Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
827
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 22:39:31 -
[2821] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:PvE professions exist in game solely as content for PvP. Only those PvE-ers who fail to recognize that EvE is an inherently PvP-centric game and stubbornly fit for maximum ISK/hour/pilot at the expense of PvP ability. Those pilots will always be targets. On this I don't think we disagree. But they are targets only because they choose to be. It's that choice that they make, it's not a condition that's forced on them by game mechanics.
It's not about Isk/hr.
Often it's about isk/at all. Much PvE cannot be done in ships that are capable, never mind competitive, in PvP.
Eve was supposed to be a sandbox. It isn't. You can choose to play a certain way, or you can choose to be entertainment for those that do. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 22:42:28 -
[2822] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Why do PvE focused pilots have to do PvP in a ship not suited to the task? Why isn't it ok for them to evacuate and return in combat ships? Why should their opponents be able to opt out ov PvP until they PvE guys get tired of waiting and go back to non-combat ships? Non-consent works for everyone right?
True. But it'd still be funny if there were a way to catch them ratters without them warping off, wouldn't you agree? There is room for compromise here to get a little risk on both parties. Not only on the ratter, agreed; but I'm getting the feeling AFK Cloaking is specifically aimed at those flying loot pinatas.
Give the trolls less incentive and you might still win the argument; but you're not going to win by using ^^^THIS as an example ;-) |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
827
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 23:37:02 -
[2823] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: Why do PvE focused pilots have to do PvP in a ship not suited to the task? Why isn't it ok for them to evacuate and return in combat ships? Why should their opponents be able to opt out ov PvP until they PvE guys get tired of waiting and go back to non-combat ships? Non-consent works for everyone right?
True. But it'd still be funny if there were a way to catch them ratters without them warping off, wouldn't you agree? There is room for compromise here to get a little risk on both parties. Not only on the ratter, agreed; but I'm getting the feeling AFK Cloaking is specifically aimed at those flying loot pinatas. Give the trolls less incentive and you might still win the argument; but you're not going to win by using ^^^THIS as an example ;-) I'm beginning to think the only reason AFK Cloaking got blown out of proportion and the debate gets overheated is because of this kind of ship. Which is not what I had in mind when I deposited my first 2 cents in this thread. Am I right in assuming that if the targets were less juicy, cloakers would have something better to do than to camp your system? If so, then I think I understand what this whole thread is really all about. Is this the link between local chat and cloak immunity that has been eluding me since page 1?
Nope. It's not just bling ships. That's just the straw-du-jour for a certain type of pro-cloak advocate.
I have been dropped on in a T2 fit Myrmidon worth relatively nothing while just keeping the belts clear for some mining friends, not a single module of higher meta than 5 on it. I assume he profited by scooping my abandoned drones. I hit warp at under 15% structure once the ECM drones gave me the chance to run.
Read back 100 pages or so. I have been more eloquent and reasoned in the past, I've just not slept for the last 30 hours or so at the moment so am losing a bit of coherency.
It's really all about entitlement. Campers feel they are being unfairly denied a killmail because the pve pilots run. They won't stay to face any kind of actual fight, and complain that they just get blobbed if they stick around. I have personally had encounters where I got away, came back and hunted the other guy solo in the system over an hour before logging, so it's not as if blobbing is always the way. Risk Adversity exists in equal measure on both side, except one side is actually flying a ship that was designed to fare poorly in combat and has a good reason to avoid a fight. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3212
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 00:29:34 -
[2824] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE professions exist in game solely as content for PvP.
Really, nobody gets anything out of PvE? Ever?
Ahhh blooo blooo blooo, I made 2 billion ISK last month, but lost my 600 million Tengu!
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
827
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 03:41:27 -
[2825] - Quote
So you made 1.4 billion and could have done better in high sec.
And I will bet you didn't do it with hostiles in system the whole time, nor did you stick around when they did come in. How did you lose it anyway, what with local being perfect and all. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3212
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 03:46:44 -
[2826] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:So you made 1.4 billion and could have done better in high sec.
And I will bet you didn't do it with hostiles in system the whole time, nor did you stick around when they did come in. How did you lose it anyway, what with local being perfect and all.
Mike, I think your sarcasm meter is broken.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
827
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 03:54:04 -
[2827] - Quote
Not at all.
But suddenly you seemed to have switched gears. If price isn't a balance factor then neither can profit be considered.
The point is that pilots focused on PvE aren't allowed to play with the same privileges as PvP focused pilots. The illusion of choice has been broken and we no longer play in a sandbox, just a rigged game. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3212
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 03:54:54 -
[2828] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Not at all.
But suddenly you seemed to have switched gears. If price isn't a balance factor then neither can profit be considered.
The point is that pilots focused on PvE aren't allowed to play with the same privileges as PvP focused pilots. The illusion of choice has been broken and we no longer play in a sandbox, just a rigged game.
My point was that you get something. In fact, PvE pilots get quite alot of something...1 trillion ISK/day.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
827
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:14:43 -
[2829] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Not at all.
But suddenly you seemed to have switched gears. If price isn't a balance factor then neither can profit be considered.
The point is that pilots focused on PvE aren't allowed to play with the same privileges as PvP focused pilots. The illusion of choice has been broken and we no longer play in a sandbox, just a rigged game. My point was that you get something. In fact, PvE pilots get quite alot of something...1 trillion ISK/day.
It does not matter as ISK isn't a balance point for anything. If the things ISK buys are not balanced by cost, neither is getting it in the first place. You can't have it both ways. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 12:07:24 -
[2830] - Quote
This discussion is ging in circles again, and one of the reasons is that different people use different basic assumptions on how the game should work, but without actually telling them (or maybe without even being aware of them).
Here is a very basic assumption that I use, and already mentioned several times:
Ratting in sov 0.0 should be more profitable than ratting in high-sec.
The reason is very simple. It requires a greater investment. It requires more attention. It has a greater risk involved. If the game is supposed to be belanced by risk, investment and reward, it MUST be more profitable.
So this argument is based on another assumption:
All pve activities should be balanced in terms of risk, reward and investment
This one should be self-evident.
Under these assumptions, many of the arguments made simply do not work. It is not important if you get something you need to get more than in high-sec. A pvp fit is not a viable alternative, this makes high-sec ratting much more efficient. The same goes for a defense fleet. It doesn't matter if you made 1.4bil and "only" lost 600mil. What matters is if you could have made more isk in high-sec (or somewhere else) with less risk and without the loss (hint: you could have, unless you had extraordinary luck with faction spawns).
So which point are you objecting? Dont you believe me that you can make much more isk in high-sec than with a pvp fit in nullsec (of course after factoring in the risk of ship loss both in high-sec and nullsec)? Or are you already disagreeing that there should be balance? Are you argueing that the distribution of rewards should be arbitrary? |
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4776
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 13:08:03 -
[2831] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:...
Ratting in sov 0.0 should be more profitable than ratting in high-sec.
The reason is very simple. It requires a greater investment. It requires more attention. It has a greater risk involved. If the game is supposed to be belanced by risk, investment and reward, it MUST be more profitable.
... One solution may be to simply make null ratting wildly more dangerous than it is now.
Something IMPOSSIBLE to do with a single account, and not easy for a small group.
BUT, I agree with the logic it must be something more rewarding than high sec ratting... so make sure that the rewards are worth small group attention.
Null NPC's should be an order of magnitude more dangerous than high sec versions, but often can still be easily soloed by similar fits. And if grouping to harvest these PvE targets becomes the norm, handling the occasional cloaked threat can be more practical as a result.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2015
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 13:57:39 -
[2832] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote: Ratting in sov 0.0 should be more profitable than ratting in high-sec.
All pve activities should be balanced in terms of risk, reward and investment
I 100% agree with you here. PvE in nullsec should be much more profitable than PvE in hisec and currently it's not. I think that part of the disconnect here is that some folk see a nerf to cloaking as a way to help fix that disparity. I disagree with this assertion. If the issue is PvE profitability, address that issue.
And before you say "but cloaking impacts PvE profitability", let me point you to the folks making gobs of ISK in wormhole space where not only is cloaking quite common, but there is no local chat to even let you know when someone else is there. Wormhole PvE-ers have adapted, so can nullsec PvE-ers.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4776
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 14:40:03 -
[2833] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote: Ratting in sov 0.0 should be more profitable than ratting in high-sec.
All pve activities should be balanced in terms of risk, reward and investment
I 100% agree with you here. PvE in nullsec should be much more profitable than PvE in hisec and currently it's not. I think that part of the disconnect here is that some folk see a nerf to cloaking as a way to help fix that disparity. I disagree with this assertion. If the issue is PvE profitability, address that issue. And before you say "but cloaking impacts PvE profitability", let me point you to the folks making gobs of ISK in wormhole space where not only is cloaking quite common, but there is no local chat to even let you know when someone else is there. Wormhole PvE-ers have adapted, so can nullsec PvE-ers.
THIS
And as an additional detail, the WH crowd have stated in the past they like it this way.
Consider: what element is MISSING from the WH side of cloaking? They certainly have numbers present, or at least the understanding that you cannot know HOW MANY cloaked ships may be opposing you.
No local pilots list, and no worry about cynos.
The absence of the local pilot's list means they can have all the ships in system, that they may have chosen to cyno in. But this is accepted. Both sides know they are operating against an opponent with undetermined numbers of support.
There is NO expectation of safety.
Being aware of frequent periods of perfect safety in null, (by comparison), can spoil many players towards operating with risk potential comparable to what WH pilots consider normal.
And before the argument about capitals cynoing in gets trotted out, cyno jamming limits opposition to using covert cyno only. Covert cynos are capable of moving only ships which are WH established.
So, what's the remaining difference about null? Null has Outposts, and regular gate travel. Regular gate travel can be easily monitored, if not regulated, by local residents. Teamwork FTW! The outposts, excluding NPC run items, are exclusive to the SOV holders.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 14:51:12 -
[2834] - Quote
It is not simply a question about profitability. That is only part of the issue.
The current enviroment of nullsec is such that the presence of claoky camper means a HUGE difference in the profitabilty of the system. This is not going to change if you just adjust the profitability. Together with the fact that there is currently no way to get rid of a camper, it is not possible to balance both states - system camped and system not camped - at the same time.
Currently the balance is such that a non-camped system is roughly ok, while a camped system is utter crap in terms of profitability. You could change that in a way that for example a camped system is ok - but then a non-camped system will be incredibly overpowered. You could try to find a middle ground, but then the camped system is still not even close to profitable and the non-camped one still too good. There wont be a satisfying solution, if you just change the profitability of nullsec, then the fact will remain that a claoky has way too much power for such a cheap module that can be used without risk.
Wormholes work because its a different enviroment. The influence of the cloaky is smaller. He cant open cynos. You can NEVER be sure if there might be one or not. Thats why it is possible to balance this enviroment to cloakies, simply by adjusting the profitability. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3213
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:58:54 -
[2835] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote: Ratting in sov 0.0 should be more profitable than ratting in high-sec.
All pve activities should be balanced in terms of risk, reward and investment
I 100% agree with you here. PvE in nullsec should be much more profitable than PvE in hisec and currently it's not. I think that part of the disconnect here is that some folk see a nerf to cloaking as a way to help fix that disparity. I disagree with this assertion. If the issue is PvE profitability, address that issue. And before you say "but cloaking impacts PvE profitability", let me point you to the folks making gobs of ISK in wormhole space where not only is cloaking quite common, but there is no local chat to even let you know when someone else is there. Wormhole PvE-ers have adapted, so can nullsec PvE-ers.
Agree too.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3213
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 18:01:34 -
[2836] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:It is not simply a question about profitability. That is only part of the issue. The current enviroment of nullsec is such that the presence of claoky camper means a HUGE difference in the profitabilty of the system. This is not going to change if you just adjust the profitability. Together with the fact that there is currently no way to get rid of a camper, it is not possible to balance both states - system camped and system not camped - at the same time. Currently the balance is such that a non-camped system is roughly ok, while a camped system is utter crap in terms of profitability. You could change that in a way that for example a camped system is ok - but then a non-camped system will be incredibly overpowered. You could try to find a middle ground, but then the camped system is still not even close to profitable and the non-camped one still too good. There wont be a satisfying solution, if you just change the profitability of nullsec, then the fact will remain that a claoky has way too much power for such a cheap module that can be used without risk. Wormholes work because its a different enviroment. The influence of the cloaky is smaller. He cant open cynos. You can NEVER be sure if there might be one or not. Thats why it is possible to balance this enviroment to cloakies, simply by adjusting the profitability. edit: @Nikk, your post came in while I still wrote the last response: Nikk Narrel wrote:There is NO expectation of safety.
Being aware of frequent periods of perfect safety in null, (by comparison), can spoil many players towards operating with risk potential comparable to what WH pilots consider normal. Exactly! But its NOT just the players affected, but also ccp. Currently the rewards are balanced towards HAVING the "perfect" safety in null. The players avoiding the danger of a cloaky are not cowardly but doing the only sensible thing. Since their enviroment is balanced towards this behaviour. Taking the risk (or even more) that is normal in wh space is just stupid when the rewards are actually LOWER. You just cant ask the players to adapt. They already adapted. If they are supposed to show a different behavour, they need a different enviroment to adapt to. edit2: To clarify the consequences: As just said the underlying problem is that the difference between a cloaky present or not is too big. So in general the problem can be addressed in two directions: 1. Decrease the danger of the cloaky (to roughly the danger of a system without one) 2. Increase the danger of system without a cloaky (roughly to the danger with a cloaky) You could choose either on of those, or do a mixture , meeting both sates somewhere in the middle (which is the case in wh). THEN you can adjust the rewards. Either leave them as they are in case of 1., increase them strongly in the case of 2., or something in the middle in case of a mixed solution. Personally I think 1. is too safe, 2. too unsafe, a mix would probably best.
And I agree with this too.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nofearion
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance
93
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:32:49 -
[2837] - Quote
It can get easy to derail a thread and take it in circles when describing expectations profitability vrs. Risk. Everyone plays a different game. Me I never assume safety, even in high sec. I never fly what I cannot afford to lose, to me the risk of losing is a big part of the game. This is where the discussion should be. I can thank a friend, Nikk for helping clarify what I was searching for. The biggest concern of most is force projection, or rather the threat of it. The other concerns are related to intel. Eve intel is very cheap and easy. you can take off your tinfoil hats now. local is unintentionally the best source of intel. you have a scout three jumps out in your constellation when a neut come in local you dock, you stay until he leaves. or you do your chosen activity aware or unaware of the perceived threat. This is the part that is killing the pro cloaky nerf peoples. In that you are fighting a perceived threat that the afk cloaky freak will all of a sudden will decloak of the starboard bow and light a cyno. The issues you should be argueing are these.
Cloaking has no real counter- yes I can fit a cloaky interceptor with a cyno and make it through all but the most dedicated gate camps.
There is not a way to tell if somone cloaked, station, pos or otherwise is AFK or not. (I fell asleep at keyboard once in my Malstrom 12o km off a gate in low sec once it was still there an hour later).
but you have the intel they are in your system. I like local, it has many uses, I personally would not like to loose it or have it changed majorly unless something were to take its place.
The key issue here is active and engaging Game play. give me arguments based on that. What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging? what suggestions do you have to not eliminate the threat but gives you the ability to counter one another? |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4778
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 22:10:00 -
[2838] - Quote
Nofearion wrote:It can get easy to derail a thread and take it in circles when describing expectations profitability vrs. Risk. Everyone plays a different game. ...
The key issue here is active and engaging Game play. give me arguments based on that. What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging? what suggestions do you have to not eliminate the threat but gives you the ability to counter one another? Nailed it.
It is all well and good to speak of ideals, such as everyone in the game experiencing a 'fair' amount of risk. But the simple truth is this, it is a game, and it NEEDS to be fun. Not necessarily fair, but most players expect and appreciate that aspect.
I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that we need a path to resolution that gives both sides a reason for wanting to invest the time in either PvE, or cloaking, if not doing both at alternating times.
The only genuine reason to not automate PvE, is because it can be a path for content creation. Fun play for both the cloaked character, as well as the one grinding rats or roids.
I want both sides of this. We will always have the traditional stand-by of fleets and blob play, that's basic stuff unlikely to ever vanish. I just don't want the basic stuff to be the best anyone can hope for.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 23:30:07 -
[2839] - Quote
Nofearion wrote:What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging?
I think you would get that more or less automatically from the solution that I suggested. PvE pilots will be willing to risk being engaged, and PvP pilots will have targets they can engage. If the implementation isnt screwed up, that should be active and engaging for both sides. |
Nofearion
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:48:19 -
[2840] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:Nofearion wrote:What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging? I think you would get that more or less automatically from the solution that I suggested. PvE pilots will be willing to risk being engaged, and PvP pilots will have targets they can engage. If the implementation isnt screwed up, that should be active and engaging for both sides.
I tried to read back as much as I could, this is a long thread. Let me break down what I interpret you to say -
A system has a base profitability based on sec status - lets say -.5 Then lets say you put in a "hostile" cloaked camper. to your theory the sec status would lower increasing profitability by say 2 points so it would take the -.5 to a -.7
Is that the idea in a nutshell?
|
|
Amrthis
Intent Unspecified Executive Outcomes
18
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:44:22 -
[2841] - Quote
Nofearion wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote:Nofearion wrote:What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging? I think you would get that more or less automatically from the solution that I suggested. PvE pilots will be willing to risk being engaged, and PvP pilots will have targets they can engage. If the implementation isnt screwed up, that should be active and engaging for both sides. I tried to read back as much as I could, this is a long thread. Let me break down what I interpret you to say - A system has a base profitability based on sec status - lets say -.5 Then lets say you put in a "hostile" cloaked camper. to your theory the sec status would lower increasing profitability by say 2 points so it would take the -.5 to a -.7 Is that the idea in a nutshell?
this solution on a glance sounds great, but lets be honest how many of us would park a hostile alt in system and get that increase in profit while still being generally safe? this might just be a solution that's too easily abused
on another note I can not believe this thread is still open. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 10:20:56 -
[2842] - Quote
That is not what I meant, I will try a quick explanation. I will use made up numbers for illustrations, so please dont argue about the numbers being incorrect.
The current status is roughly like this: A claoky right now is perfectly invulnerable. You can not remove him if he does not want to. If a system does not have a cloaky camper you have very low chance of being engaged by a hostile. basically only with bad luck or mistakes on your side. The chance is small enough to neglect it for this example. If a system does have a cloaky camper, your chance of being engaged dramatically increases, lets say it will be 20% per hour.
In case of an attack by a cloaky you usually have a survival chance of about 0%. Let us assume a rattingship that costs 1 bil. This means, that someone ratting with this kind of ship will make about 200mil less per hour in a space with a cloaky than in one without.
This means, unless you make the rewards dependent on the presence of a cloaker (which is a bad idea since its easy to abuse, as Amrthis said), there is no way to balance this. No matter how high or low the rewards are (except for absurd amounts that make the 200mil neglectable, which is also bad), either the system with the cloaky will be too bad, or the system without too good. With the current cloaky mechanic there is no way around this. It doesnt matter if you change the numbers around a bit, the underlying problem is the fact that a system without a cloaky is extremely safe, a system with one extremly unsafe.
So to allow balance you could lower the power of the cloaky: If either the chance to be engaged by the cloaky decreases, or the chance for survival increases, the difference in ISK per hour will get smaller. If it gets small enough, then a suitable reward per hour can be found that makes nullsec ratting profitable and about the same with and without the cloaky. You could also increase the general danger of a system without a cloaky: If the chance to get engaged in a system without a cloaky is also about 20%, then a system with and without a claoky will also be similar, so again you can adjust the rewards to make everything balanced. In this example you would have to increase the rewards by a over 200mil/hour for a 1bil ship. And the third way, which I prefer, is to do both. To increase the risk of a system without a cloaky, while simulatenously decreasing the risk of a cloak. Preferably in a way that increases the chance to survive an attack. And then also to increase the rewards, to match the risk, making nullsec ratting more profitable than high sec ratting.
Then ratters would be willing to take the risk of being engaged, as the rewards would be worth the risk, and there is no way to get these rewards without risking the engagement.
I did not actually say how to achieve this. As I think this would again lead to a derailed discussion, as there did not seem to be an agreement on the goals so far, which makes discussing the way how to achieve the goal difficult. If one side wants a perfectly safe nullsec with high rewards, the other side wants an extremly dangerous nullsec with even lower rewards, then we can argue all day about which changes would be the right ones, and it would be a complete waste of time, since both sides want to achieve a different outcome.
But "my" solution would have to contain 1. a (strong) nerf to cloakies 2. a nerf to the safety of nullsec 3. an increase in rewards from nullsec |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4781
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 13:37:10 -
[2843] - Quote
It reminds me of my scarecrow strategy.
Park a seeming hostile in the PvE system, let the other locals run in fear, and you pretend to be in that 'other' station, while actually PvE'ing to your hearts content, with NO competition.
Your seeming hostile alt is acting like a scarecrow, scaring away the others from your crops of rats and roids.
This is EVE. It is practically written in the stars, you can do whatever you can actually get away with.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3216
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:12:44 -
[2844] - Quote
Amrthis wrote:Nofearion wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote:Nofearion wrote:What of your solutions actually encourage active game play that is engaging? I think you would get that more or less automatically from the solution that I suggested. PvE pilots will be willing to risk being engaged, and PvP pilots will have targets they can engage. If the implementation isnt screwed up, that should be active and engaging for both sides. I tried to read back as much as I could, this is a long thread. Let me break down what I interpret you to say - A system has a base profitability based on sec status - lets say -.5 Then lets say you put in a "hostile" cloaked camper. to your theory the sec status would lower increasing profitability by say 2 points so it would take the -.5 to a -.7 Is that the idea in a nutshell? this solution on a glance sounds great, but lets be honest how many of us would park a hostile alt in system and get that increase in profit while still being generally safe? this might just be a solution that's too easily abused on another note I can not believe this thread is still open.
It is open for three reasons:
1. With the observatory array probably being able to find cloaking ships having a discussion on it is probably not a bad idea. 2. It keeps the cloaking threads from popping up all the time. 3. The ISD guys realized 2 after they locked my thread that pretty much accomplished 2 as well.
And you are right, the "park a hostile alt" to get a boost in system rewards would be abused like crazy.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Nofearion
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 19:50:55 -
[2845] - Quote
to make mention of certain points,
1. on another note I can not believe this thread is still open.
life of this thread will stay open as long as there is no real counter to AFK Cloaking. It would seem that most are not vocal as they feel like "what's the use" Most dissenters are a small minority that are very active on the forums. over half of those participate in either Grief play or Easy kills, whereas most of thier KB is made up of killing ratters and miners.
2. All pve activities should be balanced in terms of risk, reward and investment
they already are, this is done by the sec status system, and the security system. Of what you are suggesting is very very complex and most certainly would break a lot of other coding to the point of Risk vrs Reward for the developers. while it is easy to agree with, implementation is not feasible, Note I did not say impossible, just not very likely. if it was implemented I have a friend who would love it. would only take 5 of his 38 alts parked in system to make a whole constellation more "dangerous" and therefore artificially increase profits. if the system required losses, then just imagine all those noob ships destroyed. again while this is a nice idea, you need to look at a broader horizon with a more open mind. Feasibility and scale are very important things in balancing game play.
3. The scanning array while this sounds wonderful, It would in my opinion damage the usefulness of cloaks. There needs to be a trade off. a give and take if you will.
|
Amakish
Snipes Incorporated UK Mercenary Coalition
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 23:01:46 -
[2846] - Quote
maybe have cloaking devices use cap? that way to have to fit to be perma cloaked? |
Aminari Talar
Banananah PhaseShift
30
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 13:53:14 -
[2847] - Quote
Amakish wrote:maybe have cloaking devices use cap? that way to have to fit to be perma cloaked?
THE **** NEEDS TO BE HOTFIXED.
Im a game developer and i am utterly disgusted at the fact that ccp's developer have not done so. This shows that they are really POOR development staff. I dont get a flying monkey what ISD, GMS or even the developers of CCP have to say on the topic.
150 @$#@# pages of complaints and qq and nothing is done.
THIS THREAD IS A GIMMIC. ITS HERE TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT IT CAN OR WILL BE CHANGED.
I dont think you guys get the point...
Quote:You can fix this problem with SO MANY different solutions that take LESS THEN 15 minutes OF CODING Or less then 10 MINUTES OF DATABASE ALTERATIONS.
WE ARE LITERALLY TALKING MINUTES HERE.
All they have to do is buff the cloaking recloak timer to 5 minutes, and bump the energy use up to prevent no more then 1 minute cloaking periods. It will force people to do something, or get out.
ITS AN EASY HOTFIX Until the release of a more stable change.
This development team is garbage. I have lost all respect for CCP. They are a F rated development team in my opinion. |
CrazySquirrel
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:28:49 -
[2848] - Quote
this is new to me. How can developers allow this style of 'play'? where's the fun unless you have a perverted interest in ruining other players gaming. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4783
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 14:15:59 -
[2849] - Quote
Sometimes I wonder... will I recognize people who post without researching the topic, or at least reading a meaningful amount of this thread...?
Then I read the last couple of entries, and saw how obvious they were.
I appreciate the interest, and the potential for new ideas. But examples which have proof of interest only, with nothing new, have somewhat limited value.
Cloaking combined with AFK & potential cyno use, is simply not as simple as these new arrivals may believe.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Nofearion
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Phoenix Company Alliance
96
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:34:04 -
[2850] - Quote
I think some come here to vent frustration at being afk camped. My purpose for being here is not even close to that, however the frustration part I understand. TLDR: this post my be moved or removed .
1. Watchlist the offending afk pilot. 2. Check killboard and that of corp or others who are on the same kills with that pilot. 3. Watchlist those on the kills with that pilot. 4. Note times of kills made by this pilot's little group. 5. When his friends log on, you log off. 6. Arrange to do things during times that no kills are made.
Note!! this is not foolproof. but does reduce losses.
Now your problems are solved. little hard work to be done. Then you don't have to worry so much about AFK or other cloaky campers. Still a risk though, always a risk.
Now please leave us to our discussion about game balance and counters :) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |