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 80 .. 80 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:39:50 -
[1591] - Quote
Niskin wrote:Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:lol you even said it "As a true solo player" and they you said, "I'm not much of a solo PvP'er " I only have one account, that makes me a solo player, that is a fact. I'm not very good at solo PvP, that is a fact. Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:get rekt, you are proposing unrealistic tactics for people that go to LS to look for fair fights and fast pace pvp that is one reason why most people fly frigates, not because is cheap but challenging I'm telling you what I would do if I was back doing solo FacWar with these proposed changes. You can do whatever you want. I like to do whatever gives me the most chance of survival without paying for a second account. How hard is it to dock up and pod-scout a few complexes? Or log on the alt on the same account who is already in a probe-capable ship nearby?
Ill give you a scenario
Im on my duo rep ishkur i found a merlin, incursus and rifter, I know i can take them but there is no way to know if a recon is there, i usually roam about 10-15 system so lets say my prober is 5 jump out.
I log out and log back in bring my prober to that system, those guys move on to a different system while i was moving my prober, fight is gone do you really need Eve to be slower than it already is? |
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:44:56 -
[1592] - Quote
Vargo Shahni wrote:Having just a flat ability of D-scan immunity seems a bit strange to me as one of Eve's great strengths is the amount of variability in outfitting of ships you come across. Would it not be better to give combat recons an extra utility high slot and create a new module that only they can fit which grants D-scan immunity. if the module needs to be activated then the recons would be briefly visible on D-scan like Covert-Ops.
You could say that about bubble immunity.
No, I'm not saying bubble immunity should be moved to a high slot mod. I'm saying that eve shouldn't be only about modules on the ships. There should be things called "role bonuses", things that are just inherent to the ship hull, as they have been for many years.
|
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:50:35 -
[1593] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:Barrett Fruitcake wrote:I hope CCP doesn't cave on a great new step in getting rid of perfect intel due to a bunch of players unwilling to adapt to such changes. So D-Scan is perfect intel nowadays? Seriously?
It's one of the tools that gives you far too much information for free, like local.
You either know someone is in local or not. On D-scan, you either know they ship type, name and if they are on grid or not.
There should be a point where their are more unknowns, than knowns.
D-Scan should act more like scan probes and show unknown contacts at extreme ranges instead of always returning perfect information when you are in range.
There should be a range of uncertainty.
|
2D34DLY4U
BACKUPLEGION
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:50:54 -
[1594] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote: I can tell you what will happen most likely: - Less fights because people are risk averse - A 2nd account with a Prober at all times will be must, not an option.
I think this is a complex debate and I'm sure that none of us understand player behavior completely, but my experience is actually the opposite of what you're saying. Yes, people are risk averse, they want to make good decisions when they're taking risks and that often leads being conservative. That's exactly why I like this kind of mechanic. People want to do the fun thing and take more engagements, but when they have enough information to know that they aren't the favorite they shy away from fighting. However, when some information is obscured they become optimistic and take more risks. I've seen players so willing to make decisions that are likely too risky simply because they lack perfect information. Jumping into gate camps where positional information isn't guaranteed, engaging on stations with people docked, fighting in systems with more in local than can be accounted for, etc. These mechanics that obscure information give people the excuses needed to take risks. Take the example given somewhere in this thread of a low sec camp with 2 Vexors and 2 Rooks. Before these changes, the gang considering fighting them never would because they know they can't deal with the Rooks. After, they won't see them and so they will probably engage. That's more fights because people are risk averse. The negative side for me is your other bullet point. Because people don't want to take unnecessary risk they will work very hard, sometimes doing something very boring or difficult, just to get at those last pieces of information. And they should. But we would want to avoid mechanics that obligate people to this kind of behavior too heavily without enough positive side to make the mechanic worthwhile. I would be more worried with this mechanic that people have to spend a lot of time running probe scans when they really don't want to be than that they are avoiding engagements because of the possibility of Recons. I don't think this will be a problem but we'll have to wait and see.
I don't know what player behavior will be like, however this is my intuition:
Agree that risk aversion is a huge problem in terms of preventing engagements and/or forcing players to perform tedious tasks to a great length in order to gain an advantage / feel "safe", thus promoting uninteresting game play as opposed to fun fights which is what everyone wants.
Agree that less information may lead players to accept there is a certain degree of risk in what they do and therefore lead them to take "leaps of faith" into the unknown, thus fighting risk aversion and generating good fights.
Do not agree this will work since it acts in a one sided manner by benefiting campers (sitting on a beacon with 2 invisible to dscan friends ganking nerds) more than explorers (willing to venture into unknown by roaming).
It seems to me you are thinking correctly and have the correct intention but you are acting in a way that does not benefit what you intend to do.
Unless the lack of information is equal to everyone I don't think this will foster risk taking, instead it may promote risk averse behaviors even further - the issue of forcing everyone to bring a combat prober should be small when compared with the amount of players that will camp sites by sitting idly while waiting for easy kills, I suspect we will have much more of these than players that out of this change become willing to engage by accepting some degree of risk.
I don't have a solution to this problem, one way to do it seems to be treat dscan and local as enemies of more engagements and force everyone to play with less information, another way to do it would be allow everyone to see everything but rework the engagement commitment/escape mechanics, however it seems a rethink of the engagement model / intel+visibility tools available to players is required in order to nail it and that by using this incremental approach you may actually be taking a step backwards.
In general my gut feeling around this it that the more people roam around the better, since roaming is for sure a driver of engagements (it acts as a matchmaking queue of engagement possibilities); either you remove all information and then people will roam in the dark (what it seems to me you want to happen and will promote more engagements) or if you employ a piecemeal approach you may end up not achieving your desired objective or even worse, cornering players into the very same behaviors you wish to prevent (bad gameplay centered on defenders sitting idly, roamers docked and less overall fights).
Unless you already did the rethink of the engagement model and this is just a first step...
PS: please fix Pilgrim, it's slow armor ship that fights at close range so the neut range is kinda useless, even with MWD+point instead of AB+scram it will still be slower than everything else except what it cannot fight. Think U boat warfare in WW2 :) |
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:58:03 -
[1595] - Quote
hellokittyonline wrote:Barrett Fruitcake wrote:I hope CCP doesn't cave on a great new step in getting rid of perfect intel due to a bunch of players unwilling to adapt to such changes. Most of what has made Eve strong is the constant re-invention of the game. Don't lose sight of that.
Oh yeah; adapt or cry in your bear threatening to unsub, only to adapt later once you realize your threatening to unsub has been used more than "crying wolf" and has lost its apparent effect.
Do you even read bro? Clearly another scrub looking for ez kills. Most of the issued raised are from actual PvPers looking for changes that encourage skillbased, gimmick-free PvP instead of the war of alts we have right now.
Sorry, I didn't know I was going to run into the "real pvper's" of Eve when stating my opinion.
Reducing the information available and creating more situations where you are unsure of what you are up against is not gimmick gameplay. Its taking Eve in more of a direction it should be.
There should be less perfect information in all tools that we use to interact with other ships in space; Local, D-Scan, Probes, Map Statistics, and etc.
Player skill should determine how good the intel we gain is. It shouldn't just be handed out. Removing some ships from d-scan gets us to stop using it as a crutch with perfect information.
|
Stan Durden
Omega Tactical Group Reckoning Star Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:02:47 -
[1596] - Quote
Eve is hard. Most of us accept that.
If you die it should be because you are doing it wrong. Adding the immunity to d-scan means in many more cases of choosing to take the fight or take the acceleration gate, will be doing it wrong. Many situations which used to give us PvP will turn from a manageable risk into a bad decision.
Initially I like the sound of the new recon changes. However, consider the steps that will be necessary now to gather good intel and decide to take a fight... I think you will see a lot less fights happen in all areas of PvP, because people will be a lot less willing to engage.
Of course a lot more ganks will happen. There are plenty of PvPers who only take ganks, and who don't really want to find good fights. For them these changes will really improve the game. For those of us who will also take fights which are risky, but manageable... those of us who chose to try to turn up the difficulty when we can... it will make it even more difficult to find a good fight imo.
So in the end do you think this change will lead to more good fights, or more ganks? I will never say no to a free kill, but I would prefer changes that help generate good fights. I don't think this change will do that.
|
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:03:44 -
[1597] - Quote
2D34DLY4U wrote:
PS: please fix Pilgrim, it's slow armor ship that fights at close range so the neut range is kinda useless, even with MWD+point instead of AB+scram it will still be slower than everything else except what it cannot fight. Think U boat warfare in WW2 :)
Note: Many want range bonus on Pilgrim's energy warfare in order to be able to use it in new ways. A speed boost might help it though.
|
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:09:14 -
[1598] - Quote
Stan Durden wrote:Eve is hard. Most of us accept that.
If you die it should be because you are doing it wrong. Adding the immunity to d-scan means in many more cases of choosing to take the fight or take the acceleration gate, will be doing it wrong. Many situations which used to give us PvP will turn from a manageable risk into a bad decision.
Initially I like the sound of the new recon changes. However, consider the steps that will be necessary now to gather good intel and decide to take a fight... I think you will see a lot less fights happen in all areas of PvP, because people will be a lot less willing to engage.
Of course a lot more ganks will happen. There are plenty of PvPers who only take ganks, and who don't really want to find good fights. For them these changes will really improve the game. For those of us who will also take fights which are risky, but manageable... those of us who chose to try to turn up the difficulty when we can... it will make it even more difficult to find a good fight imo.
So in the end do you think this change will lead to more good fights, or more ganks? I will never say no to a free kill, but I would prefer changes that help generate good fights. I don't think this change will do that.
I have found that truly, good fights, have been a rarity in Eve mainly due to its sand box non-instanced no rules gameplay.
We are not playing a space version of football, American or that other one. We are simulating a space struggle where there is great risk of being overwhelmed, and sometimes great reward for those willing to take that risk.
It's a cold hard game, and it is rarely fair, and probably never should be. |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:09:17 -
[1599] - Quote
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:hellokittyonline wrote:Barrett Fruitcake wrote:I hope CCP doesn't cave on a great new step in getting rid of perfect intel due to a bunch of players unwilling to adapt to such changes. Most of what has made Eve strong is the constant re-invention of the game. Don't lose sight of that.
Oh yeah; adapt or cry in your bear threatening to unsub, only to adapt later once you realize your threatening to unsub has been used more than "crying wolf" and has lost its apparent effect.
Do you even read bro? Clearly another scrub looking for ez kills. Most of the issued raised are from actual PvPers looking for changes that encourage skillbased, gimmick-free PvP instead of the war of alts we have right now. Sorry, I didn't know I was going to run into the "real pvper's" of Eve when stating my opinion. Reducing the information available and creating more situations where you are unsure of what you are up against is not gimmick gameplay. Its taking Eve in more of a direction it should be. There should be less perfect information in all tools that we use to interact with other ships in space; Local, D-Scan, Probes, Map Statistics, and etc. Player skill should determine how good the intel we gain is. It shouldn't just be handed out. Removing some ships from d-scan gets us to stop using it as a crutch with perfect information.
Except that won't happen, people will just take more times to get same intel, take time to send covert ops, take time to probe (boring for lot of player), at the end it just mean less fight. End of story.
D-Scan immunity is dumb.
|
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:15:05 -
[1600] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Except that won't happen, people will just take more times to get same intel, take time to send covert ops, take time to probe (boring for lot of player), at the end it just mean less fight. End of story.
I know players want to use this "creates less fights" as the new "I'll unsub if you do" complaint, but I don't think it will gain you much in the end.
At some point there is a critical mass of intel that say's we got most of what we need and you engage or you don't. Some want perfect information, which many of our tools give them now.
It should be more about of imperfect intel and the willingness to take a gamble, not about waiting for the perfect intel. The perfect intel should never come.
|
|
Lvzbel Ixtab
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
43
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:19:54 -
[1601] - Quote
People that say that D-scan gives perfect intel are wrong, you can always hide the rest of a fleet in a different system or in a wh and many tactics to hide you true numbers |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team
234
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:25:35 -
[1602] - Quote
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:People that say that D-scan gives perfect intel are wrong, you can always hide the rest of a fleet in a different system or in a wh and many tactics to hide you true numbers
True! But imagine you want to hide your fleet in a wormhole. You warp there - you jump in and...
then...
OMG, it's full of Recons!!!11 |
Hard Carnt
The Vendunari End of Life
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:37:58 -
[1603] - Quote
An interesting point is that of getting to much info for free from dscan - I can see the logic in this point so rather than op a class of ship by completely removing then why not change the de an mechanic - ie passively watching d scab gives you an unknown ship type return at an unknown distance in a vague direction. Actively scanning gives you much more detail such as ship type, range and direction but also alerts the contact that you're looking for him. Kind of like a Radar Warning Receiver style thing |
Giribaldi
PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 01:59:54 -
[1604] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hopefully no typos or weirdnesses but its always possible so just let me know if something looks funny. 15:02 - I have to step out for a meeting. Back in an hour to start responding. 15:49 - fixed typos in Huginn and Curse slot layout =/ 16:51 - heading out for the day, will keep reading and post responses to your feedback tomorrow Friday - 11:16 - update post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5322500#post5322500
Can we get another updat3. For the love of jesus, we want resist profiles. We want to know specifics about wet her we will see them in overview if ongrid. We want increased EHP because the givenue bonus uve given them are so marginal you will not notice it in pvp. 50 hp? That is nothing compared to the damage application of medium guns. Reasonably we need to see a 400 to 500 he P I crease on respective tank hp. |
Alruan Shadowborn
InterSun Freelance SONS of BANE
26
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 02:01:32 -
[1605] - Quote
Instead of making them invisible to D-Scan, why not make them un-scannable by Probes
They could know you are there, but could do nothing about it
OR
Make it a distance based effect, over 10AU there is nothing, 5-10 AU shows as unknown signature1-5 AU shows as a ship and under 1 AU it shows what ship it is, or what class of ship maybe |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Sindication
56
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 02:40:05 -
[1606] - Quote
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:Instead of making them invisible to D-Scan, why not make them un-scannable by Probes
They could know you are there, but could do nothing about it
Now is this satire or are you really ... ? Seriously? I mean... what?! |
Stan Durden
Omega Tactical Group Reckoning Star Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 02:45:35 -
[1607] - Quote
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:Stan Durden wrote:Eve is hard. Most of us accept that.
If you die it should be because you are doing it wrong. Adding the immunity to d-scan means in many more cases of choosing to take the fight or take the acceleration gate, will be doing it wrong. Many situations which used to give us PvP will turn from a manageable risk into a bad decision.
Initially I like the sound of the new recon changes. However, consider the steps that will be necessary now to gather good intel and decide to take a fight... I think you will see a lot less fights happen in all areas of PvP, because people will be a lot less willing to engage.
Of course a lot more ganks will happen. There are plenty of PvPers who only take ganks, and who don't really want to find good fights. For them these changes will really improve the game. For those of us who will also take fights which are risky, but manageable... those of us who chose to try to turn up the difficulty when we can... it will make it even more difficult to find a good fight imo.
So in the end do you think this change will lead to more good fights, or more ganks? I will never say no to a free kill, but I would prefer changes that help generate good fights. I don't think this change will do that.
I have found that truly, good fights, have been a rarity in Eve mainly due to its sand box non-instanced no rules gameplay. We are not playing a space version of football, American or that other one. We are simulating a space struggle where there is great risk of being overwhelmed, and sometimes great reward for those willing to take that risk. It's a cold hard game, and it is rarely fair, and probably never should be.
While it is not easy to find a good fight, it can be done. I have been in quite a few good fights during the years I have played Eve. I tend to believe that the people who can't find a good fight are simply unwilling to take them when they appear. If you are willing to take a truly good fight then you should be willing to lose your ship a lot more often then most people are.
A good fight does not mean it needs to be fair. It typically means that both sides have a different advantages they are working with, which they think will give them the edge. No one takes a fight they are certain they will lose. But there are some pilots who are willing to take fights when they are not certain they will win. Certainly, there are large groups of "PvPers" who will run from the first sign that the victim may shoot back. But there are plenty of PvPers who are willing and able to take a good fight if they are given the opportunity.
The point I was trying to make is lets not make it harder than it already is to find a good fight. Many good fights develop after some intel has been collected. A FC or a solo pilot can make a decision to engage based on a variety of information they may have gathered. Making it more difficult to gather accurate intel will not help people decide to engage, instead it will lead to a decision to withdraw more often because not enough information is available.
|
StuRyan
Space Mutts
54
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 03:13:08 -
[1608] - Quote
Worrff wrote:Kmelx wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Dscan immunity is staying. Asking for player feedback and then ignoring that feedback for the win. I seriously wonder why you even bother... So that it gives the IMPRESSION that they are listening. They will do whatever they want regardless. All the feedback about the new UI went unheeded and ignored. Been the same for years, nothing new.
And yet you are still playing the game? |
StuRyan
Space Mutts
54
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 03:21:35 -
[1609] - Quote
Personally recons needed a buff. With the UI changes to null sec anom runners it killed solo recons hunting ratters down.
I am not sure this change brings that game play back but it for sure will make players actually pay more attention.
As I always say, HTFU or go play WOTs if want an easy gameplay. |
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:23:33 -
[1610] - Quote
StuRyan wrote:Worrff wrote:Kmelx wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Dscan immunity is staying. Asking for player feedback and then ignoring that feedback for the win. I seriously wonder why you even bother... So that it gives the IMPRESSION that they are listening. They will do whatever they want regardless. All the feedback about the new UI went unheeded and ignored. Been the same for years, nothing new. And yet you are still playing the game?
A few players complaining about it doesn't warrant removing it.
Yes, a 80+ page thread is only a few players complaining. |
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
828
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 05:54:06 -
[1611] - Quote
Okay, so now that Rise posted there somewhere that he's working on alternative suggestions, can we stop whining about d-scan immunity and focus of ships themselves? I, for one, am afraid of Pilgrim becoming/remaining not worth using, especially now that it's losing ability to fight heavier targets in favor of, uhm, what, being more consistent against faster cruisers and frigs? Not sure what we are looking at here. |
Orvmus
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 06:27:35 -
[1612] - Quote
You have made Combat Recons stupidly powerful and refuse to so much as consider that making them d-scan immune is a bad idea.
Where are the drawbacks to the immunity? Why not give it a hard-to-fit module which only combat recons can fit and make the ships give up a slot and fitting in order to use it? You are making them undetectable unless they are on-grid with you and there is zero counter to that. Much better resists, much better cap, faster across the board, more hitpoints, additional drone bay space for one of them AND being undetectable via d-scan? Solo players be damned, right?
Not only that but you say that being undetectable in FW Plexes + Deadspace areas is something that you should look at but "won't be able to do before the next release" - So do what CCP have been touting as the main benefit of the new release schedule is and delay the damn update until you HAVE sorted it out, don't release a half-baked polished turd like you normally do. It was like listening to a child that thinks their ideas are the business and can't take criticism when I heard you on the podcast - "I have been waiting for a real reason that this is bad but haven't heard anything close so far." Start playing the game again Kil2, interact with those that don't have brown on their nose.
To be clear: A Curse is going to be the first thing I'm flying post patch, followed by the rest of the Combat Recons as these ships are going to be ******** good. Combat Recon gangs here we come. What a terrible idea. /rant |
Gwydion Voleur
Anarchic Exploration
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 06:49:01 -
[1613] - Quote
Pilgrims need to keep the neut amount bonus. As I posted earlier, add the "old Nos" effect (or something) to buff the ship. Old Nos effect would at least free up another mid-slot for Ewar by eliminating the need for a cap booster, making it more effective without destroying the thing for which it is most known.
As for the D-scan changes, if some type of immunity is inevitable, how about limiting the D-scan range for detecting Combat Recons? (Sorry if this has been said before, I can only read so many pages.) For example, Recon 1 and you are detectable at 10AU, then subtract 2AU for each level trained, so that diligent D-scanners pick up highly trained Recon pilots at 2 AU? Or even start at 5AU and get them at 1AU? Whatever. Blanket immunity largely (but not completely) removes the need for CovOps cloaks and overlaps the Combat and Force Recon roles too much. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
537
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:35:04 -
[1614] - Quote
Im loving dscan immunity. Finally it will be possible to catch nullbears in those gated plexes.
W-Space Realtor
|
Squatdog
State Protectorate Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 08:54:07 -
[1615] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon.
Hopefully this revised proposal will be:
"All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, which is a terrible idea".
|
Zumbul Cvetkov
Your Loss Dead Terrorists
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 09:06:48 -
[1616] - Quote
I dont like the idea of that D-scan immunity.. IF you at CCP wanna do something funny, then try this:
I hereby ask CCP to remove D-Scan and Local chat from EVE completly !!!!! Make the fun for all the same....
CCP REMOVE D-SCAN AND LOCAL FROM EVE !!!
|
Marlona Sky
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
5829
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 10:18:34 -
[1617] - Quote
Squatdog wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon. Hopefully this revised proposal will be: "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, we are changing it to not appearing in local chat.". FTFY
The Paradox
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14333
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 10:40:25 -
[1618] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Squatdog wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Monday update - I'm working on a revised proposal but it's a bit slow going with everyone but me out of the office to visit their families (boring). Hopefully some new stuff for you guys soon. Hopefully this revised proposal will be: "All changes remain in place...except for unscannable Combat Recons, we are changing it to not appearing in local chat.". FTFY
Sounds fun
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
2882
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:03:02 -
[1619] - Quote
Barrett Fruitcake wrote:I have found that truly, good fights, have been a rarity in Eve mainly due to its sand box non-instanced no rules gameplay.
We are not playing a space version of football, American or that other one. We are simulating a space struggle where there is great risk of being overwhelmed, and sometimes great reward for those willing to take that risk.
It's a cold hard game, and it is rarely fair, and probably never should be. Depends on what you mean by 'good fight'.
If a good fight is one where both sides have a 50% chance to win - then yes, you won't get many fights. Players estimate odds very differently, if both sides are looking for at least even odds you'll spend all your time deciding whether to engage or not and very little time actually fighting and having fun.
If you're willing to engage with a 10-20% chance to win and enjoy the challenge, then your engagement range is much higher, you'll find many 'good fights', lose several but win some and have a lot of fun.
That excludes only super-pussies that won't even fight with 80-90% odds in their favor (yes, there are several, but they really should be playing some other game, or sticking to highsec missions).
Make space glamorous!
Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
595
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:21:53 -
[1620] - Quote
Some of the best fights I've had are hopelessly outnumbered where we all die but take chunks of the enemy with us. 'Here we go, kill as many as we can - primary ....'
Best fights ever, sure we could evade - but that's not what is all about is it? |
|
|
|
|
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 80 .. 80 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |