Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1007
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 15:10:13 -
[31] - Quote
Came here to bash the idea but then I saw suspect flagging part and that got me interested. Then I've noticed that it can be negated by using mechanics that honestly feels rather useless (standings) and got back into bashing mood.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1997
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 15:11:37 -
[32] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Came here to bash the idea but then I saw suspect flagging part and that got me interested. Then I've noticed that it can be negated by using mechanics that honestly feels rather useless (standings) and got back into bashing mood. If it's any consolation, they'd always go suspect in 0.8 and above.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2618
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 15:36:52 -
[33] - Quote
Pos and poco bashing is going to become part of the entosis mechanic. The NECESSARY presence of capitals for said defence and sieges that further increases the entry level for holding such items.
I dont know why an insured ganking moros is different to an uninsired ganking moros. Neither get an insurance pay out. Ganking with caps would reduce the amount of players needed for a gank and are immune to e-war. Whilst that doesnt bother me, I dont consider them good points or good content either. Beyond that the dynamic of ganking would be unchanged.
I know those players levelling up their raven will level these too. But this is a fruitless endeavour. All paths for these players ends the same way and the time scale will be little different. It might even make them quit sooner as some of these pilots will wait until they feel low sec or WH ready with friends before going for a cap. And having friends will retain them longer than their shiny ship.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8480
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 16:47:01 -
[34] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:I dont know why an insured ganking moros is different to an uninsired ganking moros. Neither get an insurance pay out. Confirming. Suicide gankers do not get any insurance for their ships.
And I do distinctly recall explaining this to Bronson in some ancient thread long ago.
So either Bronson is massively trolling us (a possibility) or, as you have pointed out Daichi, is massively out of touch with people's behavior and how the game actually works (also a possibility).
I'm not sure which way to learn. Especially since he supposedly "believes" that giving people "shinies" encourages them to take risks (in all the time I have played EVE (2009) I have never seen this happen).
Daichi Yamato wrote:Ganking with caps would reduce the amount of players needed for a gank and are immune to e-war. Whilst that doesnt bother me, I dont consider them good points or good content either. Beyond that the dynamic of ganking would be unchanged. It wouldn't change at all.
Suicide ganking in a dred simply won't happen. The damage potential may be high (especially in siege mode)... but the cycle times for the weapons are too slow, tracking is quite terrible, and the cost is too high (yes... I have done the math). It is simply more efficient and effective to get 50 buddies/alts to do the deed.
There is a reason using battleships to gank went "bye bye."
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4549
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 17:13:38 -
[35] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:One of the controversial things about wardecs and even faction warfare is new players being stomped by a station camping 600k ehp proteus with logi. Whilst I dont really mind this, it does raise the entry level for fighting a war Dec and makes the apex force in hi-sec further away for players who are usually on the receiving end of station campers. As much as I'd love to see capitals in high-sec, I'm inclined to agree with you.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
669
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 00:33:40 -
[36] - Quote
Well, i'm not against the idea that Carriers and Dreads should be allowed in high sec. They simply don't make any difference from how someone with alot of Battleships are steamrolling different corps in empire. However, there should be "some" restrictions for carriers in high sec. What those restrictions should be i'm not sure about yet. But i'm sure someone can come up with some good ideas on that.
If a corp decides to bring destruction to someone in high sec, they will just bring enough Battleships anyways. So what could go wrong for allowing those capital ships in empire when both parts can just bring the same ships that makes the fights equal in the same way as a Battleship vs Battleship fight does anyways?
If we bring in carriers against a Battlecruiser fleet, it isn't any different from bringing a Faction / Pirate Battleship fleet to a Cruiser fleet. The smaller ships here will in all situation gets massacred by the bigger sized fleet.
And when it's about bringing Battleships in high sec for desctuction, i know the game. I have been part of the biggest PVP fight in Jita in EVE's history where all Mercs in empire that wanted to be a part of it would gang together into a Coalition in empire to go against RvB.
Here is a picture that shows how that was: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7309753/Bilder/EVE%20Online/fleet2.png
And here is a video from that huge event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-_61zfTE8
The fights against RvB starts from the 2nd fight.
So what difference does carriers in high sec makes over allowing Battleships to be in empire when both shiptypes can steamroll over alot of corps in empire anyways?
It's not like that the attacking part only are allowed to use carriers. Both the attackers and the defenders are both allowed to use them against each others in the same way as both parts are allowed to use Battleships / Marauders against each others.
The only thing that should not be allowed in empire is cynos. If you want to move a carrier in high sec, you have to use the stargates.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 01:03:19 -
[37] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:I dont know why an insured ganking moros is different to an uninsired ganking moros. Neither get an insurance pay out. Confirming. Suicide gankers do not get any insurance for their ships. And I do distinctly recall explaining this to Bronson in some ancient thread long ago. So either Bronson is massively trolling us (a possibility) or, as you have pointed out Daichi, is massively out of touch with people's behavior and how the game actually works (also a possibility). I'm not sure which way to learn. Especially since he supposedly "believes" that giving people "shinies" encourages them to take risks (in all the time I have played EVE (2009) I have never seen this happen). Admittedly, I did type the bit about suicide ganking and insurance on the fly, and you're right, it would totally not work in terms of profit. I had meant to go back and correct that but I've been all over the place this weekend. Thanks for calling me out on that.
Also, I never said anything about "shinies" (your term, not mine) encouraging people to take risks, and I certainly hope I didn't imply it. If I did, I apologize. My point was that for the majority of hisec residents, the ones who are "soft MMO" players who don't like risk, giving them a larger end game to play for would likely entice them to stay longer. Granted, more capital ships would die because more of them would get used, but the extra dead capitals wasn't meant to be directly related to the enticing.
What hardcore Navy Raven/Golem pilot wouldn't want a Phoenix? What mining corp wouldn't want a Rorqual? (Even though, they are admittedly in a bad place, but they do provide better mining boosts than an Orca.) By giving the "soft MMO" players of EvE (which, incidentally, form an overwhelming majority of EvE players whether we like it or not) a bigger end game, it could entice them to stay. (No, I don't think EvE is dying, but keeping players longer is always a good thing.)
What I'm proposing would both benefit the "soft MMO" players by giving them more to work towards, it would benefit miners and industrialists because of higher demand for capital ships, it would drive content in hisec because more people would be using capitals, and it would still leave large chunks of hisec capital-free for newer folks who aren't ready to deal with them yet.
In essence, what I'm proposing is taking some of hisec and making it slightly less safe. Personally, I think this goal (even if not this particular implementation) is a good one. Others may disagree.
I am not trolling. I am also not blind to reason. I am trying to force this discussion in a rational manner instead of the typical "Meh, capitals in hisec are bad" threads we get. I think it's been a good discussion and there has been a lot that I hadn't considered brought up.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 01:05:28 -
[38] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:One of the controversial things about wardecs and even faction warfare is new players being stomped by a station camping 600k ehp proteus with logi. Whilst I dont really mind this, it does raise the entry level for fighting a war Dec and makes the apex force in hi-sec further away for players who are usually on the receiving end of station campers. As much as I'd love to see capitals in high-sec, I'm inclined to agree with you. This is specifically why my proposal limits capitals to 0.7 and below (unless they're suspect flagged and getting pounded on by NPCs). There would still be plenty of room for new corps to operate in where the worst they'd have to worry about is your proteus/logi combo.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2623
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 01:33:42 -
[39] - Quote
What youre missing is that by raising the ceiling, the entry level for being competitive takes longer to reach.
What today is: 'wait till you have t2 logi and vindi/t3's before you can compete' Becomes: 'wait till you have triage carriers and dreads before you can compete.'
And what today is: 'theres no point in fighting because it will take 10 ships to kill that t3 before he can dock' Becomes: 'theres no point in fighting because it will take 30 ships to kill that carrier before he can dock'
And what today is: 'they love to bring logi, get some brosefs to bring maulus/celestis/suicide Griffins/ABC's (and a whole list of counters)' Becomes: 'they love to bring triage, bat phone someone with a dread fleet and bhaals.'
Focusing on how it doesnt change the outcome of an already one sided fight is missing the point. What this does is keep fights one sided for LONGER. There is no way you can turn that into a pro for this idea.
Again, limiting it to 0.7 and below shows a detachment from hi-sec.
There is no outer rim of 'backwater systems' of 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5. Going from a 1.0 system to low sec will not take you through a linear progression of higher sec systems to lower security systems. Systems of all sec levels are mashed up all over and many 0.5 or.0.6 systems are hubs. Not backwater systems at all. People who dont want to play with caps dont have 'plenty of room', they'd be making huge detours to avoid caps just like you can currently see massive changes in routes if you choose to include or avoid low sec. Instead of just hi-sec islands, you'd have 0.8 - 1.0 islands or 0.5-0.7 islands.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 02:04:23 -
[40] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:What youre missing is that by raising the ceiling, the entry level for being competitive takes longer to reach.
What today is: 'wait till you have t2 logi and vindi/t3's before you can compete' Becomes: 'wait till you have triage carriers and dreads before you can compete.'
And what today is: 'theres no point in fighting because it will take 10 ships to kill that t3 before he can dock' Becomes: 'theres no point in fighting because it will take 30 ships to kill that carrier before he can dock'
And what today is: 'they love to bring logi, get some brosefs to bring maulus/celestis/suicide Griffins/ABC's (and a whole list of counters)' Becomes: 'they love to bring triage, bat phone someone with a dread fleet and bhaals.'
Focusing on how it doesnt change the outcome of an already one sided fight is missing the point. What this does is keep fights one sided for LONGER. There is no way you can turn that into a pro for this idea. This is a valid point. It would take longer for newer corps to be competitive in PvP against more established corps. However, it would only take longer to be competitive in areas where caps are allowed. This is also admittedly a further limitation on newer corps, but I don't think it's an unbearable one.
Daichi Yamato wrote:Again, limiting it to 0.7 and below shows a detachment from hi-sec.
There is no outer rim of 'backwater systems' of 0.7, 0.6 and 0.5. Going from a 1.0 system to low sec will not take you through a linear progression of higher sec systems to lower security systems. Systems of all sec levels are mashed up all over and many 0.5 or.0.6 systems are hubs. Not backwater systems at all. People who dont want to play with caps dont have 'plenty of room', they'd be making huge detours to avoid caps just like you can currently see massive changes in routes if you choose to include or avoid low sec. Instead of just hi-sec islands, you'd have 0.8 - 1.0 islands or 0.5-0.7 islands.
When I use terms like "backwater systems", I am not trying to imply that all of 0.8+ space is clumped together or that it's all accessible without crossing 0.7 and below. I know that there isn't a smooth progression from high to low, but I do also know that when you look at hisec as a whole, there are definite trends; constellations with lower average security status tend to be adjacent to losec and constellations with average security status tend to lie beyond those. Not always, but on average.
Life would be harder in these constellations, I grant you and this was something I had not taken into account. Would it be possible for a new corp to eke out a living in these systems? Yes, but it would be a definite hardship on newer corps if they chose to live there in order to avoid capital entanglements. Another valid point.
Thank you. I still hold firm to the benefits of the proposal, but I'm starting to see some downsides to it.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 13:21:34 -
[41] - Quote
Regarding the comments of me "being out of touch" when it comes to new player corps and hisec, I'd just like to point something out. I have, on several occasions, effectively shut down new-ish player hisec corps using naught but a 'ceptor and a bomber. After scoring a few kills (or sometimes none at all), they simply refused to undock for the remainder of the wardec.
The reason I was not quick to consider the impact to new player corps wasn't because I'm out of touch, it's because I know precisely how easy it is to shut down a corp of new-ish, risk-averse players. You don't need capital ships to do it. Hell, you don't even need cruisers to do it. And you certainly don't need large fleets. All you need is the will and the experience (and preferably a second account). With this in mind, I didn't consider it a major factor.
I still consider Daichi's points valid, primarily because not every new corp will roll over as easily as the ones I targeted. This is what I hadn't accounted for, the fact that increased access to capitals would make life harder for at least some newer corps, even though I'd wager it wouldn't be much different for most of them.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
429
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 13:50:20 -
[42] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:So what difference does carriers in high sec makes over allowing Battleships to be in empire when both shiptypes can steamroll over alot of corps in empire anyways? Carrirers in high sec are hugely different than a BS. I have seen BS, Pirate BS and even Marauders killed in high sec and relatively easily during a war dec by nothing more than 2 or 2 frigates. In the same circumstances would those same 2 or 3 frigates even have a remote chance in hell of taking down a carrier? If not then there is your reason why carriers in high sec are significantly worse than BS class ships.
Bronson Hughes wrote:The reason I was not quick to consider the impact to new player corps wasn't because I'm out of touch, it's because I know precisely how easy it is to shut down a corp of new-ish, risk-averse players. You don't need capital ships to do it. Hell, you don't even need cruisers to do it. And you certainly don't need large fleets. All you need is the will and the experience (and preferably a second account). With this in mind, I didn't consider it a major factor. And you are still out of touch, those few that may be willing to come face you down when you are restricted to BS and smaller will look at that carrier you are flying and add themselves to the list of those safely tucked away in a station.
|
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
105
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 14:06:44 -
[43] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:C: It would not allow large nullsec blocs to project power by cutting across hisec. Not only is there the standings requirement, but every major pipe that cuts across hisec goes through at least one 0.8 system. You could likely combine hisec passages and cyno jumps to cut across hisec, but you'd still be accruing jump fatigue and, on average, moving slowly, in high traffic areas, and easily visible to anyone looking for you. Also, it would definitely NOT be safe travel. (Which is fine by me.) Because stragglers would be in a real danger, as there are (and will be even more) HICs in HS. HICs will just need to play it low enough to catch the last guy of the group. Wait for all the other caps to enter warp, tackle, undock dreads, blap the poor unlucky guy, get out before his fleet turn around and warp back to help.
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 14:12:34 -
[44] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:The reason I was not quick to consider the impact to new player corps wasn't because I'm out of touch, it's because I know precisely how easy it is to shut down a corp of new-ish, risk-averse players. You don't need capital ships to do it. Hell, you don't even need cruisers to do it. And you certainly don't need large fleets. All you need is the will and the experience (and preferably a second account). With this in mind, I didn't consider it a major factor. And you are still out of touch, those few that may be willing to come face you down when you are restricted to BS and smaller will look at that carrier you are flying and add themselves to the list of those safely tucked away in a station. Selective quoting for the win?
Bronson Hughes wrote:I still consider Daichi's points valid, primarily because not every new corp will roll over as easily as the ones I targeted. This is what I hadn't accounted for, the fact that increased access to capitals would make life harder for at least some newer corps, even though I'd wager it wouldn't be much different for most of them. (Emphasis added) I said pretty much the same thing right after the bit you posted. Well done.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
670
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 17:55:55 -
[45] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Carrirers in high sec are hugely different than a BS. Not really. Read under on why.
Donnachadh wrote:I have seen BS, Pirate BS and even Marauders killed in high sec and relatively easily during a war dec by nothing more than 2 or 2 frigates. In the same circumstances would those same 2 or 3 frigates even have a remote chance in hell of taking down a carrier? No, this means that once the carrier attack someone, then you have the ability to bump him off station or the gate with a Machariel or something and bring in some few Battleships to kill the carrier instead. Bring some neuts and DPS and you are good to go. Training for Battleships doesn't take long time, so everyone can do that.
Donnachadh wrote:If not then there is your reason why carriers in high sec are significantly worse than BS class ships. I think that carriers in high sec will create alot more powerfull corps and more PVP in high sec tbh. Because if a corp doesn't have the ability to fight someone that have carriers on their side, they can hire in Mercenaries like us for example to take care of that. This wont be any different from how it is now with Battleships, because if a corp decides to bring destruction to a corp, they will like i said bring a massive amount of Battleships that the corp who gets attacked can't handle anyways.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1999
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 18:15:06 -
[46] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Because if a corp doesn't have the ability to fight someone that have carriers on their side, they can hire in Mercenaries like us for example to take care of that. This wont be any different from how it is now with Battleships...
This. I feel like the concern over new player difficulty is valid but overstated in light of the fact that they can likely find someone to help them. If there are capital kills involved, they'd likely have a line of volunteers.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
276
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 18:50:19 -
[47] - Quote
Give carriers a minimum warpin of 30km on gates so they're forced to slowboat, keep suspect status part of the plan but drop the police/faction attacks( its just another ship, just bigger)disallow triage in highsec, or even capital reppers.
my 2 isk for fun, but on my end unsupported for the reasons ( previously mentioned) power projection, ship utility, and mystery.
Not as amazing as seeing your first titan, they're still impressive ships to spot for the first time, and having to go to at least lowsec to see them gives them a bit of mystery. I'm all for ship restrictions in civilized space, and would almost go as far as to say BS should be ejected to lowsec too. dangerous things ( hahahahaha, right, j/k)
You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, you're just the game
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
431
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 14:49:50 -
[48] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Selective quoting for the win? Yea I learned it from a master - I have been watching your posting style since I came back to the forums.
NightmareX I understand your ideas and why you want them but it is obvious that you are not fully in touch with the realities of high sec. Raising the stakes to fight back from using frigate and cruiser class vessels to having to use BS class ships will not increase the amount of PvP in high sec, in fact it will have the exact opposite as those who want to and might fight back simply will not be able to because of the escalation of the ISK costs associated with fighting carriers.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2004
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 15:33:24 -
[49] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Selective quoting for the win? Yea I learned it from a master - I have been watching your posting style since I came back to the forums. Wait, I've finally mastered something in EvE? When did this happen?
(This is a sarcastic thank you of sorts, plus an attempt at lightening the mood. The discussion seems to be drifting more towards the people having it instead of the topic at hand which I generally don't see as productive.)
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
674
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 18:05:57 -
[50] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:NightmareX I understand your ideas and why you want them but it is obvious that you are not fully in touch with the realities of high sec. Raising the stakes to fight back from using frigate and cruiser class vessels to having to use BS class ships will not increase the amount of PvP in high sec, in fact it will have the exact opposite as those who want to and might fight back simply will not be able to because of the escalation of the ISK costs associated with fighting carriers. With the things i'm saying, i do believe that more and more mercenaries are going to be hired. And the more and more the mercenaries are going to be hired to take care of those, the more mercenaries there will be in empire. And the more mercenaries there are going to be, the more PVP there will be aswell.
Mercenaries always fights other mercenaries because that brings good fights. So if one Mercenary corp or whoever war decs a corp that can't handle them, it will always be better for them to hire in another mercenary corp to go against the mercenary corp or whoever that war dec'ed them.
Noobs or more newer players in frigs and cruisers will NOT have a chance AT ALL against experienced peoples in Battleships anyways.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
|
queenoftheworld
Endless Aggression
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 18:06:05 -
[51] - Quote
Caps in HS is just a bad idea |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2006
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 18:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
queenoftheworld wrote:Caps in HS is just a bad idea Can you list reasons why? Simply stating a position doesn't really further the discussion.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2421
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 02:21:31 -
[53] - Quote
Hmmm. Not being a cap pilot, nor having much experience with them I don't have too much to say on the matter. But, I do have opinions... based solely on things I'd like to see.
It would be kind of nice to be able to see them in the fringe systems (0.5-0.6), especially as a tool for active warfare in those places. These places already border low sec, so some kind of limited infringement I could see as being feasible, especially if it was limited exclusively to using them for warfare. I admit, part of this is me wanting to get involved in exploding some of these. Not so keen on the idea of using them for mission running in high sec.
In higher sec areas than that though... well, there are a few pilots who still have cap ships in high sec and they have to operate under VERY strict conditions to keep from being unceremoniously punted into low sec. The Veldnaught is something of an icon, and I'd be leery of changes that would force it out of Amarr being that Chribba has always abided by the restrictions in place. I know they are the few, but those who've operated within the guidelines for years are out there.
Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1629
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:16:29 -
[54] - Quote
Ok so my 2 cents worth is that the most unique things about highsec are lack of capitals and cyno's. Both make warfare in highsec unique and present new challenges and counters to things that aren't in other areas of eve. With POS's being phased out I feel capitals will only raise the entry level of highsec conflict while taking away the uniqueness of it and not adding anything meaningful. That and I'd abuse the **** outta them in station games
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2015
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 13:20:35 -
[55] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:With POS's being phased out I feel capitals will only raise the entry level of highsec conflict while taking away the uniqueness of it and not adding anything meaningful. My problem with this statement is the fact that POSes are being phased out everywhere, not just hisec. If removing structure bashes is sufficient reason to justify not allowing capitals to fly somewhere, would you then simply remove capital ships altogether? (I'm not asking in an accusatory manner, I'd really like to know.)
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:That and I'd abuse the **** outta them in station games Hello station-game playing carrier, let me introduce you to my neutral bumping Machariel that you can't shoot back at because you're in hisec. Station games work both ways sir.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
432
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 14:16:02 -
[56] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Donnachadh wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Selective quoting for the win? Yea I learned it from a master - I have been watching your posting style since I came back to the forums. Wait, I've finally mastered something in EvE? When did this happen? (This is a sarcastic thank you of sorts, plus an attempt at lightening the mood. The discussion seems to be drifting more towards the people having it instead of the topic at hand which I generally don't see as productive.) No problems we are all good. I can take and even deserve to be hit like this from time to time. Glad you are able to take it all in stride and not get upset.
|
Cara Forelli
Green Skull LLC
1165
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 14:52:45 -
[57] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:grind What? You want to tie more things to standings? Grinding is bad ok? Standings are one of the worst mechanics in the game, and probably drive more people out of EVE than anything else.
The only worse mechanic is sec status which arbitrarily punishes lowsec pilots for doing something "bad" in lowsec by making them a target in highsec without the ability to fight back because the NPCs will own them in a few seconds. It's the only place in EVE where fighting back isn't a viable option and it's ridiculous.
Here's you've used them both as a model for an idea which doesn't seem to have much purpose besides "sounds fun".
Adventures
New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: House Forelli
Titan's Lament
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1630
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 15:39:19 -
[58] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:With POS's being phased out I feel capitals will only raise the entry level of highsec conflict while taking away the uniqueness of it and not adding anything meaningful. My problem with this statement is the fact that POSes are being phased out everywhere, not just hisec. If removing structure bashes is sufficient reason to justify not allowing capitals to fly somewhere, would you then simply remove capital ships altogether? (I'm not asking in an accusatory manner, I'd really like to know.) Noragen Neirfallas wrote:That and I'd abuse the **** outta them in station games Hello station-game playing carrier, let me introduce you to my neutral bumping Machariel that you can't shoot back at because you're in hisec. Station games work both ways sir. Hello station bumping mach let me introduce you too my station bumping mach . All other areas are having the grind removed however capital ships all have their place in that style of warfare now. The issue is why should we add them to high sec. They can only increase the skill gap issues. Imagine marmite slow cat fleets camping innocent newbies to pad our boards etc. High sec is entry level space and at its endgame quite complex too but all the same entry level. A 50 man well put together newbro fleet can take on a 10 man vet fleet with guidance but you add a couple of repping carriers too that...
In summary of my drunken rambling but what have the romans ever done for us... no wait its what would capitals add for us
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1630
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 15:47:04 -
[59] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:NightmareX wrote:Because if a corp doesn't have the ability to fight someone that have carriers on their side, they can hire in Mercenaries like us for example to take care of that. This wont be any different from how it is now with Battleships...
This. I feel like the concern over new player difficulty is valid but overstated in light of the fact that they can likely find someone to help them. If there are capital kills involved, they'd likely have a line of volunteers. I think you really underestimate the gap between Nestor/ logistics reps and carrier reps +DPS if used for that. Or vindi DPS and moros or Phoenix DPS. We aren't talking a slight improvement it is 6 times more from the best we currently have. It would make newbro PvP as obsolete as it is in other space types
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
[s]ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD[/s]
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2999
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 16:11:47 -
[60] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:It would make newbro PvP as obsolete as it is in other space types
The CFC's ****-you doctrine would like a word with you, as no doubt would most of the major nullsec powers.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |