the initial idea of having both does not work, station guns and better defensive upgrades to make it harder to take the system
Sollana wrote:


Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.

Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.


You appear to be dangerously misinformed. TiDi operates on a node basis, these nodes tend to be clustered, typically in the same constellation, if there was TiDi in providence it is because someone in providence caused it. The reasons for this are technical, Tidi would not function on a per system basis.


All i can say is that the worst TD we have experienced in Provi was happening at the exact time as the blob warfare in Branch. Obviously not the same Constellation. CCP can boost your node with another node.... Seems they used Provi that day... this should not be the case with so many empty constellations in he game. CCP need to look at this.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-02-17 09:49:14 UTC
Trenc Amaroem wrote:
Sollana wrote:

With the lock times of pos modules as a base line for proposed gate/station guns, frigates would have no issue escaping unharmed.

This could be infact a reason to use small fast movers, rather than slow bulky battleships. Bring back the nano age ??


I can easily anchor enough bubbles on a gate that a new player in a frigate with a mwd will not burn out of the bubble before being targeted and shot. What is worse is that with that change frigates can no longer engage on gates like in lowsec. I don't see that at a positive to new player gameplay.


But a new player, in a frigate will have no issue with us as they are neutral and we operate NRDS.

The idea of guns on gates may have been hasty, but maybe a gate while warp bubble that activates on the entry of a red(based om alliance standings) would infact make defending a system more optimal.
Trenc Amaroem
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2012-02-17 14:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Trenc Amaroem
Sollana wrote:

But a new player, in a frigate will have no issue with us as they are neutral and we operate NRDS.

So are these sov upgrades intended to only be available to your alliance?
Herbatrix
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2012-02-17 15:57:46 UTC
Quote:
My stance is 0.0 space should have more defence against the mighty powerblocks.


But you do realise that your recommendations would also give the powerblocks even more, well, power, making it even harder for smaller Alliances to be able to fight for sov?

Nullsec is already stagnating in terms of large Alliances having little incentive to fight each other, this would just make things worse.
Nitrata
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2012-02-17 16:13:23 UTC
+1
Neddy Fox
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#93 - 2012-02-17 16:51:32 UTC
You have my vote Sollana !
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#94 - 2012-02-17 17:11:34 UTC
I still see way too many flaws in your suggestions, therefor I can't add a like.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-02-17 17:43:36 UTC
Trenc Amaroem wrote:
Sollana wrote:

But a new player, in a frigate will have no issue with us as they are neutral and we operate NRDS.

So are these sov upgrades intended to only be available to your alliance?


of course not.

But our way of playing eve does in fact make it easier for small ship combat.... something for you to consider.
Katarina Yiaros
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2012-02-18 03:01:58 UTC
I like your atitude & opinions.

+1 Vote for me
Endeavour Starfleet
#97 - 2012-02-18 03:53:09 UTC
Sollana wrote:
Other points I would like to add to my manifesto.

AFK cloaking. A valid tactic or just bullying and harrassment.

I see no reason to change the reason people do this, but for 23.45 the players just sit and do nothing. probably asleep at the console.

I propose that cloaking devices require fuel to operate, for example ozone. a small amount based on ship mass required to power the device. this would make them have a vulnerability that they currently do not have.

People I have spoken too, say there should be a sov upgrade to jam cloaking devices much like a cyno jammer, thisis also a possibility.

Also there should be a method to hunt cloaky ships, we all watched war movies of destroyers hunting submarines, is this not the same. Give destroyers (space charges) that launches micro mines which travel out to a maximum distance based on skills and meta value of module. These micro mines then either explode if the contact any ship or reach maximum range. They do no actual damage but like the warp scrambler they disable the cloaking device for a complete cycle.

People I have spoken too, say there should be a sov upgrade to jam cloaking devices much like a cyno jammer, thisis also a possibility.

Discuss



I like this and may consider supporting you based on you having the guts to put this in the open.

What do you think about my idea to deal with AFK Cloaking? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=204096#post204096 I have modified from OP to state that I feel that if you are active and warping around. My probes should not even show you are there much less decloak you.

Now what is your views on incursions?
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2012-02-18 09:27:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sollana
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Sollana wrote:
Other points I would like to add to my manifesto.

AFK cloaking. A valid tactic or just bullying and harrassment.

I see no reason to change the reason people do this, but for 23.45 the players just sit and do nothing. probably asleep at the console.

I propose that cloaking devices require fuel to operate, for example ozone. a small amount based on ship mass required to power the device. this would make them have a vulnerability that they currently do not have.

People I have spoken too, say there should be a sov upgrade to jam cloaking devices much like a cyno jammer, thisis also a possibility.

Also there should be a method to hunt cloaky ships, we all watched war movies of destroyers hunting submarines, is this not the same. Give destroyers (space charges) that launches micro mines which travel out to a maximum distance based on skills and meta value of module. These micro mines then either explode if the contact any ship or reach maximum range. They do no actual damage but like the warp scrambler they disable the cloaking device for a complete cycle.

People I have spoken too, say there should be a sov upgrade to jam cloaking devices much like a cyno jammer, thisis also a possibility.

Discuss





I like this and may consider supporting you based on you having the guts to put this in the open.

What do you think about my idea to deal with AFK Cloaking? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=204096#post204096 I have modified from OP to state that I feel that if you are active and warping around. My probes should not even show you are there much less decloak you.

Now what is your views on incursions?


I like the idea, but its way to complicated and would not work in my opinion, I have a keep it simple attitude(well like to think i have) .

I think fuelling is a way to make cloaking present a risk to the cloaking pilot. If he packs enough fuel then he can stay cloaked, even cloaking to warp should expend fuel.

You want to stay safe? what risk do you have?


Incursions.

I think the risk needs to be increased. higher level incursions should be found in low sec/null sec, with only low level incursions in high sec.

make the carebears move to unsafe regions if they want there isk.
Endeavour Starfleet
#99 - 2012-02-19 04:58:37 UTC
I have to ask then have you ever run an incursion?

High level incursions? Do you mean Assaults and Hqs? Why should they be in low and null only? They get the most community response yet rarely break 60M an hour?

Would you consider changing that stance to one of reason instead of yet another "force people out of hisec" one?
swampeeeden
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-02-19 12:26:54 UTC
+1 for Solly.................

There is no doubt Sol would be a great addition to the CSM...............

He is a intelligent, honest, caring person.........

He works tirelessly for the benefit of those around him and will do so for all from within the CSM..........

He has huge kahoonas and is not afflicted with forkish ideas and has a fondness for goats.

He has my vote .................give him yours too and give a NRDS a voice.