| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spurty
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2009.09.21 12:11:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Asuka Smith
Every aggression timer needs to be quadrupled. If you want to log out in space you better not have gotten aggression/aggressed in the past hour.
Try thinking beyond the end of your nose.
What about when people DC due to power outages and things outside their control?
Happens to me a lot. Why should I suffer twice?
Your name shall go on zee list!
Originally by: Machine Delta
When making a point, anyone taking it should consider the source.
pretty deep coming from you |
Jhagiti Tyran
Mortis Angelus
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 12:19:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
make the jumping/docking countdown 240 seconds.
Station timers yes but gate timers are fine.
|
Xiozor
Anonymous Alcoholics
Wrath.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 12:55:00 -
[33]
Increasing timers would not mean that you would kill more people before they could dock. Increasing the timers means less people will commit to fights. Leave them as they are, it is hard enough getting PvP in empire. Besides, you already have tools available to you that can easily counter the relatively short docking timer, they are called bumper-phoons.
-----------------------------------------------
Mr.Kippling just launched a nuclear holocaust at third world countries! ... But he does make exceedingly good cakes. |
Angry Poster
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 13:30:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Angry Poster on 21/09/2009 13:36:21
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Every aggression timer needs to be quadrupled. If you want to log out in space you better not have gotten aggression/aggressed in the past hour.
I agree. Should have happened at the same time they quadrupled the EHP of all the ships tbh. I can't stand these ******ed docking games - and they don't only suck in empire. We're currently fighting a well known alliance and they are such pussies that they won't even fight if they're not sitting on an outpost ready to dock up. (The *****-alliance knows who I'm talking about)
I don't care so much about the 15 minute timers tbh. They can stay at 15 minutes or be changed to 60 as well for all I care. The real problem are the 1min times (docking/jumping after aggression). They should really be increased to 5, 10 or 15 minutes. Going into battle should be a commitment and not something where you can just say "aww I'm gonna lose so I'll simply jump+log or dock up without any risk or countermeasure".
Anyone who doesn't want this is likely exploiting timers - there's no other argument against increasing them tbh.
And to the whiners crying about their crappy connections/power supplies: if you aggro something and then get disconnected then you will either: a) be lucky because there's no prober around or b) will be probed and die (no matter if the prober has 15 or 60 minutes time).
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 13:37:00 -
[35]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 21/09/2009 13:44:42
Originally by: Malcanis
Right so avoiding wardecs by metagaming your way through a merry-go-round of corps is fine is it?
ITT 3litE PVPers condemn metagaming... But only metagames that negatively impact them. All other forms are fine  .
Pro-tip: If you're really concerned about metagaming then I suggest you tackle the biggest issue of all; the use of alts to circumvent virtually all mechanics in game.
Examples?
Using alts as intel tools makes gatecamps virtually immune to losses.
The use of alts negates the consequences of being -10.
No serious consequences to scamming
No serious consequences to spying
List goes on and on...
But yeh, this isn't the metagaming you're looking to get fixed now, is it?
CCP, nerf carebearz! Buff 3L1TE PVPrs!! \o/
|
Laruant Wiggins
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:04:00 -
[36]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Something like a 'Vendetta' system. Same mechanics as wardec (costs/24hr clock, etc), except that it is limited to one player vs one player. Your corp doesn't enter into it and neither does his.
KB
I like this.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:16:00 -
[37]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 21/09/2009 13:44:42
Originally by: Malcanis
Right so avoiding wardecs by metagaming your way through a merry-go-round of corps is fine is it?
ITT 3litE PVPers condemn metagaming... But only metagames that negatively impact them. All other forms are fine .
Pro-tip: If you're really concerned about metagaming then I suggest you tackle the biggest issue of all; the use of alts to circumvent virtually all mechanics in game.
Examples?
Using alts as intel tools makes gatecamps virtually immune to losses.
The use of alts negates the consequences of being -10.
No serious consequences to scamming
No serious consequences to spying
List goes on and on...
But yeh, this isn't the metagaming you're looking to get fixed now, is it?
CCP, nerf carebearz! Buff 3L1TE PVPrs!! \o/
Gosh, with all those words you're putting in to my mouth, you hardly need me to post at all.
How about a wardec system where an empire corp can post a bond with concord. Anyone wanting to dec them has to match this bond, and if they retract the war, then their ISK is forfeit.
The dec'd corp is free to hire more mercenaries or exert any other kind of in-game pressure on the deccing corp to drop the wardec.
That might dissaude casual, opportunistic griefing?
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:34:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Laruant Wiggins
Originally by: KaarBaak
Something like a 'Vendetta' system. Same mechanics as wardec (costs/24hr clock, etc), except that it is limited to one player vs one player. Your corp doesn't enter into it and neither does his.
KB
I like this.
"Hey, look a mission runner and his ship is worth billions! Vendetta time."
The reason why these 'proposals' will never be implemented is because CCP would rather you poasters leave the game than the hordes you would try to take advantage off and grief. This, like this entire thread is PHAIL.
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:34:00 -
[39]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 21/09/2009 13:44:42
Originally by: Malcanis
Right so avoiding wardecs by metagaming your way through a merry-go-round of corps is fine is it?
ITT 3litE PVPers condemn metagaming... But only metagames that negatively impact them. All other forms are fine .
Pro-tip: If you're really concerned about metagaming then I suggest you tackle the biggest issue of all; the use of alts to circumvent virtually all mechanics in game.
Examples?
Using alts as intel tools makes gatecamps virtually immune to losses.
The use of alts negates the consequences of being -10.
No serious consequences to scamming
No serious consequences to spying
List goes on and on...
But yeh, this isn't the metagaming you're looking to get fixed now, is it?
CCP, nerf carebearz! Buff 3L1TE PVPrs!! \o/
Yes, they need to fix alts, and they need to fix corp-hoppers that are avoiding wardecs.
But more importantly, they need to recycle corp/alliance names & tickers that are dead. I forsee alot of them being used very soon
Pick Three:
Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:41:00 -
[40]
And they also need to fix the war system so it stops being the griefing joke it is today.
|
Maria Martillo
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:48:00 -
[41]
Dunno why people are more concerned about playstyle of others than their own.
imho all playstyles fit perfectly in eve, dont see the point. If someone is happy in a NPC corp
that dont affect me in any way.
The problem is, as said in other post, the difficulty in many cases of find a player corp that fits you. Its not so easy, in many circunstances, to find comfort with others, and (maybe its a failure of eve from certain point of view), being a MMO, EvE its also a good game to play solo (not as fun as in a group, IMO, but can cover too well your needs).
Seems that many people forget the objective of a game: FUN
Well, if you have only fun with the dissapointment of others, they are other things...
That are not yet "games"...
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:49:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Malcanis
Gosh, with all those words you're putting in to my mouth, you hardly need me to post at all.
How about a wardec system where an empire corp can post a bond with concord. Anyone wanting to dec them has to match this bond, and if they retract the war, then their ISK is forfeit.
The dec'd corp is free to hire more mercenaries or exert any other kind of in-game pressure on the deccing corp to drop the wardec.
That might dissaude casual, opportunistic griefing?
Oops, didn't see this 
Yeh, that's actually a sensible idea. Would also love to see trade-able kill rights. Seriously, why hasn't this been implemented yet?
|
Rumba Purring
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 14:52:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Rumba Purring on 21/09/2009 14:53:03
I agree that aggression rules in empire are complicated and intentions behind them seem very inconsistent.
However, whether this makes 'good' or 'bad' game play depends on preference. If you want EVE game play to mimic what space combat could be based on reasonable extrapolation of astronautics and war technologies into far future, then these aggression rules are distractions. They introduce what feels like artificial complications that have nothing to do with actual space combat.
On the other hand, one could argue that complicated aggression rules represent entangled and unreasonable legal system of the future. The current game play obviously appeal to those who like 'working the system' and winning based on litigious technicalities. (We all know the type.)
So it comes down to what kind of game play we prefer, and hopefully CCP will do what's best to satisfy the most customers.
I personally dislike current complex aggro rules that take away from empire wars, and wouldn't mind seeing some cleaning up.
Edit: grammar fix
-------------
Would you be ready if the gravity reversed itself? |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 15:24:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Malcanis
If you really want to get people out of NPC corps, then reworking the war dec system and even more importantly the bounty system is really important.
I can see how a rework of war decs might help, but how would changing the agreeably inadequate bounty system help?
Originally by: Malcanis
Neutral remote reppers make a mockery out of such hi-sec PvP as does occur.
Armour/shield rigs increasing tank without a corresponding increase in aggro timers mean that stupid docking games are the norm, not the exception.
Yeah Neut remote reps are bad, too easily meta gamed.
Docking games - This is a half and half thing. Players do need to be able to redock, get that 30 seconds of invulnerability for a couple of reasons. First because of the black screen of death. That just sucks. And secondly, because we can not see outside of stations before we undock. The docked player needs to be able to take a peek.
If the aggro timer is also increased, then the undock invulnerability timer should also be increased. Blind session changes are one of the poor aspects of Eve PVP, and neither side should have an advantage.
Another solution to the whole docking game thing would be warp people out of stations to some random distance and angle of around .5 AU. If they want to warp back and fight fine, then increase the timer, if they wanna warp back and dock and never fire a shot, they can do that too.
Or let us see outside the station while docked. Either way, the issue needs a better solution than current. |
Kezzle
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 15:57:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
I can see how a rework of war decs might help, but how would changing the agreeably inadequate bounty system help?
If you could transfer the right to shoot down a target for whom you have kill rights, it is conceivable that more PvP would occur as at least a proportion of the currently 'unexploited' kill rights would be traded to people willing and able to do something about them, rather than being ignored by non-combatant characters/players.
Quote:
Yeah Neut remote reps are bad, too easily meta gamed.
Anyone care to explain how neutral RRs don't just get added to the top of the kill sequence as soon as they start up?
Quote:
Blind session changes are one of the poor aspects of Eve PVP, and neither side should have an advantage.
I agree strongly when considerint station undocks. Even these days you can see what the traffic is like while you're at a motorway service station. But for JGate transfers though, I think having to send a ship through to see what's the other side isn't too fierce a price. Logically, though, the far gate should be able to tell the departure gate what local conditions are like, and this info should be accessible to Capsuleers.
Taken to the extent of the in-game logic (i.e there is the tech for instant datacomms across the whole of New Eden), there ought to be a real-time 'space warning' report available that lets you see the agression and security status of all ships in range of any given stargate or station.
|
Alakith
RennTech
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:34:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Tea McBag
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Every aggression timer needs to be quadrupled. If you want to log out in space you better not have gotten aggression/aggressed in the past hour.
Never post again. That might be the most ignorant statement and terrible idea I've ever heard.
had to be reiterated
~Alakith~
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:41:00 -
[47]
If anything, docking timers should be scaled to hull size.
Bigger hull = vastly increased redock time.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 16:45:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kezzle
Anyone care to explain how neutral RRs don't just get added to the top of the kill sequence as soon as they start up?
They tend to show up near stations, and while they become legal targets by aiding someone, they incur no aggression and can thus redock at any time.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Varesk
Gallente
Maelstrom Crew
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 17:42:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Lidirt
I really don't think I can tank any better than I could 3 years ago.
You should train more skills then.
----
Originally by: CCP Abathur
No. 
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:37:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Angry Poster
...Should have happened at the same time they quadrupled the EHP of all the ships tbh. I can't stand these ******ed docking games - and they don't only suck in empire...The real problem are the 1min times (docking/jumping after aggression). They should really be increased to 5, 10 or 15 minutes. Going into battle should be a commitment and not something where you can just say "aww I'm gonna lose so I'll simply jump+log or dock up without any risk or countermeasure".
Yeah I agree with this part, even though the patch only gave +50% to HP and then 3x trimarks added +45% so it is more like 2x HP. I'd like to see the docking timer be based on the size of your ship. BC and below can dock in 60s, BS at 90s-120s and capitals at 5 minutes. Or instead maybe just double the aggression timer on the station, because I can catch people on the other side of a gate but I can't kill people inside a station yet.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 18:50:00 -
[51]
The agression timer is the problem, EHP of ships is pretty fine imo (yes i know when you solo it is a pita it takes longer to kill people, i know that from experience also. But blowing up ships in 2 volleys when you are with a few friends also isnt fun).
While neutral RR are a problem, it would simply be fixed by fixing logistics in general. I fly them also myself, so it is not just that i hate them. But it is just weird that main tactic for logistics in gangs is to hug the gate so you can always jump through. just make them get same agro timer as the one they are repping (or if that is too much database issues just give them 1m for repping). Then to compensate increase their EHP a bit.
Quote:
Increasing the timers means less people will commit to fights
What is your definition of comitting to fights? Because for me committing to a fight means you commit to the fight, not that you know you can always deagress and dock.
Wardecs need to go away from the mainly griefing tool it is now, and the ones starting the wardec need to be forced to commit to the wardec.
|
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 20:52:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Malcanis
Empire PvP needs fixing. Urgently
Yes, because Empire space is for PvPing. And station games are limited to Empire. Sound logic, young man! Now pass the butterscotch shnapps!
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 20:57:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Tippia on 21/09/2009 20:57:04
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
[Yes, because Empire space is for PvPing.
Yes it is. Like all space, in fact.
Quote:
And station games are limited to Empire.
Not limited to, no, but it's certainly far more common arena for them.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Dirty Wizard
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:13:00 -
[54]
The amount of fail in this thread is staggering.
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
War is Bliss
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 21:30:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Soporo
If anything, docking timers should be scaled to hull size.
Bigger hull = vastly increased redock time.
This is actually a pretty interesting idea.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |