These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#241 - 2015-09-13 20:41:11 UTC
Saisin wrote:

Some groups may publicly take the stance that they do not want to take sov, unti they do when the conditions are right by their standards, and not by yours.
Another possibility is that a third party decides to step in an area where the inhabitants have been already softened by skirmishers, and multiple timers can be contested. This is part of valid tactics, propaganda and interactions, and not a reason to prevent these tactics in the game.

Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2015-09-13 20:59:18 UTC
Aryth wrote:
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.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#243 - 2015-09-13 21:04:54 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.

Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#244 - 2015-09-13 22:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Saisin
Querns wrote:

Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.


if the issue was truly the speed of ships while entosising, all frigates and ships that can reach these speed while using entosis would have been banned too, not just interceptors.

As this is clearly not what you are advocating, it is clear that the issue you have is about the nullification of the interceptors equiped with entosis, because they are uncatchable until they commit to entosis, and can conduct guerilla style attacks in any places.

You still want to not loose the ability to travel uncatchable in null sec for your own purposes. as the main null sec alliance holder, you are the ones benefiting most from the ability to travel around uncatchable.

This is why the interceptor entosis ban is one sided only, and not balanced.

You do not want entosis ships to slip behind your lines uncatchable, but you are not willing to lose your own ability to travel in null sec uncatchable.

One sided mind set.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#245 - 2015-09-13 22:50:56 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.

Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.


Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#246 - 2015-09-14 00:59:15 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Querns wrote:

Barring interceptors from using entosis links does not cause any of this to happen. I get your general idea, but there's just no link between the proposed changes and what you're describing.


if the issue was truly the speed of ships while entosising, all frigates and ships that can reach these speed while using entosis would have been banned too, not just interceptors.

As this is clearly not what you are advocating, it is clear that the issue you have is about the nullification of the interceptors equiped with entosis, because they are uncatchable until they commit to entosis, and can conduct guerilla style attacks in any places.

You still want to not loose the ability to travel uncatchable in null sec for your own purposes. as the main null sec alliance holder, you are the ones benefiting most from the ability to travel around uncatchable.

This is why the interceptor entosis ban is one sided only, and not balanced.

You do not want entosis ships to slip behind your lines uncatchable, but you are not willing to lose your own ability to travel in null sec uncatchable.

One sided mind set.

No, I want all nullification removed from the game. Period. Traveling is already safe enough with a covert ops frigate; we don't need to be able to ignore bubbles.

I am not sure how much more plainly I can put this.

However, since even I find it unlikely that CCP will remove nullification in TYOOL 2015, I will take the second prize of having the most abusable function of a nullified, sub-2s align ship removed. We'll get there eventually, if only through employee turnover than anything.

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
#247 - 2015-09-14 01:00:12 UTC
Sentamon wrote:

Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.

The delusions under which you labor are almost like a form of sustenance for my soul.

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
#248 - 2015-09-14 02:26:32 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.


Hardware like a frigate manned by the guy that just started playing the day of the attack, because unrepped BS defense is not enough to make it interesting in anyway.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#249 - 2015-09-14 02:37:18 UTC
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
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.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#250 - 2015-09-14 02:38:41 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
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.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.

Apparently a "modicum of strategy" is multiple titans fit with officer smartbombs.

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
#251 - 2015-09-14 03:49:17 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.


Name the location of this gatecamp that protects hundreds of systems.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#252 - 2015-09-14 03:58:48 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
It's a start with the prevention of trollceptors but perhaps I'm missing something because I still don't see how these changes rebalance the sov mechanic towards forcing the attacker to commit to a fight. Trollceptors were simply a tool used due to the flaw in the overall Sov system and Interceptors will simply be traded out for very fast Faction Frigs instead.

This goes to the heart of the problem with the new sov system. Under Dominion Sov, due to having to grind through Hit Points, an attacker would not commit to such an act unless they were serious about attempting to remove the defender from their space. That underlying commitment has been completely removed in this new system in favour of allowing the attacker to attack on a whim and it's the aspect of the new sov mechanic that needs to be changed. In short, make it so that attacking Sov is a serious undertaking that requires commitment to your cause and not something that's done purely to **** off the defender.


Annoying people is a huge part of the EVE experience and the other 1% is ship spinning.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Yang Aurilen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#253 - 2015-09-14 04:04:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.


I want nullification removed from at least PVP ships. There is some value in allowing space taxis like shuttles or the yacht that cannot PVP. But T3 petes just ruined the entire wormhole content for the weekend. Nullifiers just break PVP risk/reward balance. They need to disappear from PVP.


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.


Name the location of this gatecamp that protects hundreds of systems.


Tama, Rens, Old Man Star of course! Gotta keep the highsec pubbies away from the riches of lowsec!

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#254 - 2015-09-14 04:06:48 UTC
Querns wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Saisin wrote:
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.


It's not a token amount of commitment on a ship that can't be caught.


Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.

Apparently a "modicum of strategy" is multiple titans fit with officer smartbombs.


I got smartbombed taking a "shortcut", just before i landed at the gate....strange i dont recall him being in a titan.

But i have to say, if i had enough titans to give up on any kind of decent combat tactics and just toss titans at everything id do the same thing, why not !

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#255 - 2015-09-14 04:26:46 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I got smartbombed taking a "shortcut", just before i landed at the gate....strange i dont recall him being in a titan.

But i have to say, if i had enough titans to give up on any kind of decent combat tactics and just toss titans at everything id do the same thing, why not !

Pilot error. Should have bounced to a celestial.

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
#256 - 2015-09-14 06:57:16 UTC
Yang Aurilen wrote:


Tama, Rens, Old Man Star of course! Gotta keep the highsec pubbies away from the riches of lowsec!


Those aren't gatecamps, more like system wide thunderdomes Twisted
Dreiden Kisada
State War Academy
Caldari State
#257 - 2015-09-14 07:14:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Dreiden Kisada
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Really, i need to get one of these invulnerable ships you describe that cannot be caught, btw what game are you playing, it isnt EVE because there isnt a ship in EVE that cannot be caught. Oh, you mean brainlessly caught rather than using a modicum of strategy, okay i got it.


Buy a malediction. Cram the lows with i-stabs.

Congratulations, you can now not be caught by any thing in the game, except for 6 titans with officer smartbombs (Or a **** ton of BSes) pre-positioned around a gate.

Edit: Baring of course the chance that the pilot is dumb.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#258 - 2015-09-14 08:17:31 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Sentamon wrote:


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.

Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.


Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.

It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy.

Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue.
And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off.








It's only a GF if you out number them 5 to 1 .

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
#259 - 2015-09-14 09:54:43 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Sentamon wrote:


One gate camp defending hundreds of system from PvP is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever. Of course you like it cause you're a nullbear Goon.

Good thing gatecamps can be avoided with the use of bridges (covert or otherwise) and wormholes.


Good thing both aren't even a minor threat to you or CCP would have already removed them.

It is funny how members of Goons presume everyone has the same ease of movement they enjoy.

Just use a bridge (covert or otherwise) - In space that is red to you - Or where your likely to get stuck for hours due to fatigue.
And of course, don't forget, when you jump your little blops fleet in through the covert cyno - Goons and friends will respond with a 100+ man fleet to see you off.








It's only a GF if you out number them 5 to 1 .


The only person who comes at us solo is harry forever.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2015-09-14 10:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Reducing the fatigue from 30 days to 5 days seems crazy to me. Doesn't it bring back the power projection issue for groups with a lot of caps? Sure it's not instant power projection in the old sense but the groups with caps positioned all over the place will no long be penalized.

It should be 10 days max fatigue so that the weekend player suffers as much as the dedicated player.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...