Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
628
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 22:42:25 -
[1] - Quote
This is more as an addendum to the thread High Sec Ore And Ice Mining Proposal than a stand alone change so I felt it warranted its own thread and space as its decidedly different enough.
The subject line pretty much says it all. This isnt to reduce or get rid of ganking. Tbh by now having multiple toons and characters available to gank with is trivial but what it does is that it slows down some of the ganking in the higher sec systems. By increasing the time of global aggression from the standard 15 mins based on a formula of true sec multiplied by that timer youd get a varied amount of time rather than the static formula we have now. I would leave it and Concords response time the same in .5 and .6 and only scale up from there to where it could be an hour or hours within .9 or 1.0 systems. I believe that this wouldnt constitute much of a change given the Mining proposal to move more and more belts, ore volumes and ice into lower security systems.
What this will do is cause more miners to venture into lower sec systems as their ice and ore are being used up even in high sec and start the entire process of risk vs reward early on in the mining process.
With the development of citadels I think this would help as well as players are able to maintain hub stations themselves in lower sec systems in high sec where ultimately players determine their own safety and security and even move more hubs away from such high sec areas.
Again ty for reading through these thoughts.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4183
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 22:55:54 -
[2] - Quote
All together now!
Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced!
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
628
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:All together now! Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced! This... isnt... a.. nerf... but youd have to read both threads and see how that ties together to know. You do realize I have ganked in the past right? This is far from a nerf for both mining AND ganking.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Paranoid Loyd
8413
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:41:59 -
[4] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:increasing the time of global aggression from the standard 15 mins
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:This... isnt... a.. nerf... How is this not a nerf?
You do realize there is other ganking going on besides the ganking of miners right?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
628
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 23:55:07 -
[5] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:increasing the time of global aggression from the standard 15 mins Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:This... isnt... a.. nerf... How is this not a nerf? You do realize there is other ganking going on besides the ganking of miners right? Yup. There are lots of ganking other than miners. For me this is a change intended to coincide with citadels as well as the obfuscation of trade hubs from the areas they are in atm as well. Nevermind that its just an extended timer anyway. There are no more or other changes. It would only apply to .7-1.0 and would mean that based on true sec youd have a different timer that you as a ganker would have to manage better or reduce the overall number of consecutive ganks in those systems per day if you just want to sit in one system and gank all day. So if you want to gank you can still do so normally. Just not as many times on the same account. As a ganker I always thought it was too short anyway. So yes I am one of those odd gankers that wants even ganking to be a more challenging profession with real growth/learning curves.
Nevermind that a lot of targets will still be there in the lower sec systems as its designed to get people to spread out more. Though ironically yes one thing I DID overlook were mission hubs, they would have to be looked at too.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Paranoid Loyd
8413
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:05:10 -
[6] - Quote
So it is a nerf then, but just one more, right?
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2962
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:05:20 -
[7] - Quote
Hitting gankers with a stick is not the solution to the 'problem' of ganking.
Ganking has 2 issues which both tie back to the same issue. Getting ganked is not generally a fun experience. It happens in 10 seconds or less normally and industrialists/miners are stuck in ships with no options. Yes a Proc/Skiff is tanky, but once you are in it, you don't have real fitting choices from there, and once they make the decision to gank you, it still only takes 10 seconds in a Proc, they just have to bring a few more ships is all it means.
Industrial ships need fittings & slot layouts equivalent to combat ships, including turret/launcher slots, just their bonuses go towards industrial purposes rather than combat. Then we can actually increase the time it takes concord to respond, and since industrials will have the choice to fit guns and their increased tank will make the gank take longer, they have time to fight back.
This makes the experience more fun for the target, and makes more viable options for the attacker since all DPS no tank may no longer be the optimal solution for a given target. It also means combat ships are at a higher level of risk in highsec as well since longer gank times make it more possible to gank them, and white knights also get more time to intervene. More fun & interaction all around. Rather than trying one more stick. |
Iain Cariaba
2614
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:29:10 -
[8] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Hitting gankers with a stick is not the solution to the 'problem' of ganking.
Ganking has 2 issues which both tie back to the same issue. Getting ganked is not generally a fun experience. It happens in 10 seconds or less normally and industrialists/miners are stuck in ships with no options. Yes a Proc/Skiff is tanky, but once you are in it, you don't have real fitting choices from there, and once they make the decision to gank you, it still only takes 10 seconds in a Proc, they just have to bring a few more ships is all it means.
Industrial ships need fittings & slot layouts equivalent to combat ships, including turret/launcher slots, just their bonuses go towards industrial purposes rather than combat. Then we can actually increase the time it takes concord to respond, and since industrials will have the choice to fit guns and their increased tank will make the gank take longer, they have time to fight back.
This makes the experience more fun for the target, and makes more viable options for the attacker since all DPS no tank may no longer be the optimal solution for a given target. It also means combat ships are at a higher level of risk in highsec as well since longer gank times make it more possible to gank them, and white knights also get more time to intervene. More fun & interaction all around. Rather than trying one more stick. There's a third option. You can realize that you're playing a MMO, and stop trying to solo everything in the game. Bringing some friends along, even just one, goes a very long way toward negating nearly all risk associated with industry in highsec.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2962
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 00:41:11 -
[9] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: There's a third option. You can realize that you're playing a MMO, and stop trying to solo everything in the game. Bringing some friends along, even just one, goes a very long way toward negating nearly all risk associated with industry in highsec.
The time investment involved in 'just bring a friend along' is massively unfair to the defender, as is the return on said time investment, with industry normally being lower isk/hour to start with relative to any combat form of income, let alone halving the income to share with said friend. And the friend has to be there every single day every single hour every single minute. The ganker just needs 5 minutes when someone doesn't have a friend.
I.E. Escort quests suck, everyone knows escort quests suck, we shouldn't force players to perform constant escort quests. Sure this is an MMO, but that doesn't mean we have to make it not fun for one group. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
629
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 01:08:11 -
[10] - Quote
This has so little to do with a stick approach for ganking or even to reduce ganking on any level. Increased timers do nothing to remove or change concord response times, or the ability for any ship today to still continue to gank freely in any area. All it does is create the need for a) more alts/accounts/players or b) you wait a longer time to regank in higher true sec areas. It does zero for lower true sec systems in high and actually encourages more targets to venture into those areas by need to be there to get anything. This coupled with a decentralization of market hubs with the hopeful citadel changes will further add the ability for players to actually get out of these areas and interact more. Now whether that will actually happen is up to the player base.
As for ganking and all combat in Eve yes it heavily favors the attacker and always has and likely always will as a fundamental design philosophy of Eve. As for balancing mining craft to make them more defensive worthy is something Id love to look at myself but I truly do not believe it will change a single thing in the long run nor is it something you can balance to everyones satisfaction. That they are a ******* paperweight is slightly silly though..... oh wait.... thats right theyre kinda NOT anymore if you have a brain and a clue how to fit them. Seeing more and more people getting killed by mining fleets, miners choosing to fight instead of run, even creating traps for hunters is proof of this. The one area it isnt happening? High sec, mostly cuz the idea of a united fleet and corp interaction is so slim. Even mining in high sec I watch some corps fight back to war decs and such. Yes ganking you run into the issue that its a decentralized hit and run enemy and not a stand up fight like a war dec is against visible enemies and tactically makes the warfare much more attuned to the modern decentralized guerrilla warfare we see in the middle east, Chechnya and the middle and southern america under Chez much more than the standard force on force wars we are used to in the past. I would LOVE to see CCP implement some sort of counter to it but N+1 set piece force projection issues seem to be the order of the day still.
The truth is military and police defense has always been a resource heavy endevour which is why we have standing armies and police forces rather than militias and other semi or non trained units. And this doesnt translate into solitary players or small corps very well in the Eve world, but then neither does it in real life so.... The idea of villages/cities and the rise of city states and then feudalism and nations show this idea is very old. Other than this you are your own security force and yes that means you spend resources to do so one way or another.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4186
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 01:19:39 -
[11] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Hitting gankers with a stick is not the solution to the 'problem' of ganking.
Ganking has 2 issues which both tie back to the same issue. Getting ganked is not generally a fun experience. It happens in 10 seconds or less normally and industrialists/miners are stuck in ships with no options. Yes a Proc/Skiff is tanky, but once you are in it, you don't have real fitting choices from there, and once they make the decision to gank you, it still only takes 10 seconds in a Proc, they just have to bring a few more ships is all it means.
Industrial ships need fittings & slot layouts equivalent to combat ships, including turret/launcher slots, just their bonuses go towards industrial purposes rather than combat. Then we can actually increase the time it takes concord to respond, and since industrials will have the choice to fit guns and their increased tank will make the gank take longer, they have time to fight back.
This makes the experience more fun for the target, and makes more viable options for the attacker since all DPS no tank may no longer be the optimal solution for a given target. It also means combat ships are at a higher level of risk in highsec as well since longer gank times make it more possible to gank them, and white knights also get more time to intervene. More fun & interaction all around. Rather than trying one more stick.
But you can already tank things like DSTs and Skiffs as hard or harder than any battleship. People just...don't. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
898
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 01:27:50 -
[12] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:This... isnt... a.. nerf... So jump fatigue isn't a nerf to capital power projection?
Good thing it isn't a nerf, I guess that make is okay.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
629
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 02:10:42 -
[13] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Hitting gankers with a stick is not the solution to the 'problem' of ganking.
Ganking has 2 issues which both tie back to the same issue. Getting ganked is not generally a fun experience. It happens in 10 seconds or less normally and industrialists/miners are stuck in ships with no options. Yes a Proc/Skiff is tanky, but once you are in it, you don't have real fitting choices from there, and once they make the decision to gank you, it still only takes 10 seconds in a Proc, they just have to bring a few more ships is all it means.
Industrial ships need fittings & slot layouts equivalent to combat ships, including turret/launcher slots, just their bonuses go towards industrial purposes rather than combat. Then we can actually increase the time it takes concord to respond, and since industrials will have the choice to fit guns and their increased tank will make the gank take longer, they have time to fight back.
This makes the experience more fun for the target, and makes more viable options for the attacker since all DPS no tank may no longer be the optimal solution for a given target. It also means combat ships are at a higher level of risk in highsec as well since longer gank times make it more possible to gank them, and white knights also get more time to intervene. More fun & interaction all around. Rather than trying one more stick. But you can already tank things like DSTs and Skiffs as hard or harder than any battleship. People just...don't. But meh YIELD!!!! Meh isk/hr!!!
Yup, this and procurers can take a lot of punishment and with the drone damage increase even single decently tanked and skilled ships can take out null sec level spawns on their own. His entire argument is invalid but hell continue on.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
629
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 02:11:38 -
[14] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:This... isnt... a.. nerf... So jump fatigue isn't a nerf to capital power projection? Good thing it isn't a nerf, I guess that make is okay. Did you have a point at all for this thread? No? Alrighty then.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16246
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 02:19:50 -
[15] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: I would leave it and Concords response time the same in .5 and .6 and only scale up from there to where it could be an hour or hours within .9 or 1.0 systems.]
How is it not a nerf again? Because it looks like a gigantic nerf, especially to Jita ganking where it's nice and lively.
No more nerfs. We need to incentivize and proliferate conflict in highsec, not cut it off at the knees.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
629
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 02:30:21 -
[16] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: I would leave it and Concords response time the same in .5 and .6 and only scale up from there to where it could be an hour or hours within .9 or 1.0 systems.] How is it not a nerf again? Because it looks like a gigantic nerf, especially to Jita ganking where it's nice and lively. No more nerfs. We need to incentivize and proliferate conflict in highsec, not cut it off at the knees. Yes and decentralized hubs with the new citadels would facilitate that, nevermind that nearly all your normal targets will be forced into lower sec systems where zero of the increases actually apply.
Yes I want to see Jita and Amarr die in a fire as hubs finally. This is my dream. As someone who has spent a HUGE amount of time in jita over the last few years of my character and characters lives you might understand why. It also makes gankers adapt and have to change tactics and methods. Something that even you mighty gankers shouldnt be immune from. As one I encourage you to grow, I know you dont want to and all and just like your targets you wish to "educate" and "force" to change and adapt you also shouldnt be immune from this.
These changes along with the others would force more and more players out of those areas as well anyways but youd have to look at both and understand the reasoning behind them first to understand how its entirely NOT a nerf to ganking at all.
Hell pvpers and pvers throughout this game have had to adapt and grow from changes. Get with the program.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16246
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 02:48:44 -
[17] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: Yes and decentralized hubs with the new citadels would facilitate that, nevermind that nearly all your normal targets will be forced into lower sec systems where zero of the increases actually apply.
There isn't a whole lot about the Citadels that has been released so far that would change anything about how, and most importantly where business is done.
Jita moves forward on momentum, as it always has. Why bring your stuff to Jita? Because that's where everybody else has their stuff, and hence where everyone will go to buy! And the snowball rolls on.
CCP can do nothing short of making it into lowsec to dislodge Jita, and even then it might not work.
Quote: It also makes gankers adapt and have to change tactics and methods. Something that even you mighty gankers shouldnt be immune from.
We're the only one who have ever had to adapt in highsec to begin with. Nobody else ever has, they do the same old **** they have been for the last decade.
Quote: Hell pvpers and pvers throughout this game have had to adapt and grow from changes. Get with the program.
PvE has never had to adapt. Oh, CCP finally puts in interesting and difficult missions? Totally optional. Oh, your drones defend your MTU if you are afk with "defend" set? Nope, fastest hotfix in the history of the game.
PvE has never had to adapt. Their gameplay is basically the same as it always has been.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
544
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 07:41:56 -
[18] - Quote
You apparently understand ganking miners but you sure dont understand the mindset of highsec miners. Highsec miners ARE NOT GOING TO LEAVE HIGHSEC.
I dont mean to imply that no miners transition from highsec mining to other areas of the game but 'highsec' miners are a breed unto themselves and not matter what bashing you lay across their face they are not going to leave highsec.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
630
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 18:56:57 -
[19] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:You apparently understand ganking miners but you sure dont understand the mindset of highsec miners. Highsec miners ARE NOT GOING TO LEAVE HIGHSEC.
I dont mean to imply that no miners transition from highsec mining to other areas of the game but 'highsec' miners are a breed unto themselves and not matter what bashing you lay across their face they are not going to leave highsec.
This has little to do with herding them out of high sec if they dont wish too. Its about them getting used to accepting more risk and having it more visible for more rewards even in high sec. They want their relatively increased safety then they will be staying in higher sec systems yet even this will be an illusion that anyone that knows the game understands. The amount of dps needed to gank a ship stays the same its only the relative turn around of the number of ganks a ganker can do in higher space is being curbed, literally everything else stays the same. So now a ganker must actually decide, more ganks/hr or less. Then if you would change the spawn rate and locations the gankers are forced, right along with their targets, to search a bit more for their targets. Again not much more and it increases logistics demands for both miner and ganker, and more travel means more opportunities for predation and interceptions of targets.
I guess for you ganker loves the idea of moving MORE ore and ore anoms and sigs into lower sec space where its easier to gank targets has been completely lost on you. Where theres slower concord, less overall penalties to ganking, and the areas that are left will either be consumed quickly by those who wish to NOT learn how to mitigate risk or create their own safety and security in whatever ways Eve provides.
Also by providing more of a threat via NPCs you psychologically create a non-entity threat idealization. A person is more acutely hurt emotionally/mentally if someone, an actual person with choices, violences them than if a non-entity does so. Its a weird lil tick with people. Its ironically why gankers can elicit so much "rage" and "tears" from victims. People do not like dying still but ironically its not so hurtful, as they understand from childhood that it was the persons "choice" to hurt them or not whereas the NPC is only doing what it was programmed to do. By creating this issue earlier on for miners I actually believe itll be easier to teach ideas of tanking and safety than any factor that CODE could ever supply. People will resist other "people" more than they will a program. Yes people are weird and its fun to study them.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Droidster
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:02:18 -
[20] - Quote
This is a vague proposal. You need to be more specific about the "formula" you are proposing. Without seeing the formula, the change could have a very different impact.
Just lengthening the timer from 15 minutes to an hour I do not think would have much of an impact.
|
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21274
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:10:38 -
[21] - Quote
So you want to nerf ganking in highsec? Why does it need this nerf?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
630
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:20:56 -
[22] - Quote
Droidster wrote:This is a vague proposal. You need to be more specific about the "formula" you are proposing. Without seeing the formula, the change could have a very different impact.
Just lengthening the timer from 15 minutes to an hour I do not think would have much of an impact.
Actually its not vague. Nevermind that the formula wouldnt actually be something any of us will know or should know. Its like asking for the formula for officer spawns. But the basic idea of the formula has been spelled out, the rest would be left up to CCP to find the best curve for them. I have no illusion in this regard that I could put forth my curve as being the ultimate be all and end all given that there is a lot of backend data I do not have access too and know this fact. Now if CCP wished to dump all that data to me well so be it... but... yeah wont happen.
The reality is that the higher the true sec of a system the longer the time for global aggression timers would be. Starting from 0 change in .5 and .6 and starting in .7 and above, so >0.65 to 1.0.
And yes the change is on the number of ganks by the same character per hour. And this then becomes a management issue. You gank in a 1.0 and youd have to wait maybe a few hours to gank again, or you can stay in .5 and gank every 15 mins like usual. This will mean you will NOT be able to participate in another gank fleet because your timer is stuck still. This means youd have to manage WHO and WHERE you gank if you wish to participate in gank fleets. Ironically you could look at it as jump fatigue for ganks. Its a management issue. Now trying to get gankers together could potentially be harder or where if you find a juicy target in a higher sec system and you gank them and the call for a frieghter gank in uedama is called and DAMN you cant participate because you have a timer now.
The flip side is you can roll more alts, train them, inject SP now whatever and CCP gets more money from more alts and accounts. Your choice. Eve is all about choices.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
630
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:23:17 -
[23] - Quote
Mag's wrote:So you want to nerf ganking in highsec? Why does it need this nerf? No, see above post and then read the mining changes proposed thread Mags. The irony is the mining changes would make more movement and logistics be needed and provide more targets in lower security systems as they hunt for more ore. Other than the time factor nothing is changing. So more targets in your areas of operation weighed against higher timers in other areas of space. It is now a trade off that a ganker has to make.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21274
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:26:15 -
[24] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:Mag's wrote:So you want to nerf ganking in highsec? Why does it need this nerf? No, see above post and then read the mining changes proposed thread Mags. The irony is the mining changes would make more movement and logistics be needed and provide more targets in lower security systems as they hunt for more ore. Other than the time factor nothing is changing. So more targets in your areas of operation weighed against higher timers in other areas of space. It is now a trade off that a ganker has to make. So if the mining changes you mention, moves players to low, why does ganking need a nerf?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lann Shahni
Lann Shahni Dreams and ide factory
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 22:12:26 -
[25] - Quote
Suicide ganking hmmm, fit a ecm pulse and give them a nasty suprise, or at least your self a fighting chance! ;) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2198
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 06:10:28 -
[26] - Quote
I am just curious why these prosposal that always start with a disclaimer that they are not intended to prevent or reduce ganking then go on to propose something that clearly does, and usually only does that. Increasing the mechanical lock-out time for players engaging in intended gameplay for just playing the game is a direct and total nerf on suicide ganking.
If you truly wanted to give more meaning to security status, why didn't you suggest lowering the lockout time in 0.5 status systems, to say 1 minute, and then scale it upwards from there? At least you couldn't be accused then of just piling more penalties on an intended profession in the game.
But in either case -1. Lock-out from playing the game is literally the least fun game mechanic a game designer can add to their game. We do not need more of it. Besides, there is already a massive difference in cost for gankers imposed on them by the CONCORD times which incentivize staying in the lower security status systems. I am not sure why you think we need more trade-offs when we have some that work already. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
631
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 23:51:58 -
[27] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:Mag's wrote:So you want to nerf ganking in highsec? Why does it need this nerf? No, see above post and then read the mining changes proposed thread Mags. The irony is the mining changes would make more movement and logistics be needed and provide more targets in lower security systems as they hunt for more ore. Other than the time factor nothing is changing. So more targets in your areas of operation weighed against higher timers in other areas of space. It is now a trade off that a ganker has to make. So if the mining changes you mention, moves players to low, why does ganking need a nerf? It literally changes the entire dynamic of high sec. Moving resources from the higher sec systems as well as players and player interactions. It also will help foster the idea in players heads that higher sec does sort of foster a bit more security, not removing threats as it shouldnt, but gives those who demand more security less resources to compete over as it should be and creates a much better dynamic scale for risk/reward in high sec. I believe its something CCP hasnt looked at ever since the inception of Eve and really does need to look at as they rebalance everything else as well.
I am an old toon and have seen this game change a lot, lived in many areas of Eve over the years and have had a footprint and good friends to talk to about the various other areas as well, I think as the players change the game needs to to. This for me is one of those cases. Ironically its not a huge change tbh though for those that want to continue the old ways, which most people do, it will seem as if its upsetting the apple cart and "ruining it all" end of the world style.
There was a reason that CCP changed the old superhighway system or broke a lot of the having to pass through low sec areas to get to other high sec. I remember dying quite often as I was the crazy one thatd make the run for our corporations needs through mara while m0o ran that system. I was one of the original recipients of the lag them out with tons of jet cans trick, literally staring at a black screen for 30 secs after a jump and loading immediately afterwards to my clone bay.
So I believe in the evolution of this game this is one of those changes that does need to be addressed given the current culture. Nevermind that it would shake up high sec once again for all players young and old alike and force them to not only adapt but offer a different idea of how high sec works as a whole. Yes it is decidedly mining and industry oriented yet it is one of the original Eve professions and I happen to like it a lot. And yes though my toon is in null atm this is not a cry of nerf high for null as I still operate a lot in both areas as well as low sec.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
631
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 23:59:17 -
[28] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I am just curious why these prosposal that always start with a disclaimer that they are not intended to prevent or reduce ganking then go on to propose something that clearly does that, and usually only does that. Increasing the mechanical lock-out time for players engaging in intended gameplay for just playing the game is a direct and total nerf on suicide ganking.
If you truly wanted to give more meaning to security status, why didn't you suggest lowering the lockout time in 0.5 status systems, to say 1 minute, and then scale it upwards from there? At least you couldn't be accused then of just piling more penalties on an intended profession in the game.
But in either case -1. Lock-out from playing the game is literally the least fun game mechanic a game designer can add to their game. We do not need more of it. Besides, there is already a massive difference in cost for gankers imposed on them by the CONCORD times which incentivizes staying in the lower security status systems. I am not sure why you think we need more trade-offs when we have some that work already. Why? Because I gank too. I know the ins and outs of it. Ive seen it from most angles and can say that yes as it is today it is simply TOO easy. Forcing gankers to think about timers and deal with them as well when joining fleets and ganking repeatedly day in and day out is a huge factor. I used to build literally hundreds of ships, fit them and just recycle them every 15 mins. With other alts I could fund this style of gameplay indefinitely and with literally no real cost to me. To me that is broken, not normative gameplay.
As a pirate, hell as a player, I want challenge. It seems obviously that other people do not and this makes me sad. Yes most scream and tirade that they do to and try to spew forth "convenient truths" about how they do and have. Yet that doesnt change the fact. So do you want a challenge? Do you want a game that evolves with you and often forces you to change, adapt and grow? Or do you want easy gift wrapped content like WoW?
Also the reality is that no this wouldnt as it would force more players into lower security systems than before as they would compete for diminishing resources/content in the higher security levels.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
44461
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 00:01:48 -
[29] - Quote
Lann Shahni wrote:Suicide ganking hmmm, fit a ecm pulse and give them a nasty suprise, or at least your self a fighting chance! ;) This would be funny, since an ECM burst is also an aggressive act, it only takes 1 alt in a rookie ship to be within the pulse radius to also result in CONCORD for the gank target.
So that would 100% guarantee death of the target irrespective of whether it would have otherwise survived the gank.
The saving factor would be the safety setting. Set green or yellow it's not possible to activate the burst and would require the pilot to first set their safety red.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
631
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 01:13:07 -
[30] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:increasing the time of global aggression from the standard 15 mins Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:This... isnt... a.. nerf... How is this not a nerf? You do realize there is other ganking going on besides the ganking of miners right?
Okay sat and thought about the mission runner issue for a while.
If it were up to me Id do a return to the rating system of L4 agents coupled with an entire reshuffling of the location of all L4 agents in Eve. The reshuffling would mix again the true sec of systems with the rating of the agents. So all L4 +20 agents would only ever be found in .5s. I would use a program that literally creates all available systems, based on corporation settled systems, and then revert all agents back to the original rating system and just RNG shuffle them until an appropriate spread is created. RNG being RNG heavy spots or systems would be heavy spots and so distribution would be key here.
Lower sec agents would be more likely to give low sec missions thereby reducing number of back to back missions selected without incurring penalty as well as being in lower sec systems. Lower LP and rewards for higher sec agents as it used to be.
The irony is that then with such a system in place CCP could randomly move agents around using this type of system forcing players to move around after their favorite agents much like the real world works as people move around on the totem pole and work in different areas of the world. This would create a more dynamic world to L4 running as players are forced to learn new areas, choke points, etc instead of logging in, running, logging off and doing nothing else. As learning new areas with different player environments is a fun and challenging endevour. Who are your threats? Who are easy meat? Who are your new friends? Nevermind someone having to move their shiny bling ships from area to area with all their stuff would make for some hilariously great killmails.
Random **** from the top of my brain..... lol
Another way of doing such a mix up is that you could be passed around by agents looking for more work. After a random number of missions your agent has no more work, and says a limited list of other agents have work for you and you can select to go work for any of these for a few missions. The agents would all be within the same corporation but could be spread anywhere in the Eve universe where that corporation does business. Again breaking the log in, run, repeat ad nauseum, log off cycle.
Another idea would be unused agents would get desperate over time and offer much higher rewards and LP for single missions just to "get it done" and then revert to normal levels. Which would offer those nomad types the ability to get decent payouts in return for traveling around and finding such agents and missions. But because of their nonfarmable nature wouldnt result in excessive payouts or rewards.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |