open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Dominion--Storming the Gates
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

Author Topic

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:30:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways
CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread
Fortunately, no. You confusing this thread with the other one, which is still there in its 100+ page glory (granted, they've removed some posts from it, but still…)

Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:32:00 - [302]
 

Hunter I suspect you have this thread confused with the other one on the upgrading and upkeep blog. Far as I know they haven't deleted anything. Though yes they clearly aren't listening.

This patch is totally wrong from the ground up. Twiddling the numbers might help slightly but it's not dealing with the real issues.

Gramtar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:42:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways
CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread

CSM wake the **** up.

Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve.

CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed.

CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day.

Is this the way of a company I used to believe in?

I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch.

The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted.

Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before.

WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP Evil or Very Mad



ZAF is to all alliances as BTLS is to OHGOD

c/d

Hunter GlobaGateways
Caldari
The Edge Foundation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:36:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Hunter I suspect you have this thread confused with the other one on the upgrading and upkeep blog. Far as I know they haven't deleted anything. Though yes they clearly aren't listening.

This patch is totally wrong from the ground up. Twiddling the numbers might help slightly but it's not dealing with the real issues.


ure right, and I am wrong, the other thread is still there intact. I retract my post as its the reason for posted. thou, the foundation for my outcry is in short, my view of this patch is simply, I am losing hope and faith in CCP. they are changing to much, 2 many values 2 fast. EVE took a long time to mature, and this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame

Tierius Fro
Posted - 2009.11.13 20:12:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways
this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame

This would appear to be the intent.

Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Posted - 2009.11.14 11:45:00 - [306]
 

Originally by: Aion Amarra
Nyphur: I'm not sure about the CURRENT Sisi version, but I took down two outposts with Bato on Sisi two or three patches ago.

Back when we did that, the reinforcement timers always were 48H + whatever is needed to get to target time.

e.g.
1. outpost set to 13:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 23h reinforcement timer.
2. outpost set to 15:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 1h reinforcement timer.

Oh, so they've already tackled the issue. I figured they might have but the devblogs are never written very clearly. Cheers.

sg3s
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.14 16:40:00 - [307]
 

Originally by: Gramtar
Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways
CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread

CSM wake the **** up.

Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve.

CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed.

CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day.

Is this the way of a company I used to believe in?

I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch.

The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted.

Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before.

WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP Evil or Very Mad



ZAF is to all alliances as BTLS is to OHGOD

c/d


Hunter /o\

William Caldon
Caldari
Golden Cross Enterprises
Posted - 2009.11.16 00:41:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Tierius Fro
Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways
this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame

This would appear to be the intent.


Your of course assuming that 0.0 is the endgame of Eve. Many do not share that value. (*Cough* all the high-sec people that have no interest in 0.0) Of course, you call them carebears, whiners, chickens, w/e, but in the end, they play in high-sec because they enjoy it.

So to all you ppl who keep saying 0.0 is end-game. It is not. It is merely the player-portion of Eve Online. Although I would ask all of you to remember as much as you all want self-government, it is simply not possible in a "fair" MMO. CCP has to do what it thinks is best for the game and just because some of you don't agree with it doesn't mean the whole thing is terrible. It is, however, a step in the right direction. No more spamming 20+ POSes per system to hold sov anymore. That in it of itself is a great thing and anyone who doesn't agree hasn't ever done it. (Or is very neurotic.)

WhiteSavage
Gallente
Ever Flow
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2009.11.16 00:47:00 - [309]
 

This blog should have been released first.

These mechanics seem realistic and may even add to the fun? :O


Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.16 00:58:00 - [310]
 

In what way do they seem realistic?!

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.16 18:05:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/11/2009 18:05:38
In the way that they can realisticly improve gameplay? And i am sure you can find some RP stuff arround it if you really want, for sure it is easier than with the current system. But while i respect RP'ers, gameplay and balance decisions should never be based on RP. (Well if there are 2 equal solutions but one makes more sense RP wise, sure go for that one).

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:37:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: true sight on 17/11/2009 01:23:16
Doesn't this new mechanic make dead-end systems totally undesirable and undermine dead-end station systems (there's a LOT for obvious reasons). With the current mechanics;

hostile gang jumps in and totally bubbles up a gate, deployed SBU (100% of gates now covered)
Gang waits for SBU to come online, they are blocking the only exit/entrance (Bar JBs, which can easily be taken down)

In the current mechanic, there are multiple locations for both the attack/defender to attack and defend, with this new system the attackers need simply protect a single location at which the point of onlining complete, they then have 2 possible targets.

Second thing I'm concerned about is SBU griefing, what stops a roaming gang from flying through their enemies space one night during off-peak time and dropping 51%+ in 15 different systems? dropping so many SBU that the defending alliance have little to no chance of clearing every single system, the attacks then have the advantage of having 1 or 2 systems entirely to choose from to continue attacking and at the same time can sneak stealth transports back into the defenders other main systems and drop even more.

Sounds like defending will be a very very nasty business.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.11.17 01:22:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: true sight
Doesn't this new mechanic make dead-end systems totally undesirable and undermine dead-end station systems (there's a LOT for obvious reasons). With the current mechanics;

hostile gang jumps in and totally bubbles up a gate, deployed SBU (100% of gates now covered)
Gang waits for SBU to come online, they are blocking the only exit/entrance (Bar JBs, which can easily be taken down)

In the current mechanic, there are multiple locations for both the attack/defender to attack and defend, with this new system the attack need simply protect a single location at which the point of onlining complete, they then have 2 possible targets.


cry some more.... no seriously your tears are delicious. Yes your right. dead end systems would be notriously easy to ATEMPT to take. then again if you plan right and have the proper counters it can also be notriously hard to take as well. all the corp ahs to do is have say a jump bridge in there and boom back door. Or if you really knoww hat your doing, have a cyno beacon there at a POS and now your carriers and other ships can jump in to remove the said gate camp.

QUit being doom and gloom about this and adapt and survive. but if you want to cry some more id love to hear it...Laughing

Trabber Shir
Caldari
5I Incorporated
Posted - 2009.11.17 06:06:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:23:10
DED = Direct Enforcement Division (I think) of Concord.

Neither Concord nor DED or any such set up the gates. They were done by the various alliances in the old days. Mostly the Gallente and the Amarr. Maybe DED/Concord maintain them - who knows?

Concord does maintain them (but not the DED), this was established in the series of news events that were investigating the opening of the drone regions and at least implied in the short story "Forsaken Ruins".

As for who built them, not Concord. Concord is about the only major faction that has not been attributed with building gates in the prime fiction. The 4 empires, the Jove, Sansha, the secret society in "Forsaken Ruins", and various pirate factions have all been credited with building stargates either in chronicles, short stories, or mission briefings. And (although it might have been retconned) one of the chronicles said some of the gates in Amarr space are left overs from terran colonization.

Zenithil
Posted - 2009.11.17 06:40:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Zenithil on 17/11/2009 06:41:10
This still seems like Gate camping to me. So, how has anything changed? Instead of POS bashing, now you got Hub bashing while still camping gates. Even after this change, there is too much empty space and planets not being fought for in the system. There is no mobile warfare, which a galactic naval war is supposed to be like and is depicted in various Chronicles of EVE. Its still, you control the gate, you control the system. It was like that before.

Why not use the kind of system that is there for Empire faction wars? Its much more interesting than just Gate camps and bubbles again.

Max Essen
Gallente
Bison Industrial Inc
Posted - 2009.11.17 18:39:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Zenithil
Edited by: Zenithil on 17/11/2009 06:41:10
... Why not use the kind of system that is there for Empire faction wars? Its much more interesting than just Gate camps and bubbles again.


Good point however, interesting or not I do believe that 0.0 control will still be "all about the moons".
The new mechanic does at least move away from POS bashing a bit.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see

davet517
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.18 17:28:00 - [317]
 

Edited by: davet517 on 18/11/2009 17:32:53

I had really high hopes for this expansion, but I'm finding less and less to like.

The basic problem to be addressed is that the 0.0 game has reached a state of stasis. The player empires that have been built up over the years have grown so rich and powerful that it is now self-perpetuating, and absent some really radical change in the game dynamics it is going to stay that way.

What you are doing here is not that radical change. In fact, if anything, these changes will further institutionalize and insulate the power structures that already exist, and make it easier, not harder, for the few who control the 0.0 game today to continue to do so.

I could go into a lengthy explaination of why, but I won't. Suffice it to say, if you did something that would have the effect of threatening the existing power strucutres, the people at the top of those strucutres would be screaming, threatening to quit, etc. You had some of that here, but as soon as those powers started to scream, you backed off.

So, things are going to continue as they are. Those who have the power (people, not in-game entities) are going to keep it, and 0.0 is going to remain in a relatively mature, static state that favors the establishment, and those who are willing to rent space from them. Everyone else is going to stay in empire, or freelance in low sec or WH space. More of the same, just with fancier, more complex mechanics.

mach18
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:42:00 - [318]
 

As plenty others have pointed out, the entries and exits from 0.0 will still be thoroughly and boringly gate camped. In fact if I was in a big enough alliance I'd have a TCU at strategic entry systems and then you can all just f*(k off and twiddle your fingers in high sec. Somehow or other points of access to 0.0 should be expanded either by broadening the number of acess points or allowing players to jump past choke points. I do understand the fears that CCP may have of disturbing the original game mechanics but just like the change they made allowing jumping to 0kms from gates it will not destroy the fact that being in 0.0 is in itself the inherent danger, not necessarily how you get there. Since say 1 of Eve 0.0 access has been extremely limited.

Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:13:00 - [319]
 

Okay, so the "defender" thing is easy to understand. Shoot the things the attackers anchor. Simple.

As for attacking? Seriously...when you made that flowchart did you honestly say to yourself "you know, this makes perfect sense to me and I expect the rest of EVE will understand it as well," or did you say something along the lines of "holy christ, I can't believe how convoluted this is, but it's what we came up with." Even the greenest 0.0 newbie can learn within about his first hour "he who has the most towers gets Sov," but this sort of adds a level of complexity to conquest that's really inaccessible to people aren't big logicians.

Because the little flash animation thing you made for explaining Constellation Sov at least sort of walked you through understanding it. This is just...damn. That's all I can really say - damn. You *really* don't want the "big players" in 0.0 to ever make war again, do you?

Kozely
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:16:00 - [320]
 

nice

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.20 02:25:00 - [321]
 

If I want to anchor a POS in a system where someone else has Sov will I be able to?

Will there be restrictions on what modules I can have anchored if someone else has Sov?

CyrusRO
Posted - 2009.11.20 09:26:00 - [322]
 

i didn`t had the time to read all the posts but i do have a few questions :
How will affect the WH ppl the new sovereignty system?
Will we able to place sovereignty related modules or upgrade the WH to exploit the resources we want to ?

Bilbo II
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2009.11.20 09:30:00 - [323]
 

Edited by: Bilbo II on 20/11/2009 09:30:56
Originally by: CyrusRO

How will affect the WH ppl the new sovereignty system?
Will we able to place sovereignty related modules or upgrade the WH to exploit the resources we want to ?



Not at all and no

CyrusRO
Posted - 2009.11.20 09:44:00 - [324]
 

i was expecting that answer to be honest...
thank you.

Titan Pilot
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.11.20 11:16:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: true sight

Second thing I'm concerned about is SBU griefing...


Griefing? Are you kidding me? Rolling Eyes

I can't wait for this to happen, good times ahead, good times indeed


Iman Atheist
Gangrel Mining and Security
High Treason Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.02 11:01:00 - [326]
 

For crying out loud, STOP USING THE WORD "ITERATE" !!
It does not mean what you guys think it does. You are using it WRONG.

"Iterate" means "repeat", plain and simple.
"Iteration" means "a copy of something or a repeated action".

It does not even mean "repeated with variations" because there are different words for that...

...and it DEFINITELY does not mean "think through", does not mean "discuss", and it does not mean "spend a lot of time carefully working on something", as you are obviously using it in that context.

I'm sorry for posting off topic, but this needed to be said.

Dev blogs are serious business. Lrn2English.

TurboDog2
Caldari
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.12.02 11:43:00 - [327]
 

Overall patch deployment was excellent. Very little server issues. Well done.

I need clarification on a couple things -

1. During the grace period, do TCUs have any effect on Sovereignty or is Sovereignty still based on POSs?
2. Can TCUs, placed by CCP, be attacked and destroyed during the grace period?
3. If a TCU was placed by CCP and subsequently moved to a strategic location for defense, does this interrupt Strategic Upgrade timers during the grace period?

Thank You.

Nobani
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.01.19 16:55:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 16:55:55
Sorry to necro this thread, but there's a mismatch between the flowchart and the text. Text says:

Quote:
Once the Hub has been destroyed and / or the Outpost captured, the attacker can attack the defender's TCU and place his own.


The flowchart shows that both the IHUB have to be destroyed and the station has to be captured.

This is obviously a huge difference. Can you please clarify which is correct?

Amber Macx
khanid industries
Posted - 2010.01.19 22:58:00 - [329]
 

Congrats, CCP, on the epic fail in change of sov mechanics.

Puicu
Caldari
Rubbish and Garbage Removal
Legiunea ROmana
Posted - 2010.01.20 11:53:00 - [330]
 

Edited by: Puicu on 20/01/2010 12:08:25
So if the hub is destroyed after 2x24 hours and the outpost still have 48 hours of RI, the defender can destroy and put new SBU, put another HUB and RI it?


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only