Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anyone YouCan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.01.22 22:57:19 -
[1] - Quote
1. Citadel spam. It's reaching the point this is becoming a major WTF. There needs to be some limit to the number of these per system.
2. What direction is ccp going with single vs multiplayer in EVE. Over the past 12 years I have played the game EvE has become less and less single player friendly. it started with the introduction of remote healing and has escalated from there. Eve once did not have the fairly standard mmo mechanic of healers - tank/dps/support. But over time EVE has gained more and more mechanics that shoe horn players into fleets to do nearly anything but npc hunt. But this is at odds with its nature as a constant shared universe. Where it can be very hard to get players on at all points of the day. Meaning that a large amount of the time players are left sitting around doing nothing waiting for friends to come online. This leads to the entire numbers game and so many blueball fleets.
The other problem with this is that the game intrinsically has not gone so far as to prevent lone players making big differences. Leading to a culture of harassment game play. Be it cloaking campers. Single bombers harassing structures. or fozzy sov issues where one or two players can cause nearly endless hassle with little recourse.
Personally I think EVE suffers for having to much requirement for multiple players to fill too many roles and will suffer to some degree until it moves back away from these mechanics. But thats my opinion. I would like remote repping toned down in favor of more local tank. And damage saturation ESPECIALLY in sub capitals. Less benefit from gang boosts so they are nice to have but never a requirement. They currently still give way to much to those with them versus those without them.
3. Killmails
They have become a little to much of a factor in the decision making in EVE. Especially killboards. I'm not sure they need removing but simplifying down to just show the victim, the killer and their ships plus a estimated value. they should also not show system or even appear for 24hours.
|
Scipio Artelius
Savage Moon Society
46667
|
Posted - 2017.01.22 23:19:14 -
[2] - Quote
On:
1. - there is another thread on this already
2. - CCP don't and never have told players how they should play the game. That's totally up to us individually and I hope CCP never favour any one form directly. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and that's up to us to decide what we want, not for CCP to pick a direction
3. - lots of people like them and there are often calls for more info in the killmails - such as killmarks on the ship, logistics. So I think while a number of people will agree with you, there will be just as many that disagree. |
joslyn
Luxury Response Express Amarr-Caldari Mercantile Exchange
1
|
Posted - 2017.01.22 23:29:43 -
[3] - Quote
Agree with #2 - with admittedly similar but varying reasons, heh.
I've found myself lacking the time needed for the game lately and actually just turned my other two accounts into Alpha accounts and placed them on the shelf... most likely permanently. I used to triple-box and run my own little mining/industry Corp, but can't afford to run three accounts at present and never been big into multiplayer... I derive no joy from griefing others and there seem to be very few roles as an upstanding single player in EvE anymore which allow me to relax and enjoy my game.
|
Chopper Rollins
Far Beyond Triggered
1753
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 01:33:04 -
[4] - Quote
1. Haven't seen any citadel spam, this must be in hisec, lol hisec just leave it's awful.
2. Other than run a wh pos or single-handedly take sov i've done everything a single character can do on its own. The wall is hit at about the three year mark and since then it's been either get very creative or find company. I'm okay with this and think it's great because it isn't enforced by mechanics to play with others, it's like real life: groups do big things easier than any solo can. I've just spent most of last year on my own in lowsec as a rest from being in bigger groups, both have different kinds of fun.
3. Killmails are great, back up stories and can be ignored by people who aren't worried about MUH STATS.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Jennifer Starblaze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 03:31:44 -
[5] - Quote
1. I don-¦t understand why people have a problem with citadales, I don-¦t have one, I don-¦t want one and I am not bothered by them at all. It-¦s not like it is a must have thing, same as posses never were a thing you just had to buy. At the very least you could state why you would want there to be a limit.
2. So what exactly is it? On the one hand you complain that you would need a to have a large group available to do things and on the other hand you complain that the game does not prevent lone players to make a big difference? I don-¦t get it.
I always liked the ability to setup fleets with different roles, even when we were still slowboating around in RR battleships I felt like the game improved a lot with RRs since it added another tactical element and more tactical options is a + in my book, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion on that one. I still doubt that putting artificial limits or nerfing RRs into the ground will change the numbers game. If they become useless people will just replace them with more damage dealers and every fight ends up being like really large battles where RRs for subcaps are pretty much useless at they get alphad of the field anyway, yet people already play the numbers game. The only thing you achieve is taking away a strategic element for smaller fights.
Boosting local tanks is a pretty bad idea in my opinion.
If you boost active tanks, you will break solo and small gang gameplay. Local tanks nowadays are already way too strong in smale scale fights, not even speaking about 1v1s. With deadspace mods being so cheap these days you can already run crazy active tank setups for solo and small gang stuff. Boosting those further will only result in there being a need to always fit energy neutralizers as the fights will only ever be decided by whose cap will last longer. Or you will have to bring more people just to break the local tank of a single ship. (Not that I have a big problem with the neutralizers part personally, since I love flying ships with neuts, but it should be a weapon, you choose to fit and not one you must fit under any circumstances to break the tank of any ship).
Boosting buffer tanks also would be bad. In small scale and solo fights it would make the fights just way too long and it would make those fights feel like grinding down structures.
The notion that it is impossible to do something solo or in a small group is not true at all (you even mention some of the many options yourself). There are enough solo players and small groups around who do other stuff than PvE every day. Sure if you want to hold sov you won-¦t do it with just a few people, that does not mean that you need a large group for PvP. If you live in an area where you can not operate with a small group or on your own, maybe it-¦s just time to relocate.
I also do not share your opinion about gang boosts, they do help, but they are not a must have thing and with boosting ships being required to be near the fleet to do any boosting they can always be destroyed. And while I agree that you are at a disadvantage when you do not have a fleet booster, that also applies to many other things like drugs or faction and deadspace mods, or pirate implants. I would go as far as to say that some of those things give you a much bigger advantage than a command ship in many situations.
3, Killmails
I don-¦t see killmails as a reason for people to not take fights. No matter if a loss generates a killmail or not, people in general are not a big fan of losing any kind of competition. What stops people from fighting is the fear of losing itself, not the report that is generated by loss. In 13 years of playing EvE I never turned down a fight, because I am afraif of having a loss on some killboard, I only turn down a fight when there is a pretty good chance that I lose the fight
It-¦s not that I care much about my space pixels, but I always saw myself as a pirate in EvE and it has always been my personal goal to make more money with PvPing than I lose and since I have spent most of my career in low sec without being in corps / alliances with SRPs, I always had to pick my fights carefully to keep the balance positive. And it-¦s no different with larger scale battles either, there is absolutely no reason, for an alliance FC to throw fleet after fleet into an enemies that will most likely defeat your own fleet. that would be a complete waste of ressources and while the big alliances and coalitions are not poor, they did not get their wealth by just jumping into any fight.
-> Large Coalitions and blobs discourage people to fight, but putting artificial limits in place to prevent large alliances from forming would be something I am against as well. If people want to form big coalitions they should have the freedom to do so, after all EvE has more to offer than just sov warfare and you don-¦t need to have sov to have fun and to make more than enough ISK to stay in business if you use your ressources wisely.
|
Scipio Artelius
Savage Moon Society
46670
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 03:35:42 -
[6] - Quote
Jennifer Starblaze wrote:1. I don-¦t understand why people have a problem with citadales, ... It's apparently too hard to make an overview that doesn't show them. |
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2033
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 07:02:42 -
[7] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Jennifer Starblaze wrote:1. I don-¦t understand why people have a problem with citadales, ... It's apparently too hard to make an overview that doesn't show them. ... especially when you need to see 1-2 of them in overview.
Every time i do SP selling i visit Perimeter. My overview (about 50 lines?) is filled with them!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Reinhardt Kreiss
TetraVaal Tactical Group
137
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 08:31:53 -
[8] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Jennifer Starblaze wrote:1. I don-¦t understand why people have a problem with citadales, ... It's apparently too hard to make an overview that doesn't show them. ... especially when you need to see 1-2 of them in overview. Every time i do SP selling i visit Perimeter. My overview (about 50 lines?) is filled with them!
BM those, don't have them on overview. It's not difficult.
|
Anyone YouCan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 10:26:29 -
[9] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:On:
1. - there is another thread on this already
2. - CCP don't and never have told players how they should play the game. That's totally up to us individually and I hope CCP never favour any one form directly. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and that's up to us to decide what we want, not for CCP to pick a direction
3. - lots of people like them and there are often calls for more info in the killmails - such as killmarks on the ship, logistics. So I think while a number of people will agree with you, there will be just as many that disagree.
CCP have told players how to play the game for years. They never say "hey play this way" but the certainly put tools in the game that make it almost impracticality to play any other way. Any delusion that EVE exists free of CCP guiding hand is exactly that. A delusion. CCP need to make decision that take this game in certain directions. They have made decisions in the past like Adding logistics ships that made HUGE impacts on the game. And have directly lead to the stagnant game play we see now. These days CCP sit on a fence while intrinsic problems do not get addressed. A decision needs to be made about the balance in EVE between gameplay for single players or forcing multiplayer only situations.
Because at the moment we have the worst of both: Current mechanics promote the use of Doctines for fleets where in most cases the individual is little more than a drone of their fc. Where many players dont feel welcome if they can't fly a specified ship. Fleets almost require fleets. boosts to remain competitive. Making it very unbalanced for lower sp fleets. Logistics all but destroy the idea of "Going down fighting and taking a few of them with us" So does ECM etc. It's basically pointless to fight outnumbered. Because it does not come down to the skill of pilots. just pure math and numbers.
On the other hand we have 1 guy in a t1 cruiser running round entosising, shooting structures being cloaky that require constant responses from more than one player in return. the staple of a cloaky camper for example is that they wait for favorable circumstances. The only way to prevent this is via numbers that mean they never have favorable circumstances. Or the now constant issue of fozzy sov where 1 or 2 players can require a constant need for a gang of ships to chase down or trap them.
The balance is out. the big picture needs looking at for a change. not just sticking band aids on individual issues. move us back to a game that was about pilot abilities. not just numbers. Let us go down fighting |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
358
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 11:12:29 -
[10] - Quote
Anyone YouCan wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:On:
1. - there is another thread on this already
2. - CCP don't and never have told players how they should play the game. That's totally up to us individually and I hope CCP never favour any one form directly. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and that's up to us to decide what we want, not for CCP to pick a direction
3. - lots of people like them and there are often calls for more info in the killmails - such as killmarks on the ship, logistics. So I think while a number of people will agree with you, there will be just as many that disagree. CCP have told players how to play the game for years. They never say "hey play this way" but the certainly put tools in the game that make it almost impracticality to play any other way. Any delusion that EVE exists free of CCP guiding hand is exactly that. A delusion. CCP need to make decision that take this game in certain directions. They have made decisions in the past like Adding logistics ships that made HUGE impacts on the game. And have directly lead to the stagnant game play we see now. These days CCP sit on a fence while intrinsic problems do not get addressed. A decision needs to be made about the balance in EVE between gameplay for single players or forcing multiplayer only situations. Because at the moment we have the worst of both: Current mechanics promote the use of Doctines for fleets where in most cases the individual is little more than a drone of their fc. Where many players dont feel welcome if they can't fly a specified ship. Fleets almost require fleets. boosts to remain competitive. Making it very unbalanced for lower sp fleets. Logistics all but destroy the idea of "Going down fighting and taking a few of them with us" So does ECM etc. It's basically pointless to fight outnumbered. Because it does not come down to the skill of pilots. just pure math and numbers. On the other hand we have 1 guy in a t1 cruiser running round entosising, shooting structures being cloaky that require constant responses from more than one player in return. the staple of a cloaky camper for example is that they wait for favorable circumstances. The only way to prevent this is via numbers that mean they never have favorable circumstances. Or the now constant issue of fozzy sov where 1 or 2 players can require a constant need for a gang of ships to chase down or trap them. The balance is out. the big picture needs looking at for a change. not just sticking band aids on individual issues. move us back to a game that was about pilot abilities. not just numbers. Let us go down fighting
So you are basically asking for CCP to the back the clock about 10 years?
Wormholer for life.
|
|
Jennifer Starblaze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 11:23:17 -
[11] - Quote
Anyone YouCan wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:On:
1. - there is another thread on this already
2. - CCP don't and never have told players how they should play the game. That's totally up to us individually and I hope CCP never favour any one form directly. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and that's up to us to decide what we want, not for CCP to pick a direction
3. - lots of people like them and there are often calls for more info in the killmails - such as killmarks on the ship, logistics. So I think while a number of people will agree with you, there will be just as many that disagree. CCP have told players how to play the game for years. They never say "hey play this way" but the certainly put tools in the game that make it almost impracticality to play any other way. Any delusion that EVE exists free of CCP guiding hand is exactly that. A delusion. CCP need to make decision that take this game in certain directions. They have made decisions in the past like Adding logistics ships that made HUGE impacts on the game. And have directly lead to the stagnant game play we see now. These days CCP sit on a fence while intrinsic problems do not get addressed. A decision needs to be made about the balance in EVE between gameplay for single players or forcing multiplayer only situations.
No matter what ccp does the game will stay stagnant as long as people do not change. Even if they would add your damage saturation and remove RRs people would still play the numbers game, as the side that has more ships on the field will be able to lose more ships before they can not apply the maximum damage any more.
Anyone YouCan wrote:
Because at the moment we have the worst of both: Current mechanics promote the use of Doctines for fleets where in most cases the individual is little more than a drone of their fc. Where many players dont feel welcome if they can't fly a specified ship. Fleets almost require fleets. boosts to remain competitive. Making it very unbalanced for lower sp fleets. Logistics all but destroy the idea of "Going down fighting and taking a few of them with us" So does ECM etc. It's basically pointless to fight outnumbered. Because it does not come down to the skill of pilots. just pure math and numbers.
Doctrines are not really a new thing either and are just a result of people perfecting tactics. No matter if yo are going around solo or in a large fleet spceializing your ship for a certain role is always more effective, but this hardly has anything to do with RRs or ECM. I can remember being in sniper fleets for example which did not have any RR ships with them and while FCs were not that strict at that point when it comes to the choice of your sniper ship, but even without logis we would have ended up there as using exactly the same ship, with the same fitting for the core of your fleet means you can use your chosen tactic more efficiently.
Also I have never seen any FC turning down useful ships in doctrine fleets unless you would bring something like a battleship to a bomber fleet. If you can not fly the core ship of a doctrine any FC will gladly accept an additional tackling frig, dictor, hic, logistics ship, firewall ship or whatever you can fly, sure if you want to bring a blaster ship to a fleet that is setup for long range you might get turned down, but in that case it only makes sense to tell you to gtfo since you would be completly useless.
On the being able to fight outnumbered part:
I have been in PL before they started the whole coalition crap and back in those days, while doctrines were already a thing we have won many fights where we were outnumbered only because we had the more skiled logistics pilots and better FCs, who made better decisions on the field.
If you remove roles like ECM and logis from the game, that is when it really becomes a numbers game in every fight and not just the big fights. And if you think about small scale, no matter if there is ECM or logis on the field or not, if you are outnumbered and the other side is not completly terrible at PvP you are at a huge disadvantage and won-¦t kill anything meaningfull before you go down.
If you think removing roles that actually require more input from the player than just pressing approach and f1 means that more player skills is required than you need when you fill those additional roles, I would say you are the delusional person.
Anyone YouCan wrote:
On the other hand we have 1 guy in a t1 cruiser running round entosising, shooting structures being cloaky that require constant responses from more than one player in return. the staple of a cloaky camper for example is that they wait for favorable circumstances. The only way to prevent this is via numbers that mean they never have favorable circumstances. Or the now constant issue of fozzy sov where 1 or 2 players can require a constant need for a gang of ships to chase down or trap them.
The balance is out. the big picture needs looking at for a change. not just sticking band aids on individual issues. move us back to a game that was about pilot abilities. not just numbers. Let us go down fighting
If a single player is able to "harrass" you in your own sov then you quite simply have too much space that is not being used by people. The problem again are not the mechanics (allthough I find sov warfare incredibly boring, but it always has been) the problem are people. If you take more space than you actually use, you and your alliance are the ones who enable single players to harass you. If you actually had people living in those systems they-¦d have a problem any time they uncloak. |
Salvos Rhoska
1976
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 11:50:58 -
[12] - Quote
I agree with all three of OPs concerns.
They address meta issues with far reaching consequences to the game, and are imo deleterious to it.
(I dont however agree with the conclusion that changes have led to "harassment gameplay" as a negative. Infact I see that as enabling of solo players and efforts)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
372
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 12:24:39 -
[13] - Quote
Point number 2 can be a real problem with this game at times. In an old WH corp I was a member of, we would have maybe a couple people online at a time with several more afk. This really affected the 'world' atmosphere in the game. The reason why so few were on, is that in WHs you need a good few people for most activities, especially pvp. So we would ping if we found a fight and more would log in for that fight, and the other corp would do the same. After the fight it would be back to looking for targets and most would get bored and log off again. That isn't conducive to having players stick with the game. I don't know how it can be fixed, but my guy says that less specialisation and more room for solo play would do it.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1431
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 13:14:21 -
[14] - Quote
1. CCP is currently testing how having multiple Citadels in a system affects performance. 2. CCP does not dictate how players can play the game, they just try to keep things in balance. If you think that one style is becoming more prominent then others. Feel free to write a suggestion on how to balance things in the Player Feature and Ideas sub Forum. 3. If you have a suggestion on how to change kill mails please post a thread in Player Feature and Ides.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Anyone YouCan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 13:24:42 -
[15] - Quote
t's not about the individual issues. It's about the overall current issues with EVE and how it shoe horns ways of playing. That are negative to the longterm health of the game and all of our enjoyment. They keep band aiding issues but they are not addressing the problems that are at the root of it all. It's simple that current mechanics promote lame mechanics. Eve was not always this way. It has got worse. I want to see the game move back towards a more free approach to play. specialization has born weakness. It's resulted in to many situations where its not profitable/enjoyable to put ourselves in a place where we take fights and the ones we have to take are often totally un-enjoyable because the mechanics have compounded it so that we barely ever "GO down fighting and take a few of them with us". LANDO WOULD NOT LIKE EVE. |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
391
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 13:43:12 -
[16] - Quote
another problem with eve is the encouraging of people having armies of alts to avoid relying on others.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2035
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 13:59:33 -
[17] - Quote
Reinhardt Kreiss wrote:March rabbit wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Jennifer Starblaze wrote:1. I don-¦t understand why people have a problem with citadales, ... It's apparently too hard to make an overview that doesn't show them. ... especially when you need to see 1-2 of them in overview. Every time i do SP selling i visit Perimeter. My overview (about 50 lines?) is filled with them! BM those, don't have them on overview. It's not difficult. Yesterday i needed to actually move my donor alts to new citadel. Because in 1 week old trade hub stopped to do its job. So it is not that simple.
Btw: moving my 8 alts i got broken overview and inability to fly in space for 2 of them. Cannot make myself to bugreport tho.... It's just todays Eve Online state.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
2Sonas1Cup
188
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 14:02:14 -
[18] - Quote
First you had isbox and you complained about too much power for solo players.
Now you complain about too much power for multi players.
Seems like the problem here is you.
CCP can you bring key broadcasting back already please? (Make solo players great again, and "balance") |
Salvos Rhoska
1977
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 14:14:45 -
[19] - Quote
2Sonas1Cup wrote:First you had isbox and you complained about too much power for solo players.
Now you complain about too much power for multi players.
Seems like the problem here is you.
CCP can you bring key broadcasting back already please? (Make solo players great again, and "balance") This is just weak strawman, non-sequitor, ad hominem and trolling.
Is this the best you can do?
There are lengthy well argued positions for and against in this thread.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
2Sonas1Cup
189
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 14:40:10 -
[20] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:2Sonas1Cup wrote:First you had isbox and you complained about too much power for solo players.
Now you complain about too much power for multi players.
Seems like the problem here is you.
CCP can you bring key broadcasting back already please? (Make solo players great again, and "balance") This is just weak strawman, non-sequitor, ad hominem and trolling. Is this the best you can do? There are lengthy well argued positions for and against in this thread.
A player uses key broadcasting, people complain. A player gather friends and use multiplayer, people complain.
Can you tell me exactly where is the difference? How did anything change without key broadcasting if the results in the game are exactly the same?
If a player can't key broadcast he will just get more people and do it, the results in game will be exactly the same, 10 ships 10 accounts all fire at once. Key broadcasting or not, is the same.
The only problem here is the people that complain, they are the problem. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1977
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 15:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
To my reading, no one in this thread has brought up key broadcasting, except you. This thread is not about keybroadcasting, no matter how butthurt you are about it,
That matter is dead and buried.
As to your claim that complaining is the problem, that is solipsistic and circular. You are complaining about someone complaining.
Really, is this the best you can do? Its pathetic.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1046
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 15:24:18 -
[22] - Quote
I suspect this won't be popular but IMO with gang links the more offensive/active type ones like point range and remote repairs should be moved to a targetted model - maybe targeted limited range AoE which would make things a bit more tactical while moving some of the bonuses that are of a more "always on" nature like passive EHP bonuses, local tanking and mining, etc. back to the old model.
I think the biggest problem with single player is the lack of something "like" incursions that can be run more casually yeah yeah it would be a bit like raids - but it helps to keep things ticking over when you have a small number of players on, helps to get newer players involved in the game as they can join in with that under the "mentorship" of older players, etc. etc. |
Salvos Rhoska
1977
|
Posted - 2017.01.23 15:48:39 -
[23] - Quote
As has been well explained by many in this thread, logistics and links are crucial for asymetric warfare, and to keep battles devolving into pure numerical superiority.
On the specific issue of links, I think it took one good step forward, but unfortunately also 2 steps back.
It is great that links must be on grid now. It is also great that Command Destroyers enable small gang support.
But Command Destroyers, man, their stats and comparable cost are insane. At least T3C and Command BCs are behind SP and cost thresholds. Ive never liked T3C having links, but I understand why CCP did it.
As to the notion of the player above of tactical placement of Command Bursts, I would argue that is largely currently occurring, requiring positioning and timing of the ship itself as the AoE coordinator, as well as fleet behavior to get the boosts.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |