These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1181 - 2015-08-26 12:08:17 UTC
afkalt wrote:
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.



And you are assuming that changes in the mechanics should not reflect changes in tactics andoperations of the players. And things do not work like that.

The only real problem you rised that is valid are the systems with only too small holes to pass large enough ships.

Anyway, I doubt you will then be able to move a citatel to inside a system that you cannot move a BC into ... solikely thisproblem will not really exist.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1182 - 2015-08-26 12:10:03 UTC
You literally don't understand how wormholes work, do you?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1183 - 2015-08-26 12:10:45 UTC
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.


Which is why I am a growing fan of an entosis link simply turning off the MWD/AB.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1184 - 2015-08-26 12:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
baltec1 wrote:
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.


Which is why I am a growing fan of an entosis link simply turning off the MWD/AB.


I prefer a modest drop to speed (3500-3750), which webs affect and increase mass to kick align time up.

It's a little less restrictive to meta options but makes active defence really pretty easy.



This would, naturally, be alongside changes to increase the worth of sov/increased ability to condense members/system ratio.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1185 - 2015-08-26 12:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
baltec1 wrote:
Which is why I am a growing fan of an entosis link simply turning off the MWD/AB.
Remains the question: Once the player actives it in order to allow traveling, in particular of bigger ships (like burning back to gates in a camp or cover distances from a random stop/drag bubble) or always, ie. just by fitting it as it currently caps the speed.

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.

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1186 - 2015-08-26 12:29:34 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Remains the question: Once the player actives it in order to allow traveling, in particular of bigger ships (like burning back to gates in a camp or cover distances from a random stop/drag bubble) or always, ie. just by fitting it as it currently caps the speed.

What would be a point to disable prop mod even if link isn't cycling though?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1187 - 2015-08-26 12:34:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Which is why I am a growing fan of an entosis link simply turning off the MWD/AB.
Remains the question: Once the player actives it in order to allow traveling, in particular of bigger ships (like burning back to gates in a camp or cover distances from a random stop/drag bubble) or always, ie. just by fitting it as it currently caps the speed.


While active not all the time.
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1188 - 2015-08-26 14:11:06 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?


No one controls the grid in an interceptor. At best you are the running back for an NFL team running circles around some fat kid with unlimited stamina.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1189 - 2015-08-26 14:39:30 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

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

i think you don't understand what the grid control is.
i suggest you look up the difference between controlling the grid, and controlling the space/borders

while you can certainly control the grid in both inty and BC, bringing BC is totally different story.

which is precisely why all the goonies are crying, cause they can't hide behind the stacks of bubbles.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1190 - 2015-08-26 14:42:39 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
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?


No one controls the grid in an interceptor. At best you are the running back for an NFL team running circles around some fat kid with unlimited stamina.

that's plainly wrong.
anyone can control grid in interceptor, it depends on the ships the defenders bring... or don't
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1191 - 2015-08-26 14:49:52 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

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

i think you don't understand what the grid control is.
i suggest you look up the difference between controlling the grid, and controlling the space/borders

while you can certainly control the grid in both inty and BC, bringing BC is totally different story.

which is precisely why all the goonies are crying, cause they can't hide behind the stacks of bubbles.



Controlling the grid for a few minutes is NOT what CCP means when they say control the grid, and YOU KNOW IT.

Pretending you are dumber than you are is not a good way to convey your agenda.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1192 - 2015-08-26 15:39:08 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

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

i think you don't understand what the grid control is.
i suggest you look up the difference between controlling the grid, and controlling the space/borders

while you can certainly control the grid in both inty and BC, bringing BC is totally different story.

which is precisely why all the goonies are crying, cause they can't hide behind the stacks of bubbles.


Given we own the most secure space without using bubble camps it's clear we are not having issues in defending. The problem we keep on pointing out is most of the entosising being done is by ships made to avoid fighting which is resulting in very boring game play and renders the vast bulk of ships useless.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1193 - 2015-08-26 16:11:57 UTC
Gewns complaining about people avoiding fights, and using weaponized boredom...just sayin'
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1194 - 2015-08-26 16:29:03 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Gewns complaining about people avoiding fights, and using weaponized boredom...just sayin'


Pointing out a system that is supposed to be producing more fights is producing fewer than the system it replaced is called feedback.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1195 - 2015-08-26 16:53:53 UTC
Once again, not so much these:
https://zkillboard.com/region/10000047/reset/group/831/losses/
...for variety cross reference against solo kills for even more fun
https://zkillboard.com/region/10000047/solo/

so much as it is this:
http://rischwa.net/coalitions/

The Imperium (38.05%) - 41237
Drone Region Federation (12.01%) - 13020

Provi-Bloc (9.72%) - 10530

I would say, with the numbers above, you will hold grid just about wherever you prefer in whatever you want to bring, why should it be drawn out...

...unless the invading force is moving in, taking the systems back will be just as easy, especially if they are empty.

...also, remember the new structures (citadels) will be able to fire back, hopefully they can carry that over to the sov structures eventually as well, but either way, the ship carrying the thing matters not when half of null takes on less than a 10th of it.

Reminder of what new structures will be designed to:
"We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.

As such they should:

  • Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module
  • Act as force multipliers to deal with attacking fleets and promote asymmetric warfare (less defenders are required than attackers)
  • Have engagement inertia, meaning they require time to acquire and switch targets
  • Require support from defending fleets to successfully fend off attacks"


Reminders about where we are in the overall revamp, for those that want to go back, don't get it, or tinker with a transition piece that will be part of a bigger picture:

  • Phase One contains the long-distance travel changes... <- Stick #1
  • Phase Two...medium-term changes to...capture and hold Nullsec space and infrastructure...loosely...described as “occupancy-based” systems and more “freeform” systems...decentralize... <- Stick 2 (Where we are)
  • Phase Three is the stage that CCP Seagull discussed in the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year. This stage is intended to build upon the changes that we are planning for starbases/structures and corps/alliances in 2015, changes that will open up new possibilities for more dynamic warfare and more granular control of territory. This phase is also intended to lead quite deliberately into the future through our vision for player-built stargates. <- Carrot


...this isn't about grrr anyone, but rather acknowledging where we are in the process, and highlighting the futility of scream crying about a system that is only two thirds implemented, where the last third gives the all important Why Bother

Phase 2 is fine as is (with tweaks only necessary after the effects of phase 3 are implemented, such as iHub cost and use) and allows ebb and flow for uncontested or un-lived in sov, with tweaks in defensive capability better addressed in Phase 3, where system infrastructure, defenses and enhancements/customization would, in theory, allow a smaller localized force the ability to better fortify and secure their system or constellation (NOTE - those that think in terms of region still don't get it).

This does require an actual change in thinking if you are offering design tips, whereas the vast majority in this thread are railing against the sticks given in phase 1 and 2 in order to lessen the impact which creeps us back to region sized thinking, instead of focusing on ideas that would allow for condensing and making holdings more efficient and defensible.

The game is broke, but purposely so due to a major transition, bellyaching about going back is a non-starter, focusing on phases designed to be punitive misses the point, and providing feedback and suggestions for the all important "Why Bother" phase 3 is about the only sensible thing to actually do.

The provi invasion demonstrates only how a horde can overrun even well indexed systems without any benefit whatsoever of whatever may come in Phase 3 for the defender, and illustrates no actual incentive to do said overrunning beyond basic boredom, which could also be attributed to lack of Phase 3 implementation.

Rather than focus on what ship can carry the phase 2 thing that does the thing, it would be better served to focus on feedback for the phase 3 things that can be designed to limit the effectiveness of that thing from phase 2.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1196 - 2015-08-26 22:38:16 UTC
That was far too long and far too "grr" for me to read more than the first sentence. Could you summarise it in 30 words or less? Better yet, make it a tweet.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1197 - 2015-08-26 23:12:11 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
That was far too long and far too "grr" for me to read more than the first sentence. Could you summarise it in 30 words or less? Better yet, make it a tweet.

Harry believes CCP is on the right track, we should disregard "Interceptors online" because player built stargates and Citadels is going to fix everything.

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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1198 - 2015-08-27 03:41:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
That was far too long and far too "grr" for me to read more than the first sentence. Could you summarise it in 30 words or less? Better yet, make it a tweet.


Agreed. Stupid wall of text.

Oh, and just so you know....me agreeing with Lucas means Hell is about to freeze over. P

And why do you keep putting in the number of pilots in the Imperium? Who cares if X number of players want to form a coalition, its a goddamn sandbox. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1199 - 2015-08-27 03:56:38 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

Controlling the grid for a few minutes is NOT what CCP means when they say control the grid, and YOU KNOW IT.

Pretending you are dumber than you are is not a good way to convey your agenda.

it's exactly what CCP meant for the cases where defender doesn't turn up.

agree about pretending etc. don't do it.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1200 - 2015-08-27 04:29:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Pointing out a system that is supposed to be producing more fights is producing fewer than the system it replaced is called feedback.

actually your war in Provi proves that new system produces far more fights than the old one.

if you compare it to previous wars, there was nowhere near as many fights