Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Keno Skir
730
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:58:40 -
[31] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Several posters in this thread have told you already that they are playing the game mostly solo. T3s, Recons, Inties and SBs are good ships for soloing, but it is of course hard and you'll have to chose your targets carefully.
Not empty quoting. So much that ^
Gùï> 3 Week Buddy Trial + ISK Bonus & Starting Assistance <Gùï
Feel free to contact me regarding my posts, or my 21 Day EvE Buddy Trials \o/
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
272
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:02:14 -
[32] - Quote
I like the no corp idea. Or at least being able to close corp/alliance/local chat.
It's certainly already possible to PVP solo extremely effectively if you are really good at the game (which I'm not.)
I don't think it's realistic to expect CCP to create features catered to lone wolf players when the data shows that people who stick with the game overwhelmingly play with others. And I'm saying that as someone who owned a wormhole by myself for 3 years and who doesn't particularly enjoy being on comms with the majority of the sperglords and twats who play this game. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
8394
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:25:34 -
[33] - Quote
Solo is easy
If you're better at eve than every player logged into the region. like this guy.
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6042
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:41:01 -
[34] - Quote
Alright so I finally had the time to read the OP. I can see the point, but let me add this.
I would say that few people are more lone wolf than I am . Been at this since 2006 and only since November have I had more than one account going at one time. Yes that much lone wolf.
Now it's no secret that CCP tries to promote group play and interaction and that has been the case for a long time. They do make it harder on lone wolves but in doing so, they only made the game more challenging.
This is why I always say "Bring the pain, CCP".
Everywhere I look I see people trying to make everything easier and if that results in having to play in groups, then that's what they do. But not everybody is out to make things easier, especially in a game.
Back in the day, here is what I used to do alone most of the time:
- find wormholes to WH space and/or nullsec in an "exploration fit" Cyclone. - descend on heavily defended (that right you noobs, hacking and arch sites were ALSO combats sites years ago) sites and use some extreme Captain Kirkery and warp fu and drone fu to survive in said sites with exploration fit low DPS Cyclone. - profit
This usually meant using my 100MN AB (yes, in a Cyclone) to speed tank and draw the enemy off then warp onto the cans and do the hack/anal (lol) get the phat loot and run off the moment the drones were back. Then find wormholes to get home, usually with no more drones, missiles, and no armor, and a plasma trail.
And I will say that is a lot more fun than F1-click 1 percent of the time and 99 percent nerd drama the rest of the time.
I did this for years and it was fun. Yes folks, I did not even look up the sites. Once I had to run off from a drone site (the ship had a top speed of 1008 m/s) that was sucking cap even from 50 KM out and barely scraped out of there. Life was good. This was my solo play style, trespassing in nullsec, getting phat loot, thumbing my nose at the cartels and overlords. I used intel and a lot of wormhole experience instead of "get a second account hurf blurf don't be a loser hurf blurf" to get by and used the same Cyclone from 2009 to late 2012 (until luck finally ran out and that was to some hardcore rare NPC escalation).
Then one day I got this message on my screen (paraphrase here):
"Containers cannot be accessed while still being defended".
CCP brought the pain. Or more of it. That one change nuked what I did. I did not complain. I said bring the pain. Oddly, they went the other way and changed exploration so that the sites were no longer combat sites but for a while there, it was over.
They brought the pain and I had years of white-knuckle abject fear going into the unknown. I got my money's worth for my sub.
Wormhole travel? Now larger ships do not pop out the other side next to the wormhole, meaning that if it's camped, you have to gauntlet run back to the hole, meaning you are going to have 10 webs on you in 2 seconds. No thanks. Part of my play style is not feeding ships to someone else's statistics addiction. But they did make interceptors have interdiction nullification making travel much better in regards to bubbles.
But nothing was as "group play forcing" as the incursions. Gather round kids, and let me tell you about the incursion expansion, day one, and how the fields were littered with mission ship wrecks. I don't recall the total count that day for ship loss, but by the end of that day, after many had their BCs and BSs peeled like bananas, it was obvious that incursions were not solo.
Some people complained. I did not. They brought the pain. And for my sub I got my money's worth. I have also said for years that in order to get me to stop playing solo, they will have to find some mechanic or lore reason to blow my ships up at undock simply for not being in a fleet. (Incursions come pretty close to that but you still have to be asking for it).
Could we say now that CCP is still forcing group play? I'm not sure. Changes to exploration make it mostly solo play. I never saw that coming. I think that the CCP has realized that the player base is older and bitter vets like myself who only see obstacles to solo play as a mere challenge are not as uncommon as the forum trolls (hurf blurf! THIS IS NOT SOLO LOSERPHAGGOBACKTOWOW!!!1!!!!!eleven!!!) would have us thinking. So they went the other way with exploration. Some of the other mechanics proceed to forcing group play like the wormhole changes but now there are wormholes and systems that favor small gangs and small gang PVP has been sorely missed over the years.
One thing that does and will run off players is this and I have noticed and warned against it: content that requires a solo player (read: someone who does not have much time because they pay their own bills) to "get more accounts" looks like a Pay2Win scam. When a new player get told "You need an alt just to do this. You need another alt just to do that", then it becomes a "he who has more money wins" situation and there are a lot of P2W games out there competing with that (that don't take a long time skilling up on top of P2W). The SP system in Eve has always been genius in preventing the "he who has more time wins" situation (the manually skilling up/gathering bling items from raids thing). Based on the changes I'm seeing, I think this finally sunk in, that having to double or triple your sub costs just to do anything other than grind in highsec looks scammish. On the other side, changes to the rules regarding IsBoxer and automated input seem to go against the solo player but that's another topic, these guys with the 30 accounts obliterating highsec belts in 2 minutes.
Finally, they need to address the mechanics of the game that support the play style that is centered on not playing the game but just preventing others from playing it. This has been the cause of the "Great Malaise of 2014".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:47:42 -
[35] - Quote
Orlacc wrote: Also, stealth bombers kill frigs easily. IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
But these are often franken-fits, like rocket fit SB. Now I don't think bombers should be changed - they have their specific set of preys and it's fine this way. On the other hand I agree with OP that the guerrilla/submarine warfare is an interesting part of EVE, also for solo players.
Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
53694
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:55:22 -
[36] - Quote
Delegate wrote: Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
Why again missiles? My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6043
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:01:53 -
[37] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Delegate wrote: Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
Why again missiles? My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
Missiles.... because you'll be running away while you fight.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
119
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:06:13 -
[38] - Quote
Right, let's try this: Answer a straight-forward question:
What, precisely, do you want? Aside from "buff my stealth bomber so I can insta-kill stuff?"
You say you want (I paraphrase here) "solo access to more content." Like what?
You've been provided with a plethora of examples of things that solo players can do and do well, including references to a whole aspect of the game (exploration) that is designed for the solo player. So if that is not enough for you, then what is it you want?
I'm not interested in tears. You claim you are after rational debate. So am I. So hit me with something specific rather than some rambling philosophical argument that seems to be summarized as CCP needs to "nerf goups" and "buff solo players" in a multiplayer game that is strongly tilted towards incentivising both conflict and group play.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
53696
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:07:49 -
[39] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Delegate wrote: Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
Why again missiles? My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations. Missiles.... because you'll be running away while you fight.
NO WAY!
dakka > swooosh
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
120
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:12:18 -
[40] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
Your dream ship already exists. It is called the Astero
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6045
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:18:35 -
[41] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:
My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
Your dream ship already exists. It is called the Astero
Blasphemy. I'm going to report you to the nuns.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:20:36 -
[42] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Delegate wrote: Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
Why again missiles? My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
I have SP in torps and missiles Also rapid launchers would go well with covops, as you not going to stay on grid too long. Of course could be other weapon system, but something I can apply to small sig radius. |
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
53703
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:22:48 -
[43] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:
My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
Your dream ship already exists. It is called the Astero
Astero is pretty close, yeah...but I find drones as a primary weapon system incredibly unsexy. I mean, the Astero could fit 2 guns, if you really wanted it, but who would forfeit probe launcher + cloak for that?
Just imagine a Jag or a Retri with an additional utility highslot + cov-ops bonuses- that's all. (oh, and of course it would need to come with an awesome sharkmouth-paintjob)
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6045
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:23:26 -
[44] - Quote
Delegate wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Delegate wrote: Which brings me to an idea I was pondering for some time...
Perhaps we could get another stealth hunter balanced around SB ideas(* ) but with bonuses in smaller weapons. Specifically I imagine a frigate-hull stealth missile boat with bonuses in RLML. There are rocket fit SBs around so obviously there's interest in such boat.
(*) paper-tank, covops cloak, no lock delay on decloak
Why again missiles? My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations. I have SP in torps and missiles Also rapid launchers would go well with covops, as you not going to stay on grid too long. Of course could be other weapon system, but something I can apply to small sig radius.
Rapid Heavies on a SB would be quite a boon for a lot of players and put it closer to being a "solo killer" particularly for cruisers and BCs. Considering the nature of how a SB is used and the horribly long reload time of a rapid launcher, it would almost seem like the rapid launchers are made for SBs.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:31:31 -
[45] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:
My dream ship would be a cloaky AF...not game-breakingly powerful, but versatile enough to deal with a lot of situations.
Your dream ship already exists. It is called the Astero
Except astero have lock delay on decloak. And it can have some tank too. I wrote about platform similar to SB but intended to ambush smaller targets. |
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
53703
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:36:13 -
[46] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Rapid Heavies on a SB would be quite a boon for a lot of players and put it closer to being a "solo killer" particularly for cruisers and BCs. Considering the nature of how a SB is used and the horribly long reload time of a rapid launcher, it would almost seem like the rapid launchers are made for SBs.
While this is true, SBs are already the apex predators of eve, at least during the fountain war they caused more cumulative damage than every other ship class, including caps. I might be biased here, but from my experiences, I am still a little traumatized in regards to bomber squads..if there is one ship class that definitely NOT needs another buff it's SBs in my opinion..
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Solops Crendraven
Solops Inc
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 21:45:07 -
[47] - Quote
Chane Morgann wrote:Dear Devs, CCP, and to whomever else this may concern,
I have been playing EVE for awhile now, and prefer to do so, solo, rather than with groups of people. I feel that CCP is forcing people to band together to play in large groups where the dynamics are not so much about the tactics of the individual, but rather the group mentality.
It seems to me that there is a lack of the individual spirit in the game, a lack of individualism in general. The romanticism of the individual rogue, pirate, honor bound bounty hunter, PvP artist seems to be missing in this wonderful game. And frankly, I believe it's an important part that is blatantly missing .
To fully develop a realistic game psychology, where each person and group is able to express itself in a realistic way, it seems that the game mechanics would require and demand that some few play these parts as the individual, as the honor bound, and psychotic both, as the zealot/prophet, as the bounty hunter and so many other rolls an individual might play.
Make them incredible difficult to train, create a situation where only the most serious singular players can succeed, after all that is how it would be in reality, if an individual decided not to corporate with a group.
There are a few roles that might be considered as such, like the role of the explorer, but even at that so many sites to work correctly, require the help of others or a second account to recover the maximum benefit. They still fall markedly short.
Very Good Constructive Post I Hope CCP will take notice at least they are aware lets see if our dreams will come true.
Check Me Out!!! On Twitch Tv 24/7 enter link description here
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
53711
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:41:11 -
[48] - Quote
Chane Morgann wrote:..... To fully develop a realistic game psychology, where each person and group is able to express itself in a realistic way, it seems that the game mechanics would require and demand that some few play these parts as the individual, as the honor bound, and psychotic both, as the zealot/prophet, as the bounty hunter and so many other rolls an individual might play.
Make them incredible difficult to train, create a situation where only the most serious singular players can succeed, after all that is how it would be in reality, if an individual decided not to corporate with a group.
What I was trying to say is: EVE already allows all that and people have achieved that already. Few people, yes, but that's how it's supposed to be- and you wanted it to be "incredibly difficult" yourself.
The Honor bound ---> Chribba The Psychotic---> Too many of them to mention them all The Zealot --> Diana Kim The Prophet --> James 315 The Bounty hunter --> Cannibal Kane etc
etc
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 23:07:34 -
[49] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Rapid Heavies on a SB would be quite a boon for a lot of players and put it closer to being a "solo killer" particularly for cruisers and BCs. Considering the nature of how a SB is used and the horribly long reload time of a rapid launcher, it would almost seem like the rapid launchers are made for SBs.
While this is true, SBs are already the apex predators of eve, at least during the fountain war they caused more cumulative damage than any other ship class, including caps. I might be biased here, but from my experiences, I am still a little traumatized in regards to bomber squads..if there is one ship class that definitely NOT needs another buff it's SBs in my opinion..
Yes. I would expect it to be a separate weapon platform, but balanced similarly to SB. |
Casseopea
Vagabond Spirits
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 02:02:29 -
[50] - Quote
I'm not exactly a solo player, but kind of. I strongly disagree with people who act like solo or small group play should not be allowed at all, and am... honestly somewhat surprised as well as pleased to see very little of that in this thread. I suppose that's a good sign.
That said, I really disagree that solo pvpers should in any way have any game advantage over group pvpers. The "romanticism" of the exceptional individual hinges on being an exceptional individual. It's not something CCP can give you.
In short: get good |
|
ashley Eoner
390
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 06:46:16 -
[51] - Quote
Rastuasi wrote:Chane Morgann wrote:
I have played Ultima Online since it was beta, which was the very first MMORPG ever.
Sorry but Ultima is NOT the first MMORPG... MUDs existed way before Ultima was even thought of and are MMOs. A properly setup BBS running something like Trade Wars predated UO by some time and definitely qualifies as massive for the era. |
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
301
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 07:22:33 -
[52] - Quote
Chane Morgann wrote:Dear Devs, CCP, and to whomever else this may concern,
I have been playing EVE for awhile now, and prefer to do so, solo, rather than with groups of people. I feel that CCP is forcing people to band together to play in large groups where the dynamics are not so much about the tactics of the individual, but rather the group mentality.
It seems to me that there is a lack of the individual spirit in the game, a lack of individualism in general. The romanticism of the individual rogue, pirate, honor bound bounty hunter, PvP artist seems to be missing in this wonderful game. And frankly, I believe it's an important part that is blatantly missing .
To fully develop a realistic game psychology, where each person and group is able to express itself in a realistic way, it seems that the game mechanics would require and demand that some few play these parts as the individual, as the honor bound, and psychotic both, as the zealot/prophet, as the bounty hunter and so many other rolls an individual might play.
Make them incredible difficult to train, create a situation where only the most serious singular players can succeed, after all that is how it would be in reality, if an individual decided not to corporate with a group.
There are a few roles that might be considered as such, like the role of the explorer, but even at that so many sites to work correctly, require the help of others or a second account to recover the maximum benefit. They still fall markedly short.
Solo PVP artists have existed in EVE since forever. However, becoming one takes player skills. |
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
121
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 10:40:02 -
[53] - Quote
Casseopea wrote:I'm not exactly a solo player, but kind of. I strongly disagree with people who act like solo or small group play should not be allowed at all, and am... honestly somewhat surprised as well as pleased to see very little of that in this thread. I suppose that's a good sign.
That said, I really disagree that solo pvpers should in any way have any game advantage over group pvpers. The "romanticism" of the exceptional individual hinges on being an exceptional individual. It's not something CCP can give you.
In short: get good
It should *always* be easier for a group working together to achieve something than it would be for a single individual to achieve the same thing.
A single pilot can specialize in one facet of play and become fantastically good at it.
Using the PVP analogy, there are a few solo pilots I've seen that are incredibly good at a certain set of tactics; they have trained the skills and developed the real skills to fit a ship that is a perfect counter to the fit and tactics you are using. I have watched (more than once!) such a player basically curb-stomp a small fleet, or blue-ball a large one.
How?
Because they had correctly assessed their opponent's capabilities, they had observed the enemy's tactics and they applied their own capabilities in such a way that it resulted in them curb-stomping that gang.
As Casseopea so eloquently puts it: get good.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
301
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 13:41:38 -
[54] - Quote
By the way OP, check out the venerable solo bomber captain polletjepikhaar https://zkillboard.com/character/966165544/
He's been successfully expressing himself with torpedoes about 4000 times.
|
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:47:15 -
[55] - Quote
Casseopea wrote:
That said, I really disagree that solo pvpers should in any way have any game advantage over group pvpers. The "romanticism" of the exceptional individual hinges on being an exceptional individual. It's not something CCP can give you.
In short: get good
Is anyone asking for advantages? I thought people were asking for access to content that doesn't hinge on the use of multiple accounts.
In regards to pvp with the hard countering paper rock scissors paper style of EVE, being succesful as solo pvp isn't so much about being a skilled gamer as it is being lucky enough not to encounter ships that can lock it down with a proper counter.
Sure, you can solo in EVE just like in any game, but in EVE you won't get nearly as far as you might in other mmorpgs. Calling EVE a sandbox is kind of a joke considering you can't build much of anything without a group of people helping you.
|
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
7287
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:48:39 -
[56] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:[ Calling EVE a sandbox is kind of a joke considering you can't build much of anything without a group of people helping you.
Yeah that darn market. I hate those guys.
"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway
"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
305
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 16:35:54 -
[57] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Casseopea wrote:
That said, I really disagree that solo pvpers should in any way have any game advantage over group pvpers. The "romanticism" of the exceptional individual hinges on being an exceptional individual. It's not something CCP can give you.
In short: get good
Is anyone asking for advantages? I thought people were asking for access to content that doesn't hinge on the use of multiple accounts. In regards to pvp with the hard countering paper rock scissors paper style of EVE, being succesful as solo pvp isn't so much about being a skilled gamer as it is being lucky enough not to encounter ships that can lock it down with a proper counter. Sure, you can solo in EVE just like in any game, but in EVE you won't get nearly as far as you might in other mmorpgs. Calling EVE a sandbox is kind of a joke considering you can't build much of anything without a group of people helping you.
If you gave this "sandbox" thing a moment of thought, you'd realize that people grouping up to achieve higher goals is a defining feature of a sandbox. It's how we function at the core level. You don't build much of anything without a group of people helping you.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29377
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 18:16:23 -
[58] - Quote
I haven't read page 2 or 3, but looking at the post above me I get the feeling the debate has jumped the track.
It sounds to me like OP is dissatisfied with what is accomplished by a single character. Aside from the lack of a clearly defined goal in the OP, there are some key aspects of ship balancing that invalidate most of this thread's premise.
The simple explanation is that multiplayer gameplay is promoted by the superiority of remote assistance modules over local modules. Further widening this gap is ship roles that are bonused to remote assistance (or ewar).
Another balancing characteristic of EVE exacerbating OP's problem is the premium placed on one ship's capability. For any one character to wield more power, it will cost them in some way. ISK cost, reduced mobility, increased signature radius, decreased tracking, less tank.
A single character is only meant to have so much power, and there is no solo character / ship combination that is an invulnerable god mode. Sort of. The closest thing to a broken god mode situation is supers, imo, for ewar immunity.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Solecist Project
All Glory to the HypnoBoobs
14843
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 19:11:26 -
[59] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Rastuasi wrote:Chane Morgann wrote:
I have played Ultima Online since it was beta, which was the very first MMORPG ever.
Sorry but Ultima is NOT the first MMORPG... MUDs existed way before Ultima was even thought of and are MMOs. A properly setup BBS running something like Trade Wars predated UO by some time and definitely qualifies as massive for the era. lol back when we had the prototype functionality working at darpa ....
Ralph King-Griffin > **** you sol, years, ****ing years since thats happend
"I like the idea of them being spread out" - Mike Azariah, no context. ;)
|
Deck Cadelanne
Exigent Circumstances CAStabouts
123
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 19:22:58 -
[60] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:[ Calling EVE a sandbox is kind of a joke considering you can't build much of anything without a group of people helping you.
Yeah that darn market. I hate those guys.
Damn those people who mine, and make stuff, and sell stuff. If it weren't for them this would be such an awesome game!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |