Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter?
So you don't think Guristas watch CNN?
If NPCs were real people, they'd warp out and log off everytime Jenn Aside came into their constellation, I've litterally killed hunderds of thouands of them lol.
But yea, the point is it's stupid for the NPCs to kill a ship that comes in and attacks a ship that had been slaughtering them. It would make more sense for the NPCs to POINT the new ship, kill the 1st THEN "thank" the new guy by also killing him lol.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
951
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:34:00 -
[62] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:But yea, the point is it's stupid for the NPCs to kill a ship that comes in and attacks a ship that had been slaughtering them. It would make more sense for the NPCs to POINT the new ship, kill the 1st THEN "thank" the new guy by also killing him lol. See, there's that logic thing I warned people about on the first page.
These forums really need a rule against that sort of thing. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4784
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:39:00 -
[63] - Quote
Capqu wrote:To start with, this is a thread about the play style of finding and killing people running anomalies in null sec. If that's not something you're interested in, then I apologize for tricking you into my thread. The reason I am making this thread is to make more people aware of the proposed changes, since they are fairly hidden at the moment, and to bring to your attention why I think said changes are a bad idea. So CCP are planning on upgrading the AI in anomalies and missions, which sounds great! The problem is they are planning on changing AI in such a way that will be severely detrimental to people attempting to gank people in those anomalies. AI is being redesigned to prioritise targets based on a number of criteria, instead of just having them stay on whatever they start on. In particular, NPCs will target ships of the same class (frigates will target frigates etc) with highest priority. For the ordinary ratter all this means is NPCs closer to drone size than the ratters ship size will go for their drones, so they'll have to either take them out first or micro drones around this fact (which is kind of cool). What this means for people soloing in a stealth bomber specifically hunting these ratters, is your play-style is gone. CCP FoxFour has explicitly said you can no longer do this. Poof; content and play style gone. CCP FoxFour wrote:To be honest yes this means you will no longer be able to do this solo in a stealth bomber I don't think it is acceptable to straight up remove a style of play and an avenue of content for no real reason. I've yet to see any major content added to the game as a result of the AI change, so I don't understand how CCP can justify this. What this means for people who tackle ratters in interceptors with a fleet waiting nearby, the already heavily favored ratter (minimum of 20 seconds to scan down and land on grid after spiking local) now has another defense should they be bad enough to get tackled in the first place; interceptors die very, very quickly to frigate rats. The ratter can simply leave frigate rats alive, and be virtually immune to all forms of danger while they PvE their hearts out in the "danger zone" of 0.0. To be honest, I doubt even ratters would advocate these changes to their safety. Most competent ratters know they are already basically immune to ganks if they are prudent in monitoring local, so I don't see them asking for more help in this regard. The changes are probably a positive thing for ratters overall, maybe they make missions more engaging or whatever, so don't get me wrong in that regard. Here are the links of CCPFoxFour talking about the changes https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1994441#post1994441https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155703&find=unreadI'm interested to see what ratters and other players think of this, since I only have the point of view of someone who's primary source of enjoyment in the game is about to be removed. Edit: I also didn't mention people who like to roam solo in a Thrasher to do the same sort of thing the stealth bombers do. That's also dead and gone if these changes happen. Rejoice, denizens of fountain, no more of this stuff. I should also mention that frigates are not the only thing affected by this. If you attempt to gank a carrier with battlecruisers for example, those battlecruisers are going to have to tank rats since they are closer to the rats size than the carrier is, which makes an already hard task a lot harder.
If you can't out-think and out-fly a few rats, then I have no sympathy whatsoever. Your chicken-little act is ridiculous.
Pro-tip: fit an afterburner and a hardener to your bombers MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1244
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:40:00 -
[64] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:War Kitten wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: The old adaptation fallacy. Just because you can adapt to a change doesn't make it a good change.
The fallacy is your straw man here. I didn't say it was a good change because you could adapt to it. I said it is a good change. And I said that one can adapt to it. Which is the exact same thing. You're using "adapt" as a crutch.
No, it isn't, and I'm not.
I'm merely telling the OP to adapt. It has nothing to do with whether the change is a good idea.
Quote:And yet people like you call it a good change on the sole idea that some stealthbomber dude won't get easy kills?
Again, no. Your reasoning skills are failing you.
The OP claimed it was a bad idea because his stealth bomber kills would go away. I said it is not a bad idea because of that. "Not a bad idea because..." is not the same thing as "it is a good idea because...".
I'll simplify it for you though. Here is why I think it is a good idea:
The change is a good idea because NPC content is stupidly easy to game right now. Send in the tank (speed, range, rep or buffer), then send in the glass cannons. Poof, content completed. The only risk to the glass cannons would be a new spawn wave, and that is avoidable. Intelligent NPCs would at least go after the high DPS/low tank ships or the logi ships and reduce those threats to themselves.
We don't need new content phased and old phased out when the existing content just needs to be smarter.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1244
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
Myelinated wrote:War Kitten wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?
Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together. Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed. You're an idiot.
I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target.
In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
951
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:46:00 -
[66] - Quote
To be fair, even the Sleeper AI is a joke. Beating it is just a matter of routine. The main way CCP increases the difficulty of higher-end content is by increasing dps and e-war.
If they wanted to implement even a shred of authentic difficulty, they would have long ago randomized spawns so that at the very least people wouldn't be able to find out exactly what they will fight, how much of it, the ranges at which it will aggro, its resistances, etc etc with just one google search. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
951
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:48:00 -
[67] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Myelinated wrote:War Kitten wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?
Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together. Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed. You're an idiot. I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target. In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle. If the stealth bomber is the cyno frigate, then he would stay cloaked until he is ready to light it, instead of deciding to throw down on two different parties that are already aggressed upon each other.
No, seriously, who are these "good FCs" you speak of? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1244
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:53:00 -
[68] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:War Kitten wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?
Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together. Yes, let's clearly ignore the fact that different ships have different roles and abilities, and that with the existence of whatever internet they have 20,000 years from now, that Guristas frigate cappin' probably knows what a Hound is and does. I don't know what kind of FCs you've had in your EVE experience, but none of mine have ever prioritized a stealth bomber over a massive murderball of drones and death while leading a frigate gang. Edit: Actually, you know what this proves? You have no comprehension of EVE combat mechanics, but still deem yourself fit to dictate development policy. What does that make you?
OK, yeah yeah, they wouldn't "primary" a stealth bomber. But in my experience they wouldn't leave it on the field either. Someone would be told to kill it. Every case is situational, and I was trying to speak generally.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Capqu
Love Squad
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:53:00 -
[69] - Quote
Getting a bit off topic guys... http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2479
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:00:00 -
[70] - Quote
If you are going to waste brain power trying to justify a necessary game mechanic, fine, look at it this way.
That stealth bomber that shows up and starts engaging the ship the pirates are currentlly shooting is not view as a savior or ally, he is view as competition for the loot (and/or the glory of the kill).
It is entirely sensible for them to dispatch their smaller vessels to deal with you quickly to get you out of the picture, so that you don't steal (what they view as) their kill and/or their loot.
That should pretty much end this pointless line of pseudo logic. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1244
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:01:00 -
[71] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:War Kitten wrote:Myelinated wrote:
Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed.
You're an idiot.
I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target. In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle. If the stealth bomber is the cyno frigate, then he would stay cloaked until he is ready to light it, instead of deciding to throw down on two different parties that are already aggressed upon each other. No, seriously, who are these "good FCs" you speak of?
That example wasn't a stealth bomber, it was "a single frigate who isn't aggressed".
If you're keen on including random neutrals in your fights, more power to you. I think CVA flies that way.
Me, I'm shooting the idiot in the stealth bomber who thinks he can safely fight anyone in my home system.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
Again, no. Your reasoning skills are failing you.
So, you demonstrate that you really don't understand what is being discussed (you could take the time to read the threads to OP posted), but it's my reasoning skills that are failing lol.
Brilliant
Quote: The OP claimed it was a bad idea because his stealth bomber kills would go away. I said it is not a bad idea because of that. "Not a bad idea because..." is not the same thing as "it is a good idea because...".
It pretty much is, but you keep on thinking otherwise.
Quote: I'll simplify it for you though. Here is why I think it is a good idea:
The change is a good idea because NPC content is stupidly easy to game right now. Send in the tank (speed, range, rep or buffer), then send in the glass cannons. Poof, content completed. The only risk to the glass cannons would be a new spawn wave, and that is avoidable. Intelligent NPCs would at least go after the high DPS/low tank ships or the logi ships and reduce those threats to themselves.
This change will do none of that at all. You say it's a good change because NPC AI is stupid. But the NPCs will still be stupid, just different, in fact the developer making the change said initial testing show it was EASIER to dual box Domis in a mission than it was under the old AI.
the choice is between stupid NPCs, or gameable, easy to manipulate NPCs that not only end up being no better than the stupid NPCs, but end up bieng EASIER to defeat and who unwittingly offer protection to null sec ratters who should have stayed in high sec if they wanted "protection"
Quote: We don't need new content phased and old phased out when the existing content just needs to be smarter.
At what cost to the rest of the game? |
Capqu
Love Squad
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:08:00 -
[73] - Quote
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Denidil
Evocations of Shadow Eternal Evocations
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:11:00 -
[74] - Quote
Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion.
falsehood 1: content going away falsehood 2: no benefit
contract me all your stuck, then you can take your opinion, and stick it up your posterior. it's predicated on two falsehoods Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Brooks Puuntai
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
821
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:13:00 -
[75] - Quote
Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion.
The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion.
Perfectly said. I enjoy pve and want it to get better, but there is nothing about the way they are trying to change it that does that. Why not do it right the 1st time, good sense would dictate you don't change key things but leave other things the same in a complex system.
It just doesn't make sense, and the people supporting it aren't thinking critically about the potential downsides. Null Sec doesn't need a Concord-like presence.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
951
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:16:00 -
[77] - Quote
Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. My theory is that CCP can't really rework mission AI without touching it in other places, so we get this. Their real intent here is to assist the Crimewatch changes in making missioners in empire untouchable. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Capqu
Love Squad
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
Updated the OP with the following:
Running list of play styles negatively affected or destroyed by this change:
Solo hunting ratters in a stealth bomber Solo hunting ratters in a destroyer Tackling ratters in an interceptor (in particular, battleships and above, since the cruisers and below will EWAR and shoot the interceptor) Mission flipping (even high sec rats will shoot the mission flipping frigate now) Ninja salvaging Awoxing (now you have to train into something that can tank the rats EWAR AND the mission runner before you can awox) http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Myelinated
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:21:00 -
[79] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt.
The only adaption for this change is to resort solely on awoxing, chain smoking, and other forms of blue on blue combat. Im sure you'll enjoy that if you're complaining about getting **** at by someone you can avoid.
These changes basically add the anti-frigate safety net of wormhole sites to space that has instant intel from local chat. It completely destroys the already thin window of tackling and killing ratters with frigates.
Its effect in general will make nullsec and lowsec a duller place, while making virtually no difference in the already boring pve aspect of mission running and ratting.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:21:00 -
[80] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:If you are going to waste brain power trying to justify a necessary game mechanic, fine, look at it this way.
That stealth bomber that shows up and starts engaging the ship the pirates are currentlly shooting is not view as a savior or ally, he is view as competition for the loot (and/or the glory of the kill).
It is entirely sensible for them to dispatch their smaller vessels to deal with you quickly to get you out of the picture, so that you don't steal (what they view as) their kill and/or their loot.
That should pretty much end this pointless line of pseudo logic.
The end result of that is that all the npcs still get killed, and the null sec ratter not only gets their loot, but some torp launchers and such from a PLAYER wreck lol.
I rat with a machariel so this change helps me in ways you can't imagine. I haven't be caught in an anom in like 4 years (in a navy raven), and I only got caught because I was pointed by 3 rats and still had one rat to go when the bad guy came in and pointed me for his gang.
Under this new mechanics, the act of pointing me may have gotten the Bad Guy point and alpha'd by some NPC frigs and destroyers, allowing me to get away to pump yet more bounty isk into the economy with the same ship. It would have been great for me, but ultimately would have sucked for the game, because ship losses are good for the game.'
This change potentially means less big ship losses in null. How can you people not see that this is a potential bad thing for the economy of the game we all enjoy?
|
|
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9 Quantum Cafe
104
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:21:00 -
[81] - Quote
Myelinated wrote:BoBoZoBo wrote:I do not support this view.
Why should NPCs ignore a juicy target... you wouldn't. Why should NPCs continue attacking targets they cannot take down... you wouldn't. Why should NPCs help you kill something you would benefit from... you wouldn't
Not to mention, there is already an in-game precedent for this as WH hunters have to deal with this already. Maybe you just need to expand your horizons and raise the challenge bar a bit?
Besides, what after you made your kill? Do they continue to ignore you? Help you loot? It is good and immersive to have smarter AI all around that treats everyone equally. Keeps everyone on their toes. 1-3 bil isk Faction fit pve ship are a juicier target than a 50 mil stealth. Wormholes don't have local as a instant intel channel, removing local from non w-space would be fine. Actually I'd very much love to see all local channels in eve function like wormhole local. This change basically kills low sp pvp, which hurts new players most of all(you know that thing a mmo needs to stay alive)
Thats a HUGE assumption on what im flying. I dont have a 4 billion ISK faction ship. I rarely even fly T2 ships in a WH. Argument invalid. Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
Irya Boone
Escadron leader
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:21:00 -
[82] - Quote
and why don't you juts try a real pvp instead of ganking people doing their plexs?? i would be a F.. good idea for once !! Improve C2 class WH More anos more signs ...RENAME null sec system With the name Of REAL Universe Stellar Name like KOI-730 etc etc It xill be awesome-á |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:22:00 -
[83] - Quote
Myelinated wrote:Brooks Puuntai wrote:Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt. The only adaption for this change is to resort solely on awoxing, chain smoking, and other forms of blue on blue combat. Im sure you'll enjoy that if you're complaining about getting **** at by someone you can avoid. These changes basically add the anti-frigate safety net of wormhole sites to space that has instant intel from local chat. It completely destroys the already thin window of tackling and killing ratters with frigates. Its effect in general will make nullsec and lowsec a duller place, while making virtually no difference in the already boring pve aspect of mission running and ratting.
very well said
|
Capqu
Love Squad
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:24:00 -
[84] - Quote
Myelinated wrote:Brooks Puuntai wrote:Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt. The only adaption for this change is to resort solely on awoxing, chain smoking, and other forms of blue on blue combat. Im sure you'll enjoy that if you're complaining about getting **** at by someone you can avoid. These changes basically add the anti-frigate safety net of wormhole sites to space that has instant intel from local chat. It completely destroys the already thin window of tackling and killing ratters with frigates. Its effect in general will make nullsec and lowsec a duller place, while making virtually no difference in the already boring pve aspect of mission running and ratting.
Wanted to quote this since it puts it almost perfectly. http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Brooks Puuntai
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
821
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Updated the OP with the following:
Running list of play styles negatively affected or destroyed by this change:
Solo hunting ratters in a stealth bomber Solo hunting ratters in a destroyer Tackling ratters in an interceptor (in particular, battleships and above, since the cruisers and below will EWAR and shoot the interceptor) Mission flipping (even high sec rats will shoot the mission flipping frigate now) Ninja salvaging Awoxing (now you have to train into something that can tank the rats EWAR AND the mission runner before you can awox)
Kill NPC frigs then kill target, though I guess that would require more :effort:.
|
Capqu
Love Squad
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:and why don't you juts try a real pvp instead of ganking people doing their plexs?? i would be a F.. good idea for once !!
Your opinion on the legitimacy of a play style doesn't validate or invalidate it, I'm afraid.
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:26:00 -
[87] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Capqu wrote:The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.
It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.
That's unacceptable in my opinion. My theory is that CCP can't really rework mission AI without touching it in other places, so we get this. Their real intent here is to assist the Crimewatch changes in making missioners in empire untouchable.
I don't know about any "real intent", but one thing you said was true.
Back when ccp was discussing reducing bounties because of isk flooding in from null sec anomalies, a DEV (was it soundwave") said you can't just reduce bounties on null sec anom rats because they are the same rats you find in empore missions.
They just reused the same npcs for large swaths of PVE content. CCP understood making a sweeping change to NPCs across the board even though those NPCs were in different situations was a bad deal last year, but all of a sudden making sweeping changes that affect a lot of different content is now a good thing?
WTF CCP?
|
Capqu
Love Squad
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:26:00 -
[88] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Capqu wrote:Updated the OP with the following:
Running list of play styles negatively affected or destroyed by this change:
Solo hunting ratters in a stealth bomber Solo hunting ratters in a destroyer Tackling ratters in an interceptor (in particular, battleships and above, since the cruisers and below will EWAR and shoot the interceptor) Mission flipping (even high sec rats will shoot the mission flipping frigate now) Ninja salvaging Awoxing (now you have to train into something that can tank the rats EWAR AND the mission runner before you can awox) Kill NPC frigs then kill target, though I guess that would require more :effort:.
Please explain how I can kill the NPC frigs in my mission flipping ship, my ninja salvager, my awox vigil, my tackle ceptor or my stealth bomber. http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2479
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:26:00 -
[89] - Quote
Changing how something needs to be done does not necessarily mean that it is "negatively affected".
Have you tested these changes on the test server?
Are CCP done tweaking the new system yet, or merely asking for informed feedback at this point after testing?
Are you jumping to conclusions about what will be possible/impossible after these changes?
Slow down big fella. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9 Quantum Cafe
104
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:27:00 -
[90] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Must be nice to be able to sit and wait for an opportune moment to attack without some sort of easily accessible intel channel letting you know exactly who is nearby.
Hunting in W-Space is very different to K-Space, so please stop drawing false parallels and misleading people.
You mean not knowing how many potential enemies I have in a system before I decide to attack two groups of entities that will attack me back is "nicer" than having local tell me when everyone is gone and its safe to attack someone who is already engaged with entities that won't threaten me?
Sounds like you never tried it since you think its nice and your tone suggests its easier/safer.
Who the hell are you convincing. How is this a false parallel? It is completely relevant in this argument as the OP is fighting against something that already exists to larger extremes. Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |