Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
89
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 02:25:56 -
[31] - Quote
-1 Will not have the intended affects on high sec PvP. Unless your definition of PvP is suicide ganks. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1966
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 04:12:17 -
[32] - Quote
The short length of LE timers is a real problem. It results in situations where engagements that by all rights had ought to escalate simply end because the involved parties lose the ability to shoot at each other.
The current crimewatch system wasn't exactly well implemented and the duration of LEs is just nonsensical. Presumably it's an artifact of Greyscale's "**** gameplay we must reduce server load" approach to the design of crimewatch.
It would be super cool if we could get that thing upped to 15 minutes. You know, like every other timer in the game. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
252
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 04:24:08 -
[33] - Quote
As much as I would love to see these changes, I wouldn't hold my breathe. It's a buff ganking proposition in a nerf ganking world. Shorter criminal timers will equate to more ganks.
Longer LE timers would be a lot of fun, but it doesn't make very much sense. The anti-ganker is playing hero. He is fighting on the side of the space police against capsuleers committing criminal acts. The LE timer for shooting a criminal should be 0.
Vic Jefferson wrote:What do you think of this set of changes?
1)Eliminate faction police response for negative security status entirely. They only respond to bad faction standings or opposing militia presence.
2)Sec Status below the current Faction police thresholds prohibits docking, boarding a ship, or using an orca in the system.
3)Eliminate the CONCORD timer entirely, as soon as you can reship after a gank, you can gank again.
Basically, if you are a real criminal, you can reship in Low Sec and begin causing chaos again as soon as you make it back to Hi Sec - the fifteen minute timer does nothing for gameplay at all, but there is now real risk introduced into getting your ganking fleet to the target. Intuitively, it would seem more exciting for actual scuffles to erupt on the edges of Hi Sec for access to the softer targets than just letting endless waves of catalysts pop out of stations. More risk, but you could definitely gank more things. The first idea is gets absolute support from my end.
The second idea eliminates most of the benefits from the first idea. Prohibit docking, maybe. The other two, no.
Let's meet in the middle on that third idea. The criminal timer makes CONCORD behave like current faction police. You can warp around in a new ship but they will hunt you until the timer is completed.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1339
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 05:52:38 -
[34] - Quote
I should add that the only reason I'm advocating a reduction to Criminal timers is that a 20 minute limited engagement timer sounds excessive.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
290
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:12:25 -
[35] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Isn't that just pushing your sec status bottom limit a bit further down making you face the same issue but ~2 points lower than right now? Currently facpo begins spawning at -2.0 and scales to -4.5 and at -5 any player may shoot at the criminal. I want to move the ability to be shot at by other players up to -2.0, and drop the faction police penalties by 0.5 at each sec status to begin at -2.5 and scale to -4.5. Honestly, faction police is a far far harsher penalty that being able to be shot at by other players, and it makes no sense to have it stifle player interaction by having it at higher sec statuses than allowing players to shoot at each other. Hell I could live with a complete reversal of the current mechanics with a scaling sec status for players being able to shoot you, and facpo in all systems at -5. All I really want is a zone of sec status where players that want to stop my actions can, but where I don't have to deal with faction police. As for the sec status limit, my suggestion lowers it by 0.5 over what it is now, which at the values we're talking about is 2-3 ganks or so if I don't kill any pods.
I would love to see faction police completely removed and replaced.
Faction police is a terrible game mechanic. It severely limits player interaction AND its completely passive. The effect on ganking itself is marginal. If someone wants to run around missioning and exploring in a -10 ship that every player can shoot at, that's something CCP should encourage. Players could actually hunt "pirate scum" because some of us would leave station to do stuff other than gank. As it is, there is little room for "mistakes" with faction police, because its a guaranteed "you lose your ship" function. Addressing faction police is just trying to polish a turd.
Instead, give players active tools to deal with criminals. A criminal only bubble would be great, because now the white knights know where we will be(destroying that bubble, which gives a suspect timer if attacked!). Now we have to fight them off if we want to leave. |
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
402
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:28:53 -
[36] - Quote
I like your ideas OP. In regards to LE timers, I would suggest scaling them with a system similar to Jump Fatigue - longer first timer with a lower acceleration rate. |
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
290
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:31:34 -
[37] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Why the buff to PVP in High sec to begin with? Go to Low sec and Null sec. That's where you can PVP to your heart's content with no NPCs interfering with you, especially if you are a pirate. Why buff PVP in an area of space that puts severe limitations to your activity and that would require significant changes (ie. turned into Low sec) to accommodate your activities. Why should people even come back from Low sec to PVP in High sec when PVP outside Duels, Wars and by shooting criminals/pirates is an illegal activity and should remain so, and when you have to resort to timers and screwed tactics which obviously don't satisfy you in order to get PVP? Why don't people make Low sec and Null sec more active and keep PVP in High sec with all its limitations and frustration to a minimum? Why is it that people constantly want to go back to High sec to PVP there in safety instead of the vast areas of space where they can PVP without interference from the unloved NPCs?
For one, you can actually be a pirate in highsec(and I mean that in the original sense of the word). No capitals or cynos. So people who want to haul things actually move it. Haulers provide fun targets and they can to use intel tools/friends/alts to help them out. And Concord provides a higher level of safety for people looking to just earn isk.
This has a lot of potential, the problem is defenders have very few options for actually dealing with criminals. Its almost a solved game for us. NPCs do most of the work(ensuring they can't do anything other than gank in highsec) and the antiganking tools are limited to ewar or blapping, in which case you get a crappy 2-8m isk killmail every 15 minutes for your effort.
But if white knights could bubble our undock and we didn't have faction police camping, well then you would get proper fights. We would need to deal with those pesky bubbles and everyone could attack us while we did it. so we couldn't just undock catalysts. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1342
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:41:23 -
[38] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:I like your ideas OP. In regards to LE timers, I would suggest scaling them with a system similar to Jump Fatigue - longer first timer with a lower acceleration rate. You mean scaling criminal timers in that way? That's an interesting thought. Would seriously throw a wrench into larger gank fleets.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
252
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 07:29:26 -
[39] - Quote
Camping gankers by stopping the instawarp undock is an interesting proposal. My worry is how a criminal bubble in empire would affect lowsec PVP pilots.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:I should add that the only reason I'm advocating a reduction to Criminal timers is that a 20 minute limited engagement timer sounds excessive. An LE timer that allows gankers to attack the anti-gankers like this is a bit strange though. It's CONCORD granting the ganker the right to attack a capsuleer without CONCORD intervention because the capsuleer helped CONCORD.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1343
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 07:39:48 -
[40] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Camping gankers by stopping the instawarp undock is an interesting proposal. My worry is how a criminal bubble in empire would affect lowsec PVP pilots. BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:I should add that the only reason I'm advocating a reduction to Criminal timers is that a 20 minute limited engagement timer sounds excessive. An LE timer that allows gankers to attack the anti-gankers like this is a bit strange though. It's CONCORD granting the ganker the right to attack a capsuleer without CONCORD intervention because the capsuleer helped CONCORD. That's a fair point, however there is precedent for it in being able to return fire under suspect timers. As for criminal bubbles, I would love to see such a thing in low sec if gate/station guns were removed also. Any sort of player options are better than any sort of raw number check mechanics such as faction police and gate guns.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
|
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
293
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 08:13:16 -
[41] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Camping gankers by stopping the instawarp undock is an interesting proposal. My worry is how a criminal bubble in empire would affect lowsec PVP pilots. BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:I should add that the only reason I'm advocating a reduction to Criminal timers is that a 20 minute limited engagement timer sounds excessive. An LE timer that allows gankers to attack the anti-gankers like this is a bit strange though. It's CONCORD granting the ganker the right to attack a capsuleer without CONCORD intervention because the capsuleer helped CONCORD.
I would simply make the bubbles highsec only. Lowsec operates very differently and does not benefit from these changes nearly as much. |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1739
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 08:19:53 -
[42] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Why is it that people constantly want to go back to High sec to PVP there in safety instead of the vast areas of space where they can PVP without interference from the unloved NPCs? It's probably because there are more players in high-sec ?
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
1124
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 08:32:41 -
[43] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:[quote=Rivr Luzade]Why is it that people constantly want to go back to High sec to PVP there in safety instead of the vast areas of space where they can PVP without interference from the unloved NPCs? It's probably because there are more players in high-sec ? Then make more people go to Low sec. Doing it the other way around won't solve that problem... If it really is a problem for the EVE players. And I begin to doubt that, considering the number of players requesting more and more PVP content in secure areas of space. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4362
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 08:36:54 -
[44] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tora Bushido wrote:[quote=Rivr Luzade]Why is it that people constantly want to go back to High sec to PVP there in safety instead of the vast areas of space where they can PVP without interference from the unloved NPCs? It's probably because there are more players in high-sec ? Then make more people go to Low sec. Doing it the other way around won't solve that problem... If it really is a problem for the EVE players. And I begin to doubt that, considering the number of players requesting more and more PVP content in secure areas of space.
Increased safety in highsec is why wormholes are dying right now.
People who are ISK driven look at the risk/reward balance sheet and make the (game theoretically correct) decision to abandon their lower class WH, or lowsec, and generate their ISK in high.
Increase the danger in high, but not to the level of lowsec or WH space, and this problem solves itself.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
23
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 09:59:24 -
[45] - Quote
I've taken an extra day before responding to anyone's posts on this thread, and I'd like to take a quick side-step and say how amazingly civil most everyone has been... kudos to all... wasn't sure if that was still possible in Eve.
I really don't want to get off topic, and so my quick point here is more or less in line with the discussion, but let's say for a moment that all of the OP's ideas are actually integrated. Without hammering out the details, let's just for argument's sake say that they're all there. Now... you're a brand new pilot to Eve, first time playing. Are you going to be more excited or terrified watching fleet battles that take place from your first time undocking (or close to your first time)?
I genuinely like the OP's ideas, and think it opens up a new world for all players to get more involved in PvP, but I'm wondering how these affects would be perceived by new players, and therefore CCP. Are ganking fleets, and flashing red ships the best way to introduce new players to Eve? If it is, then let's get the Devs going and get these ideas put in.
I apologize if this gets the thread off-track, and if so I'll be happy to start a new thread. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1867
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:23:44 -
[46] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Increased safety in highsec is why wormholes are dying right now.
People who are ISK driven look at the risk/reward balance sheet and make the (game theoretically correct) decision to abandon their lower class WH, or lowsec, and generate their ISK in high.
Increase the danger in high, but not to the level of lowsec or WH space, and this problem solves itself.
Or possibly they look at the utterly terrible earning power of a low class WH compared to any area of space, and the highest risk, especially in the C2's that just got vastly more connections from larger corps & alliances in C4's. And Low end WH's need massive income buffing.
Nothing to do with increased safety in High Sec, all to do with changes in WH dynamics and people actually looking at their balance sheets and realising how poor a low end WH really is currently. |
Gregor Parud
895
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:52:10 -
[47] - Quote
The "nono, we're really just thinking about how to improve the game, it's not at all as if we're trying to get lol changes in under the radar" is hilarious. It's wasted effort, no one who matters is going to fall for it.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
434
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:55:17 -
[48] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Increased safety in highsec is why wormholes are dying right now.
People who are ISK driven look at the risk/reward balance sheet and make the (game theoretically correct) decision to abandon their lower class WH, or lowsec, and generate their ISK in high.
Increase the danger in high, but not to the level of lowsec or WH space, and this problem solves itself.
Or possibly they look at the utterly terrible earning power of a low class WH compared to any area of space, and the highest risk, especially in the C2's that just got vastly more connections from larger corps & alliances in C4's. And Low end WH's need massive income buffing. Nothing to do with increased safety in High Sec, all to do with changes in WH dynamics and people actually looking at their balance sheets and realising how poor a low end WH really is currently. You two are saying the same thing. WHs, especially lower class ones, pay to little for the risk relative to highsec.
Buff WH income, nerf highsec income, buff highsec risk, nerf WH risk - all are solutions to bring the relative risk vs. reward of the two spaces back in line so it actually makes rational sense to do your PvE somewhere other than highsec.
CCP gets this (or at least some of the devs do), so I am optimistic as the "player-built stargates" come online and once the empires begin to "lose their grip" as has been promised, both the risk in highsec will start to go up (faction police I predict will be the first to go) and the income in the new space will be high enough to entice a large amount of the player base there. Inflating away the highsec income advantage by increasing income sources in other spaces is probably the best bet as the dim-witted L4 career mission runners will be less likely to complain that their "play-style" is being nerfed that way than if you just cut their income.
But to this proposal, reducing CONCORD timers and allowing LE timers against anti-gankers to persist is a plus for conflict and a reduction in highsec safety, but I am uncomfortable arguing for it directly as I spend much of my time as a highsec ganker and this is a straight out buff to suicide ganking. If CCP wants a way to spice up highsec it is certainly one good way, but it will come at the cost more ships will die to suicide gankers. However after all the nerfs of late, suicide ganking may be due for a buff.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4367
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 10:56:36 -
[49] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Increased safety in highsec is why wormholes are dying right now.
People who are ISK driven look at the risk/reward balance sheet and make the (game theoretically correct) decision to abandon their lower class WH, or lowsec, and generate their ISK in high.
Increase the danger in high, but not to the level of lowsec or WH space, and this problem solves itself.
Or possibly they look at the utterly terrible earning power of a low class WH compared to any area of space, and the highest risk, especially in the C2's that just got vastly more connections from larger corps & alliances in C4's. And Low end WH's need massive income buffing. Nothing to do with increased safety in High Sec, all to do with changes in WH dynamics and people actually looking at their balance sheets and realising how poor a low end WH really is currently.
Low WH sites just were buffed. Significantly. Low class WH PVE now pays fairly well, and lowsec SoE missions still pay 50% more than highsec ones.
It's still not close to balanced with the present safety of highsec, much less a hypothetical safer highsec.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:19:25 -
[50] - Quote
Just read through this and I have to say that in my opinion this would not help the game. Gankers would get to gank more often but that's it. No hisec player who wishes to avoid PvP is suddenly going to think 'I should go fight them now they are ganking more often'. They do not want to be involved in PvP. This is a very important point. They will avoid it at all costs as they hate it.
By the same measure this would not in any way encourage people to use losec for the same reason, the hisec people have absolutely no wish to go there.
I'm with Rivr on the 'Go to losec/null/WH' for PvP combat other than suicide ganking as you won't get it very often in hisec. Forcing players into it (or simply forcig greater losses onto those that don't) will simply push more players out of the game.
If you want more players in lower sec areas they need to be enticed there not forced, co-ercing players into choices they do not want to make will be damaging to the game
|
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1344
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:23:40 -
[51] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Just read through this and I have to say that in my opinion this would not help the game. Gankers would get to gank more often but that's it. No hisec player who wishes to avoid PvP is suddenly going to think 'I should go fight them now they are ganking more often'. They do not want to be involved in PvP. This is a very important point. They will avoid it at all costs as they hate it. So I must be imagining the fleets that come out to shoot at gankers then? This is in no way designed to changes how gankers interact with their targets. It is to provide a larger diversity of conflict between gankers and white knights.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Gregor Parud
895
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:25:10 -
[52] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Just read through this and I have to say that in my opinion this would not help the game. Gankers would get to gank more often but that's it. No hisec player who wishes to avoid PvP is suddenly going to think 'I should go fight them now they are ganking more often'. They do not want to be involved in PvP. This is a very important point. They will avoid it at all costs as they hate it.
By the same measure this would not in any way encourage people to use losec for the same reason, the hisec people have absolutely no wish to go there.
I'm with Rivr on the 'Go to losec/null/WH' for PvP combat other than suicide ganking as you won't get it very often in hisec. Forcing players into it (or simply forcig greater losses onto those that don't) will simply push more players out of the game.
If you want more players in lower sec areas they need to be enticed there not forced, co-ercing players into choices they do not want to make will be damaging to the game
- yes the proposed changes are actually gank buffs disguised as something else - you're correct in stating that many people will want to avoid pvp and thus won't look at low or null - you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1344
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:29:40 -
[53] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote: - yes the proposed changes are actually gank buffs disguised as something else - you're correct in stating that many people will want to avoid pvp and thus won't look at low or null - you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
I wish I had some easy solutions to buff white knight behavior, but honestly anything done on that end will have to be much larger than numbers changes. I want more ways for gankers and white knights to interact, but I was trying to keep this proposal small and low impact. If CCP does another crimewatch style update, i would hope to get some of the earlier ideas looked at, such as players as concord, or bubbles affecting only low sec status players. I would hope the changes i've proposed could actually be implemented in some form in a short time, much sooner than that though.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:37:42 -
[54] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:...you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
They can't avoid it now but there needs to be balance so as not to drive plyers who avoid PvP from the game completely. Right now I think there is balance. Sure hisec folks complain bitterly and then just get on with it again but they don't just quit. Push it too far and they will do as their way of playing would become untenable |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1344
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:40:38 -
[55] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:...you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
They can't avoid it now but there needs to be balance so as not to drive plyers who avoid PvP from the game completely. Right now I think there is balance. Sure hisec folks complain bitterly and then just get on with it again but they don't just quit. Push it too far and they will do as their way of playing would become untenable I gather that you're against any sort of reduction to criminal timers. Are the other proposed changes fine then?
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
893
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:42:09 -
[56] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Just read through this and I have to say that in my opinion this would not help the game. Gankers would get to gank more often but that's it. No hisec player who wishes to avoid PvP is suddenly going to think 'I should go fight them now they are ganking more often'. They do not want to be involved in PvP. This is a very important point. They will avoid it at all costs as they hate it. So I must be imagining the fleets that come out to shoot at gankers then? This is in no way designed to changes how gankers interact with their targets. It is to provide a larger diversity of conflict between gankers and white knights.
I've flown by many ganks and never yet seen such a fleet countering them. Perhaps I don't fly through the same areas that you do but still this change would increase ganking. That's a delicate balance and I simply don't see the value in doing so. I would prefer to encourage and entice those players who will (eventually) go to lower sec areas to do so sooner. Hopefully player built gates and such will help with this. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1344
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:42:58 -
[57] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Just read through this and I have to say that in my opinion this would not help the game. Gankers would get to gank more often but that's it. No hisec player who wishes to avoid PvP is suddenly going to think 'I should go fight them now they are ganking more often'. They do not want to be involved in PvP. This is a very important point. They will avoid it at all costs as they hate it. So I must be imagining the fleets that come out to shoot at gankers then? This is in no way designed to changes how gankers interact with their targets. It is to provide a larger diversity of conflict between gankers and white knights. I've flown by many ganks and never yet seen such a fleet countering them. Perhaps I don't fly through the same areas that you do but still this change would increase ganking. That's a delicate balance and I simply don't see the value in doing so. I would prefer to encourage and entice those players who will (eventually) go to lower sec areas to do so sooner. Hopefully player built gates and such will help with this. Its rare that we gank in Uedama and don't have a fleet attempting to save freighters.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Gregor Parud
895
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:43:35 -
[58] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: - yes the proposed changes are actually gank buffs disguised as something else - you're correct in stating that many people will want to avoid pvp and thus won't look at low or null - you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
I wish I had some easy solutions to buff white knight behavior, but honestly anything done on that end will have to be much larger than numbers changes. I want more ways for gankers and white knights to interact, but I was trying to keep this proposal small and low impact. If CCP does another crimewatch style update, i would hope to get some of the earlier ideas looked at, such as players as concord, or bubbles affecting only low sec status players. I would hope the changes i've proposed could actually be implemented in some form in a short time, much sooner than that though.
If you want fleet combat here's a radical thought: log on to your main and make your alliance leave the blue donut, or would that just be too obvious. |
Gregor Parud
895
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:47:36 -
[59] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:...you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
They can't avoid it now but there needs to be balance so as not to drive plyers who avoid PvP from the game completely. Right now I think there is balance. Sure hisec folks complain bitterly and then just get on with it again but they don't just quit. Push it too far and they will do as their way of playing would become untenable
Yes, they can avoid for the most part, my alts use freighters just fine same with DST, BR and Orca. But they choose to not learn and put in effort, people who choose to not put in effort better bring some lube cause they will need it.
This is EVE, "If you don't make it safe then people will leave and the game will die" has been tried since the game's beta, and it's simply not true. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Quantum Distributions
1344
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:49:36 -
[60] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:...you're not correct in that we should facilitate that for point of view, just because ppl don't want it doesn't mean they should be able to avoid it, also it's not "damaging to the game"
They can't avoid it now but there needs to be balance so as not to drive plyers who avoid PvP from the game completely. Right now I think there is balance. Sure hisec folks complain bitterly and then just get on with it again but they don't just quit. Push it too far and they will do as their way of playing would become untenable Yes, they can avoid for the most part, my alts use freighters just fine same with DST, BR and Orca. But they choose to not learn and put in effort, people who choose to not put in effort better bring some lube cause they will need it. This is EVE, "If you don't make it safe then people will leave and the game will die" has been tried sicne the game's beta, and it's simply not true. The thing is, most of the proposed changes don't even touch the risk versus reward ratio in high sec for gank targets. I'm kinda confused why this is even being discussed. If anything it will allow gankers to fly larger ships when not ganking, and shoot at people that shoot them during a gank. Neither of those things really affect that targets of ganks. As for the blue donut comment, I only moved to sov null on an alt two weeks ago. Pretty boring so far, I don't see what the fuss is about it.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |