Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2123
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 09:31:42 -
[31] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:A thought has occurred. Currently, there is literally no point in repping a GCC'd pilot so I doubt anyone has ever bothered. Should a logi ship repair a ganker currently killing a victim, does that logi ship get recognition in the killmail (this isn't the case for legal aggression) and does the logi pilot share the same consequences for HiSec ganking as a damage-dealing pilot?
If not, that'll need to change as T1 logi pilots would create an unfair advantage for pirate fleets.
iirc repping a criminal or outlaw makes you a criminal and CONCORD DD your oneiros.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 09:32:27 -
[32] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:A thought has occurred. Currently, there is literally no point in repping a GCC'd pilot so I doubt anyone has ever bothered. Should a logi ship repair a ganker currently killing a victim, does that logi ship get recognition in the killmail (this isn't the case for legal aggression) and does the logi pilot share the same consequences for HiSec ganking as a damage-dealing pilot?
If not, that'll need to change as T1 logi pilots would create an unfair advantage for pirate fleets. iirc repping a criminal or outlaw makes you a criminal and CONCORD DD your oneiros. Good! Thanks.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
891
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 09:36:03 -
[33] - Quote
There is a simple yet collosal flaw in the OP. Those who live in hisec because ti is more safe do so because they do not (or acannot due to time commitments) want to operate in lo/null/WH space. Removing CONCORD would not change this and would simply result in many players being unable to take part in Eve.
So it's a no from me. With a vigorous shake of the head. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 09:40:54 -
[34] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Removing CONCORD would not change this and would simply result in many players being unable to take part in Eve. How? Every profession currently avaiable to HiSec residents will continue to be available. Those who enjoy mission running, can continue running missions. Explorers, incursion runners, haulers, traders, PI commanders, industrialists et al get to continue their current games.
So where exactly does this change render EVE unplayable for these people?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
891
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:04:35 -
[35] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Removing CONCORD would not change this and would simply result in many players being unable to take part in Eve. How? Every profession currently avaiable to HiSec residents will continue to be available. Those who enjoy mission running, can continue running missions. Explorers, incursion runners, haulers, traders, PI commanders, industrialists et al get to continue their current games. So where exactly does this change render EVE unplayable for these people?
Because your intention is to make the hisec regions less safe than they are and therfore 'persuade' players to move to other areas that they clearly don't want to move to.
I would point out that CONCORD do not make hisec safe, simply act as a deterrent against random attacks.
I would also say as I usually do in these type of threads that players will only play in the regions that they are happy in. Mess with that and you mess with the player base. The only way to get players into other regions of space is to entice them in. This would still only be a small portion of those in hisec but I am of the view that hisec players have every right to be there since they pay the same subs as everyone else. I also view them as a valuable segment of the game so see no reason to make them less safe. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
1115
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:12:50 -
[36] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Because your intention is to make the hisec regions less safe than they are and therfore 'persuade' players to move to other areas that they clearly don't want to move to. Not even that. He wants to make High sec less secure to allow his form of shallow PVP that he can't have in Low sec or Null sec where people would actually shoot back at him. Furthermore, he wants to equalize all space and make the different sec levels even more indistinguishable from each other so that even more people have no reason to leave High sec and can instead find all their fun there, leading to even less activity in areas of space which are in fact intended to be less secure and cause consequences on actions from other players. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
891
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:27:48 -
[37] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Because your intention is to make the hisec regions less safe than they are and therfore 'persuade' players to move to other areas that they clearly don't want to move to. Not even that. He wants to make High sec less secure to allow his form of shallow PVP that he can't have in Low sec or Null sec where people would actually shoot back at him. Furthermore, he wants to equalize all space and make the different sec levels even more indistinguishable from each other so that even more people have no reason to leave High sec and can instead find all their fun there, leading to even less activity in areas of space which are in fact intended to be less secure and cause consequences on actions from other players.
That would work well then :D |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
721
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:49:40 -
[38] - Quote
OP wastes time, but provides interesting quote how New Eden isn't supposed to be safe but its safe enough that people can gank like a fat person at a free all you can eat.. CONCORD just needs to pod or remove pods all together, add skill point loss to every ship destroyed excluding shuttle or rookie (CCP made terrible mistake with clone cost removal, isk loss or SP loss....risk the isk or the SP, can't really have both...now its closer to a respawn shooter like COD), T3 is double SP loss, and problem solved. Gankers shoot barge, CONCORD shows up, barge pilot dies and loses skill points, ganker looses skill points, everybody wins with EVE not being a safe place. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1448
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:04:05 -
[39] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:OP wastes time, but provides interesting quote how New Eden isn't supposed to be safe but its safe enough that people can gank like a fat person at a free all you can eat.. CONCORD just needs to pod or remove pods all together, add skill point loss to every ship destroyed excluding shuttle or rookie (CCP made terrible mistake with clone cost removal, isk loss or SP loss....risk the isk or the SP, can't really have both...now its closer to a respawn shooter like COD), T3 is double SP loss, and problem solved. Gankers shoot barge, CONCORD shows up, barge pilot dies and loses skill points, ganker looses skill points, everybody wins with EVE not being a safe place.
Only stupid masochist want to re-train the same skill over and over again.
As for the OP, I kinda wonder how many time it would take for people to stop buying battleship in trade hubs at all since you could camp the station or scout gate and kill any that jump on the other side if they somehow all had insta BM. |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
363
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:29:25 -
[40] - Quote
Colette Kassia wrote:Hmm.. Great idea, but it's never gonna happen.
It's well thought out form a game mechanics perspective. But remember that CCP is never going to do anything that can't be rationalized in a role-playing mindset. You'd have to cook up an incredibly contrived backstory explaining why you can shoot some kinds of ships, but not other kinds of ships.
On a practical point its hard enough for a lot of players to understand aggression mechanics without throwing in the twist of different rules for different ships.
Booster addiction is a wonderful thing
The Booster Addict - IOC's Blog
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:47:28 -
[41] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Because your intention is to make the hisec regions less safe than they are and therfore 'persuade' players to move to other areas that they clearly don't want to move to. Does persuasion consist of "please play with other people"?
Quote:I would point out that CONCORD do not make hisec safe, simply act as a deterrent against random attacks. A job they perform admirably. However, my argument is that they do their job too well, and stifle game play opportunities instead of encouraging players to take part in or create them.
Quote:I would also say as I usually do in these type of threads that players will only play in the regions that they are happy in. So, those players would elect to use cruisers to run L3s or ally up with friends to run L4s.
Quote:The only way to get players into other regions of space is to entice them in. What would you propose? Moreover, what would you propose without a change to CONCORD and humouring me, with the changes I suggested?
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:48:29 -
[42] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Colette Kassia wrote:Hmm.. Great idea, but it's never gonna happen.
It's well thought out form a game mechanics perspective. But remember that CCP is never going to do anything that can't be rationalized in a role-playing mindset. You'd have to cook up an incredibly contrived backstory explaining why you can shoot some kinds of ships, but not other kinds of ships. On a practical point its hard enough for a lot of players to understand aggression mechanics without throwing in the twist of different rules for different ships. Agreed. This is one of the drawbacks of the suggestion that I mentioned in the OP.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:57:41 -
[43] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Indeed it does, but in doing so, you now have a ship that can be legally aggressed. In addition, the ship will be dealing with sentry gun fire. Any logi helping them tank the damage inherits their criminal status, also becoming attackable by all. This creates a strong time limitation as any white knight or ship flying escort for the frieghter can now aggress you, while you're at a disadvantage thanks to sentry fire. This of course, is compounded by the fact that any neutral is free to pile on to the aggressor(s).
A gank fleet waiting in station takes too long to react to a gank opportunity, there is a solid chance that that the point ship will be destroyed before support arrives. This too, is compunded by the fact that large fleets of catalysts can quickly be swatted by any PvP fitted ship, and even PvE fit ships can at least force the catalysts off grid. Simply put, using the old strategy is no longer the optimal solution.
Currently, freighter ganking fleets are only viable because a neutral ship can keep a freighter stalled indefinitely without flagging himself for combat. It is disproportionately difficult for defenders or white knights to deal with that ship. The result is that a single ship can point a freighter while his fleet mates form up at their leisure. So I guess where I'm lost is the fact that the aggressor, if they stick to protected ships, can both be in space waiting for prey without interference AND point and engage a target initially without concord response.
This leaves the same window for white knighting as currently exists, waiting for the trap to close before doing anything about it. That being the case why would gankers respond in any way different than they do currently in overestimating the force needed to eliminate the target to ensure any interference is mitigated? If white knighting works in this case as you suggest it should already work now as it paints the same opportunity. Engaging beforehand only causes the anti-gankers to incur concord's wrath instead.
So why would the white knights engage in that scenario? And knowing this why would the gankers not use that in their favor? And considering the opportunity for successfully stopping the gank is similar to now, how does this encourage more anti-ganking activity? Also how would you expect gank success to deteriorate compared to now when the tools gankers use largely remain ideal but the tools anti-gankers might use would in some cases be restricted by being open for aggression (example: alpha BC's fit to take out smaller gank fleet targets not being able to dwell on grid). Better yet why not switch to cruisers which are still protected and have more tackle fitting capacity making it necessary to potentially need to destroy every member of the gank fleet to enable escape?
Quote:I don't feel that encouraging players to interact with other players - be it through hostilities or team work in a multiplayer game is a negative. I think this is a fundamentally flawed line of thinking in viewing single player activity as something that needs to be eliminated. And all this is is a hostile move towards the single player. It creates no new interaction, but rather attempts to force people into means that some players neither have nor want. If you have the fundamental opinion that the soloist is wrong for wanting to be solo, that could be a reason for removing their content, but I don't feel it's a justifiable position. |
Mag's
the united
18608
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:01:48 -
[44] - Quote
Sorry, but I have to say it's a no from me.
Concord although powerful, is I believe a necessary evil. It's reactive and punishing nature, acts as a balancing tool in high sec. What you suggest would IMHO, have a negative impact on high sec.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
892
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:08:44 -
[45] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:If you have the fundamental opinion that the soloist is wrong for wanting to be solo, that could be a reason for removing their content, but I don't feel it's a justifiable position.
Ihave to say here that as a sandbox game playing solo is a perfectly valid choice but should not be as effective as working in a group |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:27:01 -
[46] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:If you have the fundamental opinion that the soloist is wrong for wanting to be solo, that could be a reason for removing their content, but I don't feel it's a justifiable position. Ihave to say here that as a sandbox game playing solo is a perfectly valid choice but should not be as effective as working in a group Problematically, this doesn't introduce efficiencies as a group. It restricts toolsets to force grouping, the plus side is you have more people, the take away is that you now split rewards and everyone is less effective than they would be had they the full use of the option available.
If anything the soloist in a lvl 3 with a faction cruiser is probably going to be on par with them, maybe better due to NPC aggression causing focused fire making overtanking individual cruisers in lvl 4's a thing vs more damage focused lvl 3 ships. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:34:23 -
[47] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So I guess where I'm lost is the fact that the aggressor, if they stick to protected ships, can both be in space waiting for prey without interference AND point and engage a target initially without concord response. Pirates can deal with criminal sec status and faction police by simply using tags. Killrights however are a problem. I'll concede that killrights in their current form (and the form envisioned within the OP) are only effective when the victim actually uses them properly e.g. making them free to claim by all would simply result in the pirate clearing his on KR.
I've mentioned that others have suggested that killrights should remain available until the pirate loses ISK equal to that he's taken from his victim. However, that value for typical HiSec gank activity is so disproportionate that the kill right is essentially always going to last its full duration. It could well be that kill rights in their current form are better off being removed and simply flagging any pirate that gains a criminal flag also gains a suspect flag of considerable length (somewhere between 24 hours and the full month). I haven't thought that concept through and I'm not comfortable with a relative newbie taking part in a gank, only to learn he's faced with a 30 day suspect flag. One mistake early on could potentially cripple him. Of course, this is EVE, a game where players can make mistakes which can inflict far more than 30 days' worth of damage, so maybe it's not so bad. I'm honestly undecided on the matter.
Quote:This leaves the same window for white knighting as currently exists, waiting for the trap to close before doing anything about it. That's just it, though. White knights are significantly more effective under my proposed changes precisely because they don't have to wait for the pirates to spring their trap. They are essentially free to engage pirates at will, while the pirates have no option to support their fleet mates. Any pirate who wishes to survive an attack from a white knight must do so through the merits of his own ship, fitting and of course, skill as a PvPer.
As I said though, the primary factor that allows such a benefit for white knights assumes that a sufficient number of gank victims know enough about kill rights to use them effectively. It's for this reason I'm musing over the suggested change to kill rights.
Quote:Hiasa Kite wrote:I don't feel that encouraging players to interact with other players - be it through hostilities or team work in a multiplayer game is a negative. I think this is a fundamentally flawed line of thinking in viewing single player activity as something that needs to be eliminated. I don't want solo activity eliminated. I simply don't believe it should be treated favourably at the cost of improvement for the target demographic.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2190
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:35:40 -
[48] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:I proposed immunity to bumping for freighters because freighters (that are viable gank targets) suffer from zero-risk infinipoints holding them in place while a gank fleet assembles.
This only happens if the freighter pilot refuses to use existing game mechanics, which enable them to almost insta-warp. Extremely bad luck is the only way smart freighter pilots die in highsec.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:40:37 -
[49] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Sorry, but I have to say it's a no from me.
Concord although powerful, is I believe a necessary evil. It's reactive and punishing nature, acts as a balancing tool in high sec. What you suggest would IMHO, have a negative impact on high sec. I'm very much interested in a ganker's opinions on this topic. If you don't mind, would you explain how you came to this conclusion?
Please note, while this idea removes CONCORDs influence, it is intended to greatly empower the "white knights" of HiSec and generally better equip players to fend off gank attempts, in addition to creating the opportunity for HiSec criminals to face the justice they deserve. In other words, I'm moving the "power" of HiSec policing from a magic, omnipotent NPC police force to a group of HiSec player heroes.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:43:45 -
[50] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:I proposed immunity to bumping for freighters because freighters (that are viable gank targets) suffer from zero-risk infinipoints holding them in place while a gank fleet assembles. This only happens if the freighter pilot refuses to use existing game mechanics, which enable them to almost insta-warp. Extremely bad luck is the only way smart freighter pilots die in highsec. But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter.
|
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:48:42 -
[51] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:I proposed immunity to bumping for freighters because freighters (that are viable gank targets) suffer from zero-risk infinipoints holding them in place while a gank fleet assembles. This only happens if the freighter pilot refuses to use existing game mechanics, which enable them to almost insta-warp. Extremely bad luck is the only way smart freighter pilots die in highsec. That's a good point. The bumping change would be somewhat redundant as a smart freighter pilot, certainly after these changes would have an escort capable of providing a very low align.
Maybe it's not actually necessary, then. That's nice to know.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:49:35 -
[52] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:admiral root wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:I proposed immunity to bumping for freighters because freighters (that are viable gank targets) suffer from zero-risk infinipoints holding them in place while a gank fleet assembles. This only happens if the freighter pilot refuses to use existing game mechanics, which enable them to almost insta-warp. Extremely bad luck is the only way smart freighter pilots die in highsec. But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter. Or bring a friend.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:57:56 -
[53] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Pirates can deal with criminal sec status and faction police by simply using tags. Killrights however are a problem. I'll concede that killrights in their current form (and the form envisioned within the OP) are only effective when the victim actually uses them properly e.g. making them free to claim by all would simply result in the pirate clearing his on KR.
I've mentioned that others have suggested that killrights should remain available until the pirate loses ISK equal to that he's taken from his victim. However, that value for typical HiSec gank activity is so disproportionate that the kill right is essentially always going to last its full duration. It could well be that kill rights in their current form are better off being removed and simply flagging any pirate that gains a criminal flag also gains a suspect flag of considerable length (somewhere between 24 hours and the full month). I haven't thought that concept through and I'm not comfortable with a relative newbie taking part in a gank, only to learn he's faced with a 30 day suspect flag. One mistake early on could potentially cripple him. Of course, this is EVE, a game where players can make mistakes which can inflict far more than 30 days' worth of damage, so maybe it's not so bad. I'm honestly undecided on the matter.
That's just it, though. White knights are significantly more effective under my proposed changes precisely because they don't have to wait for the pirates to spring their trap. They are essentially free to engage pirates at will, while the pirates have no option to support their fleet mates. Any pirate who wishes to survive an attack from a white knight must do so through the merits of his own ship, fitting and of course, skill as a PvPer.
As I said though, the primary factor that allows such a benefit for white knights assumes that a sufficient number of gank victims know enough about kill rights to use them effectively. It's for this reason I'm musing over the suggested change to kill rights.
I don't want solo activity eliminated. I simply don't believe it should be treated favourably at the cost of improvement for the target demographic. Until such time as the mechanic for killrights is changed to one that universally works we don't have a way of ensuring criminals remain engageable. Thus the ideas of what white knights can and will do in the confines of this idea being dependent on that significantly changes the scope of the idea. As it is now, it just doesn't seem to work.
Also given NPC behavior and the limits of cruisers I don't see how the "target demographic" (which seems fundamentally incorrect here, sandbox mechanics enforce the multiplayer with or without a single players consent to the degree that other players chose within the rules) really profits from this vs just being a lowering of the bar with feasible highsec incomes, still leaving soloist amongst the highest earners proportionally in the same way as now.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2192
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:59:13 -
[54] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter.
For the same reason why it's perfectly ok for two cheap catalysts to destroy a billion isk, anti-tanked loot pinata: the guy who brings more friends is always going to have some advantage. If you want to gank solo that player-owned loot table might get away, but you're perfectly entitled to try it if you don't want to group up.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:00:06 -
[55] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter. Or bring a friend. Adding emphasis.
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
326
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:03:06 -
[56] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Quote:I would also say as I usually do in these type of threads that players will only play in the regions that they are happy in. So, those players would elect to use cruisers to run L3s or ally up with friends to run L4s. How do you know how the solo lvl 4 mission runner would react? And I'm not only talking about the people that only solo, but also about the people that often fly solo when their friends are not online. You could just as easily assume that they would let their sub lapse instead of downsizing to lvl 3's. The fact that you (or I for that matter) would find that illogical is irrelevant.
It's very dangerous to say 'under condition X, the player base will act in manner Y'. You don't know, I don't know and sometimes even CCP doesn't know.
btw, I'm not talking about myself, I live in a wormhole. I'm just curious how you can make such an assessment.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1359
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:05:22 -
[57] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter. For the same reason why it's perfectly ok for two cheap catalysts to destroy a billion isk, anti-tanked loot pinata: the guy who brings more friends is always going to have some advantage. If you want to gank solo that player-owned loot table might get away, but you're perfectly entitled to try it if you don't want to group up. So in even numbers the aggressor has a free win, negating the argument that it should only go to the superior numbers. In a true 1v1 there is no numeric superiority. We could argue the freighter should give up and such advantages in that situation as a result of its utility, but I'm sure not everyone agrees.
Just another topic of endless debate I suppose. |
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:07:46 -
[58] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Until such time as the mechanic for killrights is changed to one that universally works we don't have a way of ensuring criminals remain engageable. Thus the ideas of what white knights can and will do in the confines of this idea being dependent on that significantly changes the scope of the idea. As it is now, it just doesn't seem to work. I can agree with that. I think I'll change the OP so it no longer messes with bumping mechanics and instead suggest a buff to kill rights to ensure white knights and defence fleets are pretty much guaranteed the ability to deal with pirates.
Quote:Also given NPC behavior and the limits of cruisers I don't see how the "target demographic" (which seems fundamentally incorrect here, sandbox mechanics enforce the multiplayer with or without a single players consent to the degree that other players chose within the rules) really profits from this vs just being a lowering of the bar with feasible highsec incomes, still leaving soloist amongst the highest earners proportionally in the same way as now. I'll agree as this is a potential point of concern. I don't particularly want L3 mission running to become the defacto end-game because it offers the highest per-player income. However, this issue can be addressed with a balancing pass on LP rewards and NPC drops.
I'll concede this is a potential problem, but I believe it becomes more of a balance issue. The proposed change may be the cause, but I don't believe that the core idea is rendered unviable because of a need to rebalance PvE rewards.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2193
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:08:30 -
[59] - Quote
With even numbers you have a guy bumping a freighter until he gets bored, I guess. The freighter only gets ganked if he's brought friends.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Hiasa Kite
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 23:08:32 -
[60] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:But that brings up the potential issue of justifying why a second account is needed, whether another person or not, to counter a single other players ability to infinitely stall a freighter. Or bring a friend. Adding emphasis. Missed that, my bad.
People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |