Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 12:02:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Valterra Craven's post crystallized an idea for me.....
That logistics is just too easy - and that's why the design intent seems not to match what players then do (sandbox).
The timer and fatigue system does indeed seem to be inelegant and I can understand some players objections. What I don't quite understand is why this ended up being the change needed, when a relatively simple tweak (then with further support changes) might well accomplish the same - and a whole lot more.
Why not tweak jump fuel usage and fuel bay sizes so that Capitals have to refuel every 5(?) LY instead? No timers, no building measures of fatigue - just the need to refuel.
Fuel then has to accompany and or be pre-positioned. Make the Rorqual have a secondary 'refuelling station' role (where the Industrial Core does indeed generate a POS-like shield wherein refuelling takes place). JF and the Rorquals have bigger fuel bays. Other ships, could, have the ability to carry fuel as well.
Large assaults - more fuel.
If it works, then I'd seriously suggest that ALL ships end up using fuel (except capsules). It doesn't have to be the same fuel as jump fuel and could even be an isk-sink. Normal space flight uses a bit of fuel; afterburners and then MWDs yet more propgressively; and warping to gates costs some. All usage dependent on mass.
Real logistics is needed for fuel, ammo and maintenace/replacement. EVE only has a relatively small ammo usage and little maintenance and then some replacement. But fuel is the big driver....
(Author is ex-RL Military Logistics Officer) - also let Rorq's into High Sec with similar properties to JFs - and the on-grid within shields mining boosts; per my earlier post herein. That's just... Yuck. It wouldn't solve the power teleportation problem - at the worst you'd just have to bring a JF along. It would just add a tedious step. Fuel for all ships traveling anywhere.... How does that add any fun to the game? Rorqs into HS.... and what give them 10LY so they can be the new JF out of Jita??? Technically the best way to deal with everything using fuel would be to link it to energy use, but the problem with that is that it allows for people to become utterly stranded, and as you say, it doesn't add any fun to the game.
I've been playing with suggesting the idea multiple times, and I've just resigned to realizing the fact that EVE isn't the game for it. I'm planning on getting it into a different type of game entirely, however, but I strongly doubt it's a fit for EVE. |
Presidente Gallente
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
131
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:04:29 -
[1622] - Quote
I just realized that Blops will get a 50% jump fatigue bonus. Honestly. Blops is made for hit and run and not hit and stay afk for 30 mins. 15 mins max. would be a good timer. We are talking about a bonus between 50% and 90% (JF). Let's say 75%. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:12:36 -
[1623] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Valterra Craven's post crystallized an idea for me.....
That logistics is just too easy - and that's why the design intent seems not to match what players then do (sandbox).
The timer and fatigue system does indeed seem to be inelegant and I can understand some players objections. What I don't quite understand is why this ended up being the change needed, when a relatively simple tweak (then with further support changes) might well accomplish the same - and a whole lot more.
Why not tweak jump fuel usage and fuel bay sizes so that Capitals have to refuel every 5(?) LY instead? No timers, no building measures of fatigue - just the need to refuel.
Fuel then has to accompany and or be pre-positioned. Make the Rorqual have a secondary 'refuelling station' role (where the Industrial Core does indeed generate a POS-like shield wherein refuelling takes place). JF and the Rorquals have bigger fuel bays. Other ships, could, have the ability to carry fuel as well.
Large assaults - more fuel.
If it works, then I'd seriously suggest that ALL ships end up using fuel (except capsules). It doesn't have to be the same fuel as jump fuel and could even be an isk-sink. Normal space flight uses a bit of fuel; afterburners and then MWDs yet more propgressively; and warping to gates costs some. All usage dependent on mass.
Real logistics is needed for fuel, ammo and maintenace/replacement. EVE only has a relatively small ammo usage and little maintenance and then some replacement. But fuel is the big driver....
(Author is ex-RL Military Logistics Officer) - also let Rorq's into High Sec with similar properties to JFs - and the on-grid within shields mining boosts; per my earlier post herein. That's just... Yuck. It wouldn't solve the power teleportation problem - at the worst you'd just have to bring a JF along. It would just add a tedious step. Fuel for all ships traveling anywhere.... How does that add any fun to the game? Rorqs into HS.... and what give them 10LY so they can be the new JF out of Jita???
Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:23:57 -
[1624] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already. Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation.
"Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked."
It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible. |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:31:53 -
[1625] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already. Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation. "Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible.
Well - coming to think about it: Its actually a great idea to improve industry again. Think of all the possible fuel stops one can set up :D
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:38:49 -
[1626] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already. Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation. "Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible. Well - coming to think about it: Its actually a great idea to improve industry again. Think of all the possible fuel stops one can set up :D Since we're talking about fuel stops, then pilots gotta eat, might as well make those fuel stops serve hotdogs too. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:47:35 -
[1627] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Tikitina wrote: I was in several 3-5 freighter supply convoys 20-40 jump into null sec before Jump Freighters and it was some of the most nail biting pvp I've ever been in.
lets just mosey on over to the corp history Quote:CURRENT CORPORATION Imperial Academy [IAC] from 2013.08.18 16:17 to this day oh the person extolling the virtues of freighter ops has never been in anything but a npc corp, you say what a shock
You must be new here. This is like my 8th forum alt since I started playing.
Some of us like our positions on the forums to not be related to our current in-game activities.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:53:20 -
[1628] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main.
Many of us don't care about the post with your main thing.
What I say on the forums is separate to what I do in game, and it will always be that way.
You may think that since I don't post with my main what I say doesn't matter, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The ones who listen to what one says regardless of who they are and listen to what I saying, not who I am, are the ones I'm talking to. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:03:10 -
[1629] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main.
I sold my main - does that mean all the play time I had before I created this new main no longer applies?
Edit: I do get the post with your main thing - if someone is going toi opine on something, they should have some idea what they're talking about. But in a game like Eve where alts and character sales are a thing, it's little better than disagreeing with someone just because you don't like their hair. Discouting someone's ideas out of hand just because they're posting with an NPC alt is illogical.
Edit 2: Freighter ops are ******* dull. I can barely stand flying a freighter 10 jumps in highsec. much less 40 jumps through null. But that's my opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people may enjoy them. Some people are also bonkers. vOv
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:03:37 -
[1630] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. |
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:22:24 -
[1631] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.
Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.
They should move the mining link role to some sort of ORE command ship and give bonuses for how people actually use the ship.
|
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:23:14 -
[1632] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.
This. Cyno jammers need to lock out the gates. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:33:00 -
[1633] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant. And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive. |
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Imperial Outlaws.
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:41:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant. And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive. you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are
being "expensive" is not a balancing factor |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:52:59 -
[1635] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant. And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive.
What you're saying is no longer a reality, what I'm saying still is. Why do smart people put CSAA's in dead end systems with jammers? 1) Stop caps from jumping in 2) Force your enemy through one gate
Jammers will still stop caps from jumping in and will now force them through gates with the sub caps.
A few years ago I was in a small alliance in the east. As it turns out Fleet Admiral Dabigredboat managed to RF a CSAA that was set up as described. Before the timer came out our alliance got our capitals in and bubbled the **** out of every gate they would have to go through to get to the system.
Jammers still force exactly that, except now it will be bringing caps through a ton of unfriendly potentially bubbled space, instead of just taking gates until you're 5LY out and jumping in. Strategic implications.
Will it act as a safety net so you can sit there without any fear of a lone capital attacking you ? No. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
112
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:54:55 -
[1636] - Quote
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are Guess it was Grayscale. I understand the reasoning behind allowing capitals to jump through gates, but I suppose the consequences of this were seriously underestimated. Battles at cynojammer POS were always a real, meaningful sub-capital PVP (if we're talking about large scale conflicts). What we'll see in the future - is who can dogpile more capitals to the gate. And black ops will become much safer for attackers, if they sneak a triage carrier and a dread into the target system and log them off. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:00:17 -
[1637] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main. Why? Lordy Baltec, you do whinge just for the sake of whinging! I use this character far, far more than my older one, so which one is my main? extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
that anyone, anywhere, at any time enjoyed a freighter op is a more extraordinary claim than the existence of the lizard people |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
482
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:14:26 -
[1638] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main. Why? Lordy Baltec, you do whinge just for the sake of whinging! I use this character far, far more than my older one, so which one is my main? extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that anyone, anywhere, at any time enjoyed a freighter op is a more extraordinary claim than the existence of the lizard people
Not so extraordinary if you think about it - probably not all the time but...
Whereas a combat op can be ugly with a bunch of drunks, especially flying expensive stuff, a freighter op would be far more ... tolerant of such. Probably a lot more jokes and the like with more of an "oh well, **** happens." if it goes south. That'd be drunk or sober by a lot of the pilots vs "how many ships did we lose?!?! " |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
599
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:45:45 -
[1639] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.
I agree. Let's get rid of cyno jammers altogether. That way supers can be killed in the cradle. It will limit proliferation and provide defensive explosions. (Pro Hint: cyno jammers are one of the causes of super capital proliferation) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:46:58 -
[1640] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant. They should move the mining link role to some sort of ORE command ship and give bonuses for how people actually use the ship.
No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
CCP introduces ship with role - ships keeps role and base bonuses and only fine adjustments are made if the values are completely off - but dont change the base of a ship to start with. That gives stability towards the sandbox gaming as skilling will never be useless - the ship will always have at least its base role. Thats how it should work at all times.
I took a break and find myself with a ton of Ospreys that used to be cool mining ships - they completely changed role in one update. Useless now because skills and ships dont comply to each other anymore. And there are tons of examples like that. Which is why i posted earlier that taking a step back and looking how many other professions and gamestyles have been demolished over the years because of making that kind of changes is a bad idea.
We as players get tools - we get freedom how we use them. If we are able to use them better or smarter than the intended use - fine. But changing them into the exact thing we use it for is simply wrong.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:49:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Dwissi wrote: No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
more and more i find that if a post contains the word "sandbox" and does not have a ccp tag it nearly exclusively contains incredibly bad ideas about gameplay justified solely through a handwave at the word sandbox
it's remarkable, really |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:51:29 -
[1642] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. Blackops always have, and always will be a bigger threat to rorquals than a logged out gang of dreads/carriers ever will be. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:51:58 -
[1643] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Edit 2: Freighter ops are ******* dull. I can barely stand flying a freighter 10 jumps in highsec. much less 40 jumps through null. But that's my opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people may enjoy them. Some people are also bonkers. vOv
A Rapier or Huginn with a faction web and a bit of practice makes it a lot easier.
Of course, you needed to be in the same Corp when you start out in HiSec. Once you were in Null, anyone could web them once the Freighter got a bit of speed going during align.
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:53:31 -
[1644] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dwissi wrote: No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
more and more i find that if a post contains the word "sandbox" and does not have a ccp tag it nearly exclusively contains incredibly bad ideas about gameplay justified solely through a handwave at the word sandbox it's remarkable, really
Well - come up with proper argument against an idea and why its better. My kids tend to say something is bad - and they dont get away with just that. I assume you are an adult - so you can defnitly do better than that.
P.S: Snipping half of the context is a bad attitude by the way
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
599
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:54:25 -
[1645] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are Guess it was Grayscale. I understand the reasoning behind allowing capitals to jump through gates, but I suppose the consequences of this were seriously underestimated. Battles at cynojammer POS were always a real, meaningful sub-capital PVP (if we're talking about large scale conflicts). What we'll see in the future - is who can dogpile more capitals to the gate. And black ops will become much safer for attackers, if they sneak a triage carrier and a dread into the target system and log them off.
Login traps are dishonorable, therefore you are dishonorable.
Would you really steath seed a carrier/dread combo into a system to kill 1 rorq? |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:55:23 -
[1646] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. I agree. Let's get rid of cyno jammers altogether. That way supers can be killed in the cradle. It will limit proliferation and provide defensive explosions. (Pro Hint: cyno jammers are one of the causes of super capital proliferation) No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
599
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:57:25 -
[1647] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. I agree. Let's get rid of cyno jammers altogether. That way supers can be killed in the cradle. It will limit proliferation and provide defensive explosions. (Pro Hint: cyno jammers are one of the causes of super capital proliferation) No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes.
Cool, so we agree. Let's throw away those comfy womfy security blankets and get down to business. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 16:06:42 -
[1648] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. I agree. Let's get rid of cyno jammers altogether. That way supers can be killed in the cradle. It will limit proliferation and provide defensive explosions. (Pro Hint: cyno jammers are one of the causes of super capital proliferation) No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes. Cool, so we agree. Let's throw away those comfy womfy security blankets and get down to business. Agree on what? That cyno jammers need to be removed so supers can be killed?
You're apparently reading something into my post which I did not put there. I just said that supers can (and are) often coathangered without the use of caps, so removing cynojammers is not required to "let supers be coathangered". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can take the idea of removing cynojammers and stuff it, because it still has a strategic value in forcing caps to either go through gates to get to where they're going, or wait for the subcap fleet to take down the jammer. Or find a way around. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
599
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 16:14:53 -
[1649] - Quote
kneecap force projection kneecap SOV structure hitpoints kneecap cyno jammers kneecap passive isk
It's all on the napkin. I'm not sure if you guys don't know or don't believe. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
191
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 16:21:54 -
[1650] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:kneecap force projection kneecap SOV structure hitpoints kneecap cyno jammers kneecap passive isk
It's all on the napkin. I'm not sure if you guys don't know or don't believe.
Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |