Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1486
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 21:55:48 -
[241] - Quote
Im not complaining about any kind of engagement. Variety is good.
Putting links on grid only favors the larger force who already has the advantage. Removing links reduces variety of fights on grid and opportunities for periphery engagements. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
553
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 22:17:07 -
[242] - Quote
Double post |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
168
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 22:56:36 -
[243] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Switch Savage wrote:I have no problems getting good kills solo without a link alt. Its harder without one sure but its never put me in a situation where i did not feel competitive. How do you compete against a linked faction frigate without your own links, or just avoiding them? Additional barrier to entry to solo/small gang pvp which requires paying a second account and in many cases spending a considerable amount of money on a booster alt - this is not good for the game. Anyone who enjoys solo and small gang action should recognize this trend for the CANCER that it is.
Entirely depends on the frigate in question and the fit so its hard to answer generically. Certainly i am not going to be running head long into what i know to be a linked, faction fit, snaked and well flown Garmur pilot without at least snakes and a good counter fit.
When deciding to engage someone who i know is using links i view the fight as a 1v2. Some 1v2s cannot be won, some can, it is entirely situation dependent and i have never seen a problem in having to adjust my tactics accordingly. In the same way i would adjust for a true multi person engagement.
|
Lucy Callagan
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 00:05:35 -
[244] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Lucy Callagan wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Lucy Callagan wrote:Legatus1982 wrote:a few players who all have multiple accounts All the people I know have at least two accounts. I got a secondary account that I pay with my pvp loot, that's not a super hard thing to do. You're clearing enough in loot to drop 900M a month on PLEX? Yea, I'm calling BS. You can do that but not consistently, unless your "pvp" consists of being in a group that religiously gatecamps a high traffic pipe. Making 1b worth of loot in one month isn't hard at all: for instance This one (1.6b) paid July and will pay a part of august : https://zkillboard.com/br/44286/ Those one paid for June : https://zkillboard.com/kill/47410293/ (ninja'd 400m) https://zkillboard.com/kill/47212719/ (ninja'd 500m) https://zkillboard.com/kill/47212810/ (ninja'd 120m) And i don't gate camp. Need more examples ? 15-20 people on the killmails and they let you have all the loot? That's a sweet gig, where do I sign up? How does your friend the solo BLOPser tackle his targets? Band of alts =/= solo. Fully faction fit VNI's with 5 DDA's and no tank? Do you often encounter such idiocy where you fly? I don't think that is typical at all.
1. I get loot for what i tackle 2. Solo blops invulve a cyno alt of course, but this argument is just pointless 3. I find enought of these to pay my account (wich is not links btw)
[17:34:53] LucyCallagan > Respectez mon Eliterie je vous prie !
|
Lucy Callagan
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 00:11:27 -
[245] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Switch Savage wrote:I have no problems getting good kills solo without a link alt. Its harder without one sure but its never put me in a situation where i did not feel competitive. How do you compete against a linked faction frigate without your own links, or just avoiding them? Additional barrier to entry to solo/small gang pvp which requires paying a second account and in many cases spending a considerable amount of money on a booster alt - this is not good for the game. Anyone who enjoys solo and small gang action should recognize this trend for the CANCER that it is.
I am linkless when i solo and most of the time linkless when in gang. Just because ppl who have an alt are usually too lazy to take it out.
Not having off grid links is a bad excuse not to do small gang
[17:34:53] LucyCallagan > Respectez mon Eliterie je vous prie !
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1277
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 14:48:13 -
[246] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:I guess since he will bring a blob to kill them that means quality pvp will be had by all.
God forbid someone actually uses probes to solve the problem for themselves. Or solve any problem for that matter lol.
I've solved the booster problems a few times. In wh space there isn't a gate or station to sit on, so folks get just outside their pos w/ the uber boosters. All links, command processors and cpu mods. Apply 5 bombers and they burn faster than a wicker chair and everyone gets out in 2 vollies so you don't even trade for them. Just poof.
You're missing the point. I'm not lazy or bad at eve. I am trying to get a problem resolved.
You've actually takent the first step to recovery by aknowledging that it is a problem. Once you've come to terms with your epiphany, it would be cool if you help solve this problem.
Oh, and I'll get all your falcon alts if you like. Anyone who has ever dual boxed pvp knows it's much easier to multi wield tornados and nagas than it is to multi wield falcons. That's just how it works out.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1277
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 14:49:51 -
[247] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Im not complaining about any kind of engagement. Variety is good.
Putting links on grid only favors the larger force who already has the advantage. Removing links reduces variety of fights on grid and opportunities for periphery engagements.
Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just tossing out random distractors?
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
554
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 15:42:46 -
[248] - Quote
Lucy Callagan wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Switch Savage wrote:I have no problems getting good kills solo without a link alt. Its harder without one sure but its never put me in a situation where i did not feel competitive. How do you compete against a linked faction frigate without your own links, or just avoiding them? Additional barrier to entry to solo/small gang pvp which requires paying a second account and in many cases spending a considerable amount of money on a booster alt - this is not good for the game. Anyone who enjoys solo and small gang action should recognize this trend for the CANCER that it is. I am linkless when i solo and most of the time linkless when in gang. Just because ppl who have an alt are usually too lazy to take it out. Not having off grid links is a bad excuse not to do small gang
Actually not having links is catastrophic against an opposing ship or gang that does. What applies to terrible null F1 monkeys does not necessarily hold true for competent pilots in Black Rise. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
672
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 19:29:25 -
[249] - Quote
EVE is a sandbox. Just because your too cheap to PLEX another account, doesn't mean others are not. Adapt or die (or quit).
And by adapt, I mean either fly with friends; or get an alt if you don't have friends. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:14:00 -
[250] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Im not complaining about any kind of engagement. Variety is good.
Putting links on grid only favors the larger force who already has the advantage. Removing links reduces variety of fights on grid and opportunities for periphery engagements. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just tossing out random distractors?
Its not just true, its obvious. Perhaps not to guttersnipes who dont care if they win or lose, dunno. |
|
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:50:40 -
[251] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Im not complaining about any kind of engagement. Variety is good.
Putting links on grid only favors the larger force who already has the advantage. Removing links reduces variety of fights on grid and opportunities for periphery engagements. Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just tossing out random distractors? Its not just true, its obvious. Perhaps not to guttersnipes who dont care if they win or lose, dunno.
Ehhh, this is getting complicated now. It's partly true and partly false. Forcing links on grid would mean fewer small fleets can use them, since those smaller fleets can't afford to place a stationary expensive ship on the field. It's also true though that some smaller fleets with proper maneuvering can still put their links ships on the field at very little risk if they are maneuvered properly since t3c's are mobile/tanky for a cruiser and can "nullify" interdiction, very different from the days when links were on command ships.
More importantly, this change would affect fleets similarly in both cases between forcing them on grid, and using crosi's suggestion which is to use a weapons timer. In both cases, the smaller fleet's links ship is at greater risk since it has to be evading points and direct fights all the time. So it's not a very good argument for crosi, and does look like a random distractor.
Most importantly, it doesn't address the pay-to-win factor of links. This is the more important issue I feel. You should not get significant combat bonuses by paying extra money to CCP, and links is the #1 way to do that - a method which is very commonly used. Whether proposed changes favor smaller or larger fleets isn't the issue at all, and EVE will never be a game that favors solo or small gang in the first place. Those fights are reserved for elite pilots who know what they are doing, and are equipped to do it, usually against a much less skilled opponent, which won't fundamentally change when links change.
The bottom line here is what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to make links-providing ships, which are currently mostly risk-free, more at risk to provide their bonuses? Or are you trying to remove pay-to-win? Because currently removing links entirely is really the only thing that will substantially reduce the amount of pay-to-win in eve online. The other suggestions from crosi and may will both result in what crosi said - smaller fleets keep links docked up and larger fleets bring them out in their "new" mechanic. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:04:12 -
[252] - Quote
T3's use their defence slot for command links. This, along with the extreme fitting requirements limits mobility and strips it of any useful tank.
Why are there 2 people who know nothing about boosts complaining about them? Again, that kinda says it all. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:07:29 -
[253] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:T3's use their defence slot for command links. This, along with the extreme fitting requirements limits mobility and strips it of any useful tank.
Why are there 2 people who know nothing about boosts complaining about them? Again, that kinda says it all.
First, nobody is complaining besides you. The people posting here are providing valuable arguments to the topic and I haven't seen anyone with a whiny stake involved in the issue besides yourself, a known user of links/alts. When I encounter someone such as yourself (like last night/two nights ago) who is obviously flying a linked faction ship with likely implants and boosters, I simply choose not to fight them, which is exactly what our FC did because he's unsurprisingly, not a ******.
Second, your attacks on the individuals shows you have little case to actually make on the issue when it comes to actually presenting an argument.
Third, and obviously as a consequence to 2nd, you still haven't addressed the issue that links are a pay-to-win mechanic at the core. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:09:51 -
[254] - Quote
Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:T3's use their defence slot for command links. This, along with the extreme fitting requirements limits mobility and strips it of any useful tank.
Why are there 2 people who know nothing about boosts complaining about them? Again, that kinda says it all. First, nobody is complaining besides you. The people posting here are providing valuable arguments to the topic and I haven't seen anyone with a whiny stake involved in the issue besides yourself, a known user of links/alts. When I encounter someone such as yourself (like last night/two nights ago) who is obviously flying a linked faction ship with likely implants and boosters, I simply choose not to fight them, which is exactly what our FC did because he's unsurprisingly, not a ******. Second, your attacks on the individuals shows you have little case to actually make on the issue when it comes to actually presenting an argument. Third, and obviously as a consequence to 2nd, you still haven't addressed the issue that links are a pay-to-win mechanic at the core.
I have no idea how you think im complaining about boosts.
Boosts are not pay to win, any more than having a friend is pay to win, any more than a fleet of 100 has paid to win against a fleet of 10, any more than my JF alt, who has on occasion played as major a role in winning a protracted battle as anyone who fought on field is pay to win.
Dont accuse people of having no argument if you cant even adhere to accepted terminology.
My booster happens to be my original account. From your point of view, you would have no idea if my booster was boosting another player, or another of my characters. Its not my fault, or pay to win, if you are just too ignorant to know a booster is in system. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:12:48 -
[255] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:T3's use their defence slot for command links. This, along with the extreme fitting requirements limits mobility and strips it of any useful tank.
Why are there 2 people who know nothing about boosts complaining about them? Again, that kinda says it all. First, nobody is complaining besides you. The people posting here are providing valuable arguments to the topic and I haven't seen anyone with a whiny stake involved in the issue besides yourself, a known user of links/alts. When I encounter someone such as yourself (like last night/two nights ago) who is obviously flying a linked faction ship with likely implants and boosters, I simply choose not to fight them, which is exactly what our FC did because he's unsurprisingly, not a ******. Second, your attacks on the individuals shows you have little case to actually make on the issue when it comes to actually presenting an argument. Third, and obviously as a consequence to 2nd, you still haven't addressed the issue that links are a pay-to-win mechanic at the core. Boosts are not pay to win, any more than having a friend is pay to win, any more than a fleet of 100 has paid to win against a fleet of 10, any more than my JF alt, who has on occasion played as major a role in winning a protracted battle as anyone who fought on field is pay to win. Dont accuse people of having no argument if you cant even adhere to accepted terminology.
You don't need to pay for a second account to have a JF alt, you just need a friend who knows how to cyno. I've done cyno duty before, it's not overly complicated or difficult to get into.
And having "more people" is not pay to win, it's recruit to win. Big difference and has been demonstrated well by goons and other blob fleets since the beginning of eve. If those guys are paying their players real USD to log onto the game, then you have a case for p2w, but there's not much you can do about that - unlike links, which can be removed immediately. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:14:44 -
[256] - Quote
But my JF alt IS on a different account. Does that make it pay to win?
Why are you so concerned about peoples accounts? You dont pew accounts, you pew players. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:17:02 -
[257] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:But my JF alt IS on a different account. Does that make it pay to win?
Why are you so concerned about peoples accounts? You dont pew accounts, you pew players.
It doesn't have to be on a second account, you just happen to have it there.
You can stop being a child about it already. Are you paying money for an in-game direct combat bonus, y/n? Rhetorical question, the answer is yes. It is the definition of pay to win. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:17:52 -
[258] - Quote
Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:But my JF alt IS on a different account. Does that make it pay to win?
Why are you so concerned about peoples accounts? You dont pew accounts, you pew players. It doesn't have to be on a second account, you just happen to have it there. You can stop being a child about it already. Are you paying money for an in-game direct combat bonus, y/n? Rhetorical question, the answer is yes. It is the definition of pay to win.
Your argument is absurd because i could remove my booster from being 'pay to win' by your standards, simply by using only that character and boosting only other people rather than my alt.
So very dumb.
Your argument is against alts, not boosters. And as i have said earlier, the ship as long since sailed on that one. Good job too since the game is boring with 1 account. Everything that eve is loved for and is famous because of is often because of use of alts.
You seem to be applying standards of other games to eve, which is unfair, since its not other games. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:22:03 -
[259] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:But my JF alt IS on a different account. Does that make it pay to win?
Why are you so concerned about peoples accounts? You dont pew accounts, you pew players. It doesn't have to be on a second account, you just happen to have it there. You can stop being a child about it already. Are you paying money for an in-game direct combat bonus, y/n? Rhetorical question, the answer is yes. It is the definition of pay to win. Your argument is absurd because i could remove my booster from being 'pay to win' by your standards, simply by using only that character and boosting only other people rather than my alt. So very dumb. Your argument is against alts, not boosters. And as i have said earlier, the ship as long since sailed on that one. Good job too since the game is boring with 1 account. Everything that eve is loved for and is famous because of is often because of use of alts.
You mean boosting your fleet by undocking a command ship? That's not dumb, it's the intended use of the mechanic. You think it's dumb because you gamed the system, as many others do, by buying a second account and boosting yourself with an off-grid ship. This I would consider an exploitation of the mechanic, and probably CCP has let it go because it brings them extra money. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:23:40 -
[260] - Quote
Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:But my JF alt IS on a different account. Does that make it pay to win?
Why are you so concerned about peoples accounts? You dont pew accounts, you pew players. It doesn't have to be on a second account, you just happen to have it there. You can stop being a child about it already. Are you paying money for an in-game direct combat bonus, y/n? Rhetorical question, the answer is yes. It is the definition of pay to win. Your argument is absurd because i could remove my booster from being 'pay to win' by your standards, simply by using only that character and boosting only other people rather than my alt. So very dumb. Your argument is against alts, not boosters. And as i have said earlier, the ship as long since sailed on that one. Good job too since the game is boring with 1 account. Everything that eve is loved for and is famous because of is often because of use of alts. You mean boosting your fleet by undocking a command ship? That's not dumb, it's the intended use of the mechanic. You think it's dumb because you gamed the system, as many others do, by buying a second account and boosting yourself.
By your standards i could boost my fleet by undocking a t3 and sitting in a safe and that would not be pay to win if it was my only account. And its also working as intended since all the modules are there to make it possible. |
|
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:27:33 -
[261] - Quote
Correct, that would not be pay-to-win, it'd be recruit to win. And, I can't imagine your fleet would always want you in that role over just bringing another ship or actually using your command ship on the actual grid.
I will ask you again: are you currently using money to provide an in-game direct combat bonus to youreslf? y/n |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:30:18 -
[262] - Quote
There is no command ship that would be useful on field in a skirmish nano fleet.
Why do you care if its 2 guys behind a screen or just 1 with 2 screens?
Keep your argument flailing, its amusing. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:37:05 -
[263] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:There is no command ship that would be useful on field in a skirmish nano fleet.
Why do you care if its 2 guys behind a screen or just 1 with 2 screens?
Keep your argument flailing, its amusing.
There is a pretty big difference between 1 guy with 2 screens and two guys with 1 screen each. Much of which comes from the fact that there are a limited supply of bodies in the game.
You're being childish for no reason. You know as well as everyone here exactly what is going on and you simply don't want to admit that you are abusing a pay to win mechanic because it undermines your credibility as a player, especially as a "solo" player, because right now you can attack true solo players who are only running a single account with what is actually 2 accounts appearing to be one.
To begin with, removing links from the game doesn't provide an advantage to either large or small fleets; both size fleets can currently employ them. The key difference is that you won't have an advantage over fleets who don't have their own links alt. But at the end of the day it's "even" for everyone either way, the difference is you don't have to pay extra money for one way and you do have to pay extra money for the other way.
So now I have to wonder what you have at stake. What do you stand to lose if links are removed? Why do you oppose the idea? Everyone can use it currently, so fleet size is not even the least bit a valid argument. All that would happen is that yourself in addition to many others could close one of your other accounts because you don't need it anymore.
Are you opposed to paying less money to CCP? I know CCP is, but I'm not sure why you would be. Your position sounds very fake. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:39:32 -
[264] - Quote
Your previous posts were all just making a bad argument about alts-being-bad disguised as a horrible and inept anti pay-to-win argument.
I really cannot decipher any argument in this post that is pro or anti anything so i will leave it alone. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:40:58 -
[265] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:You previous posts were all just making a bad argument about alts-being-bad disguised as an anti pay-to-win argument.
I really cannot decipher any argument in this post that is pro or anti anything so i will leave it alone.
Anti p2w is the argument you're looking for friend. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:43:38 -
[266] - Quote
Then make it, instead of an anti alt-to-win argument lol. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:45:11 -
[267] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Then make it, instead of an anti alt-to-win argument lol.
In the case of links it's the same argument. You can stop dancing around the issue.
Are you paying money for an in-game combat bonus to yourself? y/n |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:48:20 -
[268] - Quote
Im not paying for an advantage that i dont need another account for. That would be pay-to-win.
You argument is strictly against alts, and is not the strongest argument against boosters since alts are ubiquitous in eve.
You seem focused on the effects of boosts on solo, i assure you that for most boost users, giving boosts weapon timers and putting them on mails deter many users and put their boosts at much greater risk. |
Legatus1982
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:52:40 -
[269] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Im not paying for an advantage that i dont need another account for. That would be pay-to-win.
You argument is strictly against alts, and is not the strongest argument against boosters since alts are ubiquitous in eve.
You seem focused on the effects of boosts on solo, i assure you that for most boost users, giving boosts weapon timers and putting them on mails would deter many users.
My argument is not specifically against alts at all. It's specifically about alts in the usage of links, because this is the #1 pay to win offender in eve online. Removing links fixes this issue. Removing alts would also fix this issue, but that's nearly impossible to do in a realistic sense. You can only use solutions that make sense from a game-programming perspective. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1491
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 21:54:44 -
[270] - Quote
You still dont understand, having an alt do anything in eve is not pay to win.
You must make a legitimate argument against the mechanic itself.
Making an argument about how many people are controlling how many clients is not valid in the slightest (not counting ISBOXING). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |