Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6717
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 06:02:31 -
[481] - Quote
Watchlisting, scouts... and of course spies
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31393
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 08:29:08 -
[482] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We are aware mooring presents a lot of discussion points, some of which were expressed during the Fanfest structure round table:
- Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
- Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
- Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.
win win win
I like the idea of assets remaining interactable with the game. Intel-wise, secrecy is lost as soon as someone appears on a killmail, especially with a super. Plus, travelling to system is not much better than remote intel using locator agents.
I hope this mooring idea develops into giving players the option to log off with their assets less detached compared to logging off in space and disappearing completely.
Super mooring sounds like something that could enable subcaps to dock in Titans, which would continue to allow characters to log in even if the titan pilot is offline.
If titans could work this way, a mooring structure could be purely mooring, without a docking function for subcaps. It could also turn a mooring structure into a mobile station with the addition of a titan (or multiple titans).
Titans have some amenities that you find in stations. Like a clone vat bay, and standings. If it's powered by a mooring structure, it's not unreasonable to provide repair services as well.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
387
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 16:05:20 -
[483] - Quote
Haven't read past page 8 yet(which is where the last dev post was), but though that I would post this It's nice to know that this is on the board as a possibility. I don't fly supers or titans because They're Coffins, once you have one, you basically give up the chance to fly anything else, and that is basically a waste of a character in my opinion,
CCP Nullarbor wrote:This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that?
This is a prime example of a wasted Character, only used for an hour a year, what a waste :(
EvilweaselFinance wrote:as a titan is a fairly low-use thing it is logged out most of the time (mine has been logged in less than an hour all year)
|
FunGu Arsten
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
80
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 01:55:13 -
[484] - Quote
Mooring camping, the new station/gate camping thing. There are so many flaws with mooring capabilities:
- bumping - WHY? would you moor if you can just cloak/log off as its safer? who in their right mind would risk the shiploss vs logging of in an alt - bubble 1 spot vs hving the intire pos shield to find an exit? - limited player use... so groupplay is getting hit in the nuts
and ofcourse: - no more "ran out of fuel" pos piniatas??
|
FunGu Arsten
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
80
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 01:56:16 -
[485] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Haven't read past page 8 yet(which is where the last dev post was), but though that I would post this It's nice to know that this is on the board as a possibility. I don't fly supers or titans because They're Coffins, once you have one, you basically give up the chance to fly anything else, and that is basically a waste of a character in my opinion, CCP Nullarbor wrote:This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that? This is a prime example of a wasted Character, only used for an hour a year, what a waste :( EvilweaselFinance wrote:as a titan is a fairly low-use thing it is logged out most of the time (mine has been logged in less than an hour all year)
you give up a char now... you'll lose the ship with mooring - this isn't much of an option to me... |
evotta
Territorial Hanseatic League
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 10:26:12 -
[486] - Quote
Mooring would give to supercapitals a total new flavor. Along with it there should be something that prevents the ship from disappearing when the pilots logs off. Still, inside the Mooring range it would be safe. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31418
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 10:33:18 -
[487] - Quote
Allow ownership to be transferred via contract
It would be great for the... super market.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
73
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:33:03 -
[488] - Quote
So I guess in essence, the POS shields will be gone and any ship, friend or foe will be capable of flying around the moored ships, just waiting for that moment when someone undocks so they can point them, light a cyno and call in a fleet to kill it.
Please tell me that idiotic idea isn't going out into testing? What's wrong with POS shields that kept ships withou a password out?
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Chapters.
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:44:45 -
[489] - Quote
When ships are docked into the stations it would be nice if you could "peek out from the window". Like look what is the weather.
Also manning the guns from the stations should be possible.
At the undock time. It would be fair to see the overview and the space like 5 seconds before I'm in the space. Currently it takes around 1s for the UI to come up, while I'm vulnerable in the space. (Try to use undock bookmark in jita with war targets).
I don't need e.g. d-scan from my ship (as it is inside the station), but like seeing is the grid clear (observatory could effect this though).
Of course the support link from the structure might be ok too. |
Martin Vanzyl
EVE University Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:41:21 -
[490] - Quote
There is a golden opportunity here... with these fresh new structures, means fresh new code,,, the opportunity to do mindblowing things... The thing that will bring EVE even more firmly into the next decade...
With the Citadel especially... 'gasp' what's this... the door to my captain's quarters has been unlocked...I can walk out of this prison to perhaps actually speak in the flesh to NPCs to give me missions, and even other capsuleers belonging to my corp/alliance. I can even change my former 'prison' to look differently with trinkets/loot/trophy's gained that drops from certain missions/ even random chance drops from a player wreck.
A Citadel interior that can be configurable/modable via a toolkit interface that Directors get access to... ah to dream.
This will also allow us to rush to 'battle stations' to plug in and man the defenses of the Citadel.
IE. finally make EVE the definitive immersive online space opera. We've got the space battles down pat, but the rest...
|
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 06:18:38 -
[491] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote:There is a golden opportunity here... with these fresh new structures, means fresh new code,,, the opportunity to do mindblowing things... The thing that will bring EVE even more firmly into the next decade...
With the Citadel especially... 'gasp' what's this... the door to my captain's quarters has been unlocked...I can walk out of this prison to perhaps actually speak in the flesh to NPCs to give me missions, and even other capsuleers belonging to my corp/alliance. I can even change my former 'prison' to look differently with trinkets/loot/trophy's gained that drops from certain missions/ even random chance drops from a player wreck.
A Citadel interior that can be configurable/modable via a toolkit interface that Directors get access to... ah to dream.
This will also allow us to rush to 'battle stations' to plug in and man the defenses of the Citadel.
IE. finally make EVE the definitive immersive online space opera. We've got the space battles down pat, but the rest...
If CCP moves to a gaming mainstream city in the US and hire more debs, then sure! |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
621
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 06:37:05 -
[492] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Allow ownership to be transferred via contract It would be great for the... super market.
Yes.
Martin Vanzyl wrote:There is a golden opportunity here... with these fresh new structures, means fresh new code,,, the opportunity to do mindblowing things... The thing that will bring EVE even more firmly into the next decade...
With the Citadel especially... 'gasp' what's this... the door to my captain's quarters has been unlocked...I can walk out of this prison to perhaps actually speak in the flesh to NPCs to give me missions, and even other capsuleers belonging to my corp/alliance. I can even change my former 'prison' to look differently with trinkets/loot/trophy's gained that drops from certain missions/ even random chance drops from a player wreck.
A Citadel interior that can be configurable/modable via a toolkit interface that Directors get access to... ah to dream.
This will also allow us to rush to 'battle stations' to plug in and man the defenses of the Citadel.
IE. finally make EVE the definitive immersive online space opera. We've got the space battles down pat, but the rest...
Slow down there boi, you'll need to purchase two additional unrelated separate generic Sci-Fi games for that feature set.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 12:34:30 -
[493] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Currently Eve just has too many forms of intel available. Countless times I'm in fleet and hear that PL supers have just logged on or something. I'm all for the idea of mooring ships so that those pilots are no longer trapped in coffins and can do other things, rendering this stupid watchlist intel useless.
I love to see stuff blow up, but I actually do feel for the hapless bloke who logs on after six months only to find someone was waiting in system for him all that time, because No Life. Delete watch lists would probably be the best solution.
From an in-game background 'fluff' perspective, how on earth does that work?... it doesn't, it's completely immersion breaking, and as you say, way too much 'free' intel.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Khan Wrenth
Hedion University Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 13:38:43 -
[494] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Delete watch lists would probably be the best solution.
From an in-game background 'fluff' perspective, how on earth does that work?... it doesn't, it's completely immersion breaking, and as you say, way too much 'free' intel.
Yeah watchlists are one of those things that people refuse to get rid of. The only decent reason I've heard for keeping them is "smaller nullsec groups can keep track of Goonswarm Supers", but the fact that the inverse is true and works a lot better against their forces doesn't change their opinion. And see them or not, they'll still roflstomp ya.
I have a series of proposals (link in my signature) if you want to contribute to the discussion or put forth your own ideas in that thread, be my guest. Removing watchlists was one of the proposals I put forth.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2411
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 13:50:49 -
[495] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:Mooring camping, the new station/gate camping thing. There are so many flaws with mooring capabilities:
- bumping - WHY? would you moor if you can just cloak/log off as its safer? who in their right mind would risk the shiploss vs logging of in an alt - bubble 1 spot vs hving the intire pos shield to find an exit? - limited player use... so groupplay is getting hit in the nuts
and ofcourse: - no more "ran out of fuel" pos piniatas??
- if you read the OP, you'll realize bumping is not an option while moored - only difference between log off safety and the so far mentioned mooring safety is where the vulnerability is. Log off or unmoor. - what makes you say one spot? - possibly, depending on if it happens or not. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
636
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 15:21:37 -
[496] - Quote
On point three: multiple undock points could be interesting.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2411
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 17:38:10 -
[497] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:On point three: multiple undock points could be interesting. If I'm to make a stretch assumption based on the few graphic representations, I would think you would unmoor from wherever you are moored on the structure. |
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 20:31:35 -
[498] - Quote
Richecko wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Another element i want to throw in here is the idea of soft mooring which works a bit like the current POS shield so you can still move around and use dscan etc within range of the structure but you cannot target anything and you are invulnerable.
It is basically an area invulnerability effect around the station like a remote rep or similar. It allows you to warp to 0 or undock into relative safety.
You can of course be bumped unless you do a hard mooring or dock up.
Thoughts? Is this the proposed solution for Rorqual and Orca running mining fleet boosts? Now the POS shield limits who can bump you (depending on config) unless someone guesses your shield password.
grumpychops wrote:I had originally put this idea in the main structures thread, but I think it may belong here. It does involve mooring.
The new structures cause issues for 2 ships in particular, the Rorqual and the Titan.
This is because both ships have roles that were previously made feasible with POS shields (bridging and sieging).
The new structure mechanics appear to tip the risk/reward assessment away from these roles being feasible (see the 400+ comments above for explanations)
Solution: Add a mobile shield structure.
- While the structure has a shield effect for visual purposes, the structure uses a mooring mechanic. - This mechanic limits the number of ships allowed to simultaneously use the structure. - This allows the server to properly log its use.
- The structure could use the current mechanics based on size for the other structures.
- The shields could be online and offlined. When online, the structure's fuel consumption peaks drastically. Perhaps providing only 4-6 hours of continuous shield use.
- Shields must be offline to refuel.
- Structure may be online only in space where you own Sov.
- You have no ability to activate active modules or project DPS from the structure.
- Modules like the Industrial Core and the Jump Portal Generator to function.
There are some other post about Rorqual having to go to an on grid boost, Well that would kill all Rorquals there is no way any would survive that (Yes the PvPers and gankers would love to see this happen) but not a single miner would like to see this happen and not many would do it. the only ones that could do it are the ones with enough PvP protection from fellow Corp mates and even then the risk is still too great because you would find yourself surrounded by Caps of all types and then your protection would have to be ready to fight those off and risk their Caps, but then they would say the Rorqual is only worth 2 billion so it is not worth it. On Grid Rorqual boosting would be the Death of the Rorqual. Those that do risk it will only get away with it for a short time before they see a hot drop.
I don't mind introducing some short period of time of vulnerability (it is there already while i undock from a station or warping to it to dock up) while the ship gets ready to do it boosting. Once in siege mode it should be safe (yes it can be bumped out of safety now lets just get ride of that).
CCP if you want to make sure the Capsuleer as not stepped away from they keyboard or minimized the window and is not paying attention? Then lets add in a are you still there thing and if not answered then the moring gets discontinued. Maybe Moring cost Stront and it only takes from the fuel bay (currently Heavy Water usage by Industrial Core can come from the Cargo Bay) . I am sure we can come up with something reasonable.
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
541
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:06:28 -
[499] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Last thing we really need is more people in supers though perhaps?
Just give out sov lasers What if they made carriers pocket carriers and then made super carriers standard carriers and gave a reimbursement of capital components for the price variation. Basically pocket carriers would be scaled down to 0.75% of regular carriers dps/ehp and super carriers would be scaled down to 1.5x dps/ehp of a regular carrier. Super carriers would loose ewar immunity and gain ability to dock.
I don't think it would be wise to nerf supers so severely, remember were talking about ships and fittings with a value of 25b plus.
Forget mooring, sounds nice but is just a pain. So far most of the ideas around this feature and the future of supers sounds like a plan to make them an arse to use and no fun at all. Let them dock, CCP gets possibly thousands of potential resubbed accounts. Knock off the potential for a few million HP, remove the EWAR immunity or at least rework it so to hold one down you need X number of points meaning several recons could tackle one. Leave everything else as is. Maybe make them T2 carriers for the sake of continuity. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2072
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:32:29 -
[500] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Last thing we really need is more people in supers though perhaps?
Just give out sov lasers What if they made carriers pocket carriers and then made super carriers standard carriers and gave a reimbursement of capital components for the price variation. Basically pocket carriers would be scaled down to 0.75% of regular carriers dps/ehp and super carriers would be scaled down to 1.5x dps/ehp of a regular carrier. Super carriers would loose ewar immunity and gain ability to dock. I don't think it would be wise to nerf supers so severely, remember were talking about ships and fittings with a value of 25b plus. Forget mooring, sounds nice but is just a pain. So far most of the ideas around this feature and the future of supers sounds like a plan to make them an arse to use and no fun at all. Let them dock, CCP gets possibly thousands of potential resubbed accounts. Knock off the potential for a few million HP, remove the EWAR immunity or at least rework it so to hold one down you need X number of points meaning several recons could tackle one. Leave everything else as is. Maybe make them T2 carriers for the sake of continuity.
Well since super carriers would be scaled down tou could use thrm niw in wh space.... and remember out there you see blinged out dreads snd carriers snyways...
So there would be a market for the expensive mods... tge only reason tge ships are fit so expensive is because they are not expected to die... this is bad design... if ccp doesn't remove the super frim super caps then nothing substantial will change.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
Wooly Akachi
What Could Go Wrong Lethal Intent.
44
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 03:12:50 -
[501] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote:There is a golden opportunity here...
... the door to my captain's quarters has been unlocked...I can walk ...
... Into the freezer containing all my err... 'Trophies' |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 08:49:20 -
[502] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
- Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
- Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.
Make supers cloaked when they "Moor" = no free intel. This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that?
Perhaps a modify the D-scan so that it give slightly less info. Still have the ships show up but list them as just that "ships" the categorize them as to whether they are powered up (someone is in them) or powered down (moored). As you get closer you get progressively more info based on skill, distance, and beam angle. Breakdown being something like: ships, powered up/down, ship class, faction, and then finally type. The final full on info could read something like "Powered - Gallente - Dreanaught - 50Mk"
Gives both less and more information. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
542
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 14:45:03 -
[503] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Last thing we really need is more people in supers though perhaps?
Just give out sov lasers What if they made carriers pocket carriers and then made super carriers standard carriers and gave a reimbursement of capital components for the price variation. Basically pocket carriers would be scaled down to 0.75% of regular carriers dps/ehp and super carriers would be scaled down to 1.5x dps/ehp of a regular carrier. Super carriers would loose ewar immunity and gain ability to dock. I don't think it would be wise to nerf supers so severely, remember were talking about ships and fittings with a value of 25b plus. Forget mooring, sounds nice but is just a pain. So far most of the ideas around this feature and the future of supers sounds like a plan to make them an arse to use and no fun at all. Let them dock, CCP gets possibly thousands of potential resubbed accounts. Knock off the potential for a few million HP, remove the EWAR immunity or at least rework it so to hold one down you need X number of points meaning several recons could tackle one. Leave everything else as is. Maybe make them T2 carriers for the sake of continuity. Well since super carriers would be scaled down tou could use thrm niw in wh space.... and remember out there you see blinged out dreads snd carriers snyways... So there would be a market for the expensive mods... tge only reason tge ships are fit so expensive is because they are not expected to die... this is bad design... if ccp doesn't remove the super frim super caps then nothing substantial will change.
That's a matter of perspective. We're expected not to lose them and having deadspace and officer mods on them helps them not die. You'd be universally laughed at for buying a super hull and not spending the few billion extra on those mods or implants. And you'd be surprised about the number of super owners who actively want to take part in a massive capital brawl. I'd say almost all of them. |
James Zimmer
Furtherance.
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 15:00:17 -
[504] - Quote
First, reading these comments, it seems like bumping is the issue, not mooring. Maybe it should take a HIC to hold down a Titan, and not any cruiser with an MWD.
Second, the thing's going to have guns, right? If someone points your Titan, or drops a bubble, it should die a comically quick death. I could see a problem where dicters are warped in every minute or so, sacrificing a ton of ships, but effectively pinning the super down. Simple solution: Bubbles don't work near these things.
Third, logging in a safe is always safer. True, but parking at a station will give greater security when you need to do something like bridge people around. You have POS guns, jammers and remote reps to keep you safe, and the ability to moor if something goes bad, unlike a random point in space. Something will have to be done to make sure these things don't go down too fast. Maybe tie it to sov, so they can only be taken out after sov structures fall.
Fourth, people can just log in space and let the sub lapse. True enough, but given the new changes to sov, I doubt this will be as viable as it once was. If you want to use a toon for something else, or leave a super for another player perhaps, you'll need a safe place to park, and this provides it. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2957
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 15:13:24 -
[505] - Quote
What would happen if a super is moored to one of these new structures and logs off... then his sub runs out or he / she unsubs due to rl?
If the station is destroyed, do their ships go with it?
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 20:53:48 -
[506] - Quote
How about making bubbles not anchor able within say 60 k at a structure. That might help with the problems people are having with the new system. I think because guns will be fitted they will No longer be uncapped by an attacking force. So bubbles might not be a problem any more.
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
163
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 01:58:30 -
[507] - Quote
Did not go through all 25 pages so apologies if it has already been mentioned.
One mechanic that produces some interesting game play is the changing of password in a POS. It has happened more than once that we find ships floating 150km off a POS simply because someone changed the password but can not fly (and retrieve) ships parked inside the force field which have been forcefully ejected. Sadly, it would seem this "feature" will disappear.
It would be great if we could somehow keep the ability to loot assets (ships/mods) from within a structure without actually having access to it. |
Niskin
League of the Lost
228
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:23:56 -
[508] - Quote
First let me say that I like the idea of what they are trying to do with structures in general. Even though fitting defenses to a POS--like you would a module to a ship--might give me less flexibility than I have currently, I have no issue with that change. The idea of using structures to be able to put up market hubs or other things we can't do now, that is a great idea. With that in mind, the need to be able to dock does go hand in hand with putting up a market hub. So in general I'm fine with all of that.
What isn't a good idea is this concept that: because POS shields have issues that are hard to solve, the only solution is to remove them. Now I don't think docking and POS shields should be implemented together, they should be an either-or choice for any structure. Both are needed for different purposes, but let's be honest, docking in a structure is really no different than docking in a station, and station games suck. If you remove POS shields in favor of docking you will bring the pain of docking games to all. We need both functions available, if these new structures are to maintain and expand the function of structures in EVE.
Nobody seems to want to talk about these edge-cases or "secret problems" as they have been called throughout this thread. Whether it's POS-Bowling or Skynetting or Off-Grid-Boosting, all of these problems have been identified and discussed on these forums in the past. There are no "secret problems," only an unwillingness to deal with them on the dev side. I get it, the old code sucks and should be scrapped, you'll get no disagreement from me there. But rather than writing new code for a bunch of new features that purport to cover all the things the force-field did, just write new force-field code. I have faith in the dev's abilities, but asking them to do something stupid will just result in well-written albeit pointless code.
All the edge-cases that I've ever seen could be solved with one simple force-field design that acknowledges their existence. The force-field should be two parts: #1 Protection, #2 Systems Limitation. The protection aspect would mirror the current force-field size and functionality. If you are inside the visible shield you are protected from engagement and free to stage or manage your structure. The limitation aspect should be non-visible and extend past the protection field. Maybe 50% further, maybe some other amount, that is debatable. While in that space you can't lock others, activate boosts or light a cyno. The cyno restriction could be waved for those with the ability to enter the protective field, making it an offensive restriction only.
I'm sure there are edge-cases that I don't know about, but it just seems easier to deal with those directly, rather than try to come up with something new that does what force-fields do but in different ways. It's possible pilots may find better ways to exploit these new systems than they have under the current system. Not to mention, how do you know a structure is online when you aren't on grid with it? A force-field shows up on d-scan. That's pretty important to see in WH's at least.
It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog
Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.
-MooMooDachshundCow
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
112
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 04:00:01 -
[509] - Quote
Darren Fox wrote:I can only echo the last poster on this. Without some sort of forcefield mechanic, there is no "staging in space". Nowhere to keep a titan, safe-align a fleet etc. What mechanism/structure will ensure that gameplay is kept?
Why *should* that gameplay be kept?
Yeah, I'll admit, it's really nice to be able to bug out to an invulnerable hole in space where your enemies can't touch you - but it's horrifically broken.
Anything and everything not docked up should be vulnerable AT ALL TIMES.
You want to use your Titan? Unmoor it, bridge, then rope it back on to your Citadel and hope no one comes knocking in the meantime (or that your staging fleet is capable of dealing with said knockers). |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1009
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 04:04:29 -
[510] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:
Yeah, I'll admit, it's really nice to be able to bug out to an invulnerable hole in space where your enemies can't touch you - but it's horrifically broken.
Anything and everything not docked up should be vulnerable AT ALL TIMES.
You want to use your Titan? Unmoor it, bridge, then rope it back on to your Citadel and hope no one comes knocking in the meantime (or that your staging fleet is capable of dealing with said knockers).
What a great way to ensure that most Supercapital pilots unsubscribe and don't log in again! Which I guess is one answer to Supercapital proliferation...
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |