Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 15:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jarvis Hellstrom on 22/01/2010 16:00:57 Edited by: Jarvis Hellstrom on 22/01/2010 15:56:35 You can read all about it here:
The Chains of the Supercap
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 16:42:00 -
[2]
I agree. Supercap pilots (not that I am one) should be able to leave those ships without fearing them being stolen.
I would propose letting them be anchorable inside a POS shield, and only password protectable when anchored.
IOW, you can set the password, but it only prompts you for one when it's anchored.
Maybe give POS's a new module Supercap Mooring Facility. So within 3k m of that (or whatever) you can anchor the supercap.
However, in general I support the idea of letting people play the game their way. --Vel
Brand new year, same old attitude. |
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 17:30:00 -
[3]
Methods exist for even solo players to protect their supercaps. While I see where the OP is coming from, it is dumbing the game down and making it easier for people who should know better anyway.
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 18:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: De'Veldrin I agree. Supercap pilots (not that I am one) should be able to leave those ships without fearing them being stolen.
I would propose letting them be anchorable inside a POS shield, and only password protectable when anchored.
IOW, you can set the password, but it only prompts you for one when it's anchored.
Maybe give POS's a new module Supercap Mooring Facility. So within 3k m of that (or whatever) you can anchor the supercap.
However, in general I support the idea of letting people play the game their way.
This.... supported ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 18:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Methods exist for even solo players to protect their supercaps. While I see where the OP is coming from, it is dumbing the game down and making it easier for people who should know better anyway.
So far every method save the safespot one (which I've been advised is too risky to really use - don't know if that's good advice I mean to test it) requires the use of alts in some way.
Since CCP states that alts should not be required to play the game, a fix is, in my opinion, needed.
That could be anchoring. That could be more POS options (one that you could set up with greater restrictions - such as only the anchorer could enter or some such) or it could be something like a mooring facility, password or something else entirely.
Right now though the 'standard' is that you get an alt who can barely fly the thing and then log off with the alt flying it and only log him in when you want to use it.
Given that is the standard and very few folks seem to do anything else, it would seem to me that more options are needed.
Mind you - maybe other people DO other things that don't need alts and I just don't know about them. If so, by all means please share.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 20:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: De'Veldrin I would propose letting them be anchorable inside a POS shield, and only password protectable when anchored.
Actually that's a bad idea. No alliance would think twice about throwing their entire cap fleet at a POS, camping it 24/7 for the few days it takes to come out of reinforce, then melting both the POS and the anchored titan.
This idea would simply become a way for titans to be used as bait to lure out an enemy cap fleet.
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Methods exist for even solo players to protect their supercaps.
Negative. How do you make money if you have only one character and a supercap? You don't. Leaving such a ship without a pilot in it, even in a super deep safespot, has far more risk than any possible reward from current money making methods in the game. You have to have an alt to sit in it. Or simply use an alt as the pilot (which is what most people do).
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Since CCP states that alts should not be required to play the game, a fix is, in my opinion, needed.
This is what it all boils down to. If alts aren't required... if CCP doesn't want shared accounts... if CCP doesn't want RL money to be a component of getting such a ship (simply put, you have to have an alt that does nothing but fly the supercap every once in a while when it is needed)... give them a way to hide while your character does something else that doesn't require an alt.
Fix Local |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 21:05:00 -
[7]
I suggest you detail the proposal in here instead of just linking to a post in another forum.
That out of the way, nobody is forcing you to get into a supercap in the first place.
If you have 15-90 billion to drop on a supercap then it isn't a stretch to suggest you buy a second account with isk to park it on. You can even buy a ready made alt to avoid the training time.
All ships have pros and cons, one of the cons of a supercap is that they cannot dock in stations and thus either have to be left vulnerable at a pos or have a pilot in it at all times.
Supercaps are not supposed to be available to everyone and that is reflected in the level of commitment required when getting in to one.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Since CCP states that alts should not be required to play the game, a fix is, in my opinion, needed.
But you can play the game without an Alt.
However nowhere does it say you can do everything in game without other people/alts to support you.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 21:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: TeaDaze All ships have pros and cons, one of the cons of a supercap is that they cannot dock in stations and thus either have to be left vulnerable at a pos or have a pilot in it at all times.
Yes, but all the pros and cons are in game. This is the only one that stretches outside of the game environment.
Honestly, this is pretty low priority in my opinion, but there is a clear inconsistency here that the OP is pointing out.
Fix Local |
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 21:39:00 -
[9]
Edited by: James Tritanius on 22/01/2010 21:39:04
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Methods exist for even solo players to protect their supercaps. While I see where the OP is coming from, it is dumbing the game down and making it easier for people who should know better anyway.
No.
Dumbing the game down is not inherently a bad thing. In this case, eliminating unnecessary and unconventional hoops that supercap pilots have to jump through is beneficial to the game.
EDIT: Supported.
|
McFly
C0LDFIRE
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 21:48:00 -
[10]
Well to be honest, it is a huge sacrifice, I would like to see supercap security heightened, perhaps a non sov requiring supercap docking facility for POSes would be in order. I have already trained a garage alt for mine, which took about 5 months. It is aggravating that these ships are so vulnerable. But it's the price you pay for the awesomesauce i suppose.
-- my sig got nerfed again, csm thread to get forum sig limitations lifted a bit |
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 22:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bagehi Yes, but all the pros and cons are in game. This is the only one that stretches outside of the game environment.
The major con in this case is being stuck inside it - there isn't any out of game penalty at all! You are free to fly one or fly something else. All you can't do is be half baked about it and decide to fly it one day and not the next without somewhere to park it be it a pos, supercap array, corpmate or a garage alt.
You decide to fly a supercap, that is part of the price you pay
Originally by: Bagehi Honestly, this is pretty low priority in my opinion, but there is a clear inconsistency here that the OP is pointing out.
There is no inconsistency at all. You know what you are getting yourself into.
These are supposed to be expensive end game ships for use by big alliances. They are not shiny toys for anyone who wants to fly one casually. There is nothing to stop you if you have the isk and the skills trained, but you have to accept the issues that go with them.
I mean you can't even move system without assistance, do you think that is unfair too?
Risk vs reward. 8,000 - 10,000 DPS ships have drawbacks, deal with them
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 23:11:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jarvis Hellstrom on 22/01/2010 23:14:11
Originally by: TeaDaze I suggest you detail the proposal in here instead of just linking to a post in another forum.
I wrote it there first and it seemed redundant to post exactly the same thing again when a link would suffice.
Quote: That out of the way, nobody is forcing you to get into a supercap in the first place.
No one is forcing me to fly ships either. Or play the game. Flying a supercapital is the natural end-game of the combat pilot. No, not all will want to go there, to be certain - that's personal preference - but most combat pilots dream of the day that they can helm a titan.
Most will quit the game long before and, of course, not all toons are combat pilots. Yes, I could do the 'easy' thing and train an alt to make my Nyx or Erebus magically disappear anytime I don't want it - but that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game to me. The point of these ships being unable to dock is that they must be KEPT someplace. They are artifacts in space. Mobile stations.
But that's not how the game is played. Right now, that's just not an option, so players take advantage to make them magically disappear.
<shrug> I do not see this as a good thing - or in the spirit of the sandbox of EVE.
Quote: If you have 15-90 billion to drop on a supercap then it isn't a stretch to suggest you buy a second account with isk to park it on. You can even buy a ready made alt to avoid the training time.
I could, indeed, do those things easily. I could even go and dump real cash on a whack of Pilot Licence Extensions to buy both the garage alt and the ship. I wouldn't even need another account. I could do all those things, oh tomorrow if I wanted to. I could afford the real money - that isn't the point.
None of that is playing the game. Sure, it's allowed, but it's not playing the game. It's metagaming and I don't happen to like, or support, metagaming.
Your mileage may vary of course.
Quote: All ships have pros and cons, one of the cons of a supercap is that they cannot dock in stations and thus either have to be left vulnerable at a pos or have a pilot in it at all times.
Meaning, if you aren't willing to metagame, then you can't have one. Can't say as I agree with that, but that is, of course, just my opinion.
Quote: Supercaps are not supposed to be available to everyone and that is reflected in the level of commitment required when getting in to one.
You mean dropping a couple of hundred bucks off my credit card to CCP? That's all it would take. They are available to anyone - all it takes is cash and some minimal understanding of the market. You don't even need to spend the time, just buy a toon on the market.
Instead I spent years PLAYING the game to become a cap pilot. My wife spent MONTHS mining to get the ore to build my Thanatos. That's playing the game. At least from where I sit. Doing it the other way isn't quite cheating, but it's buying victory and I do not think of that as a good thing.
Quote: But you can play the game without an Alt.
However nowhere does it say you can do everything in game without other people/alts to support you.
I love the idea of other people being able to help - but that isn't an option here.
And it DOES say that you can 'do everything without an alt' actually. CCP has it in a couple of places. Not exactly those words - but I believe the quote is something like 'You should never be required to have a second account to do anything in the game.'
Well, piloting a supercarrier is something in the game - as I understand it, that should apply.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 23:15:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Methods exist for even solo players to protect their supercaps.
Negative. How do you make money if you have only one character and a supercap? You don't. Leaving such a ship without a pilot in it, even in a super deep safespot, has far more risk than any possible reward from current money making methods in the game. You have to have an alt to sit in it. Or simply use an alt as the pilot (which is what most people do).
If you own a supercap it's generally a given that you don't have to worry about money... If you absolutely must restrict yourself to one vessel I've heard you can rake in 150mil/hour running anomolies in MILFs. As for Titans, I'm sure you could hire out your bridging services etc etc.
TL:DR You are not being forced into an undockable behemoth of awesome, if you want one of these vessels you have to accept the consequences. It is possible to operate without an alt in them, just don't expect to be doing much else. Don't expect to be able to have your cake and eat it.
PS I would much sooner leave a supercap unattended at a 1000AU safespot while I went and ran some level 4s or something than log out in it for more than 48 hours at a friendly tower.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 23:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer It is possible to operate without an alt in them, just don't expect to be doing much else. Don't expect to be able to have your cake and eat it.
Actually it is perfectly possible (and simple and easy and, in fact, fairly cheap) to have your cake and eat it too.
You just need to have an alt.
If you don't have one - it is functionally impossible to ever do anything else as long as you own that ship.
Apparently this doesn't seem wrong to some folks.
<shrug> It seems entirely messed up to me. I could join the alt club super easy and all my issues go away, but if I want to keep everything in game, nope.
This doesn't seem broken to you?
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 00:17:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom I wrote it there first and it seemed redundant to post exactly the same thing again when a link would suffice.
If you want CSM to raise a proposal it is supposed to be posted in here.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
No one is forcing me to fly ships either. Or play the game. Flying a supercapital is the natural end-game of the combat pilot.
Irrelevent to the discussion.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Most will quit the game long before and, of course, not all toons are combat pilots. Yes, I could do the 'easy' thing and train an alt to make my Nyx or Erebus magically disappear anytime I don't want it - but that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game to me. The point of these ships being unable to dock is that they must be KEPT someplace.
The easy thing is simply leave your pilot in the supercap in the first place.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom I could even go and dump real cash on a whack of Pilot Licence Extensions to buy both the garage alt and the ship. I wouldn't even need another account. I could do all those things, oh tomorrow if I wanted to. I could afford the real money - that isn't the point.
The point was simply that you are not being forced to buy another account. Your combat pilot can remain in the supercap and no alt is required. I'm glad you have lots of money, good for you but it is Irrelevent to the discussion.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Meaning, if you aren't willing to metagame, then you can't have one. Can't say as I agree with that, but that is, of course, just my opinion.
You can own a supercap with a single account without paying a penny to CCP. No metagaming required. Simply you have to accept that unless you pass it to another player or leave it at a pos your pilot is going to remain in it till it is destroyed or sold. Is this a hard concept for you to understand?
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom You mean dropping a couple of hundred bucks off my credit card to CCP? That's all it would take. They are available to anyone - all it takes is cash and some minimal understanding of the market. You don't even need to spend the time, just buy a toon on the market.
CCP are not forcing you to spend any money on extra accounts. YOU howver want to fly a supercap AND want the option to leave it on a whim. Sorry but to do that you have to pass it to somebody else or park it at a pos.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Instead I spent years PLAYING the game to become a cap pilot. My wife spent MONTHS mining to get the ore to build my Thanatos. That's playing the game. At least from where I sit. Doing it the other way isn't quite cheating, but it's buying victory and I do not think of that as a good thing.
And you can continue to play the game to become a supercap pilot - but you have to accept that your pilot will be stuck in it.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom I love the idea of other people being able to help - but that isn't an option here.
And it DOES say that you can 'do everything without an alt' actually. CCP has it in a couple of places. Not exactly those words - but I believe the quote is something like 'You should never be required to have a second account to do anything in the game.'
Link?
You are not being forced to have an alt to fly a supercap! You just have to accept that you can't leave it without handing it to somebody else or parking it at a pos.
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom Well, piloting a supercarrier is something in the game - as I understand it, that should apply.
And you can fly it without an alt if you choose to remain in it.
Accept the drawbacks and fly a supercap or don't fly a supercap and have the option to fly anything else in game when you like.
This is the same argument I've seen in other games where people moan they can't solo everything and shouldn't be forced to team up. However in this case you have the option but have to accept the drawbacks too.
What next, moan you can't use it in empire?
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 00:22:00 -
[16]
Not supported.
If you don't want to dedicate a pilot to flying a supercap, then you don't really want to fly a supercap.
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 00:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: TeaDaze
You can own a supercap with a single account without paying a penny to CCP. No metagaming required. Simply you have to accept that unless you pass it to another player or leave it at a pos your pilot is going to remain in it till it is destroyed or sold. Is this a hard concept for you to understand?
Parking it at a POS is not a realistic option. That is the point of the proposal. The idea is to make parking it at what is supposed to be a secure location not tantamount to sticking it next to a Jita stargate with the words "STEAL ME" sprayed on the side in kilometer high letters.
As to the rest of your post, it's clear that we're not going to agree so I shan't waste any more time on the discussion. You are clearly one of those 'everyone must absolutely have alts' types and on that we are never going to agree.
(And yes, stating that you must either have an alt or undergo the near impossible in order to play really is the same as saying "You have to have an alt.")
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 00:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sokratesz Not supported.
If you don't want to dedicate a pilot to flying a supercap, then you don't really want to fly a supercap.
No one, that I know anyway, dedicates a pilot to flying a supercap.
They just dedicate an alt to parking it.
Ah well, clearly I'm wasting my time here.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 04:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom You are clearly one of those 'everyone must absolutely have alts' types and on that we are never going to agree.
(And yes, stating that you must either have an alt or undergo the near impossible in order to play really is the same as saying "You have to have an alt.")
I certainly didn't say you must have an alt and it isn't impossible to play without one
You have the choice to play in a supercap and accept you have to remain in it or play in every other type of ship in game.
* The reward for the supercap is superior DPS etc * The risk/drawback for a supercap is not having the ability to park it 100% safely without remaining inside it. All supercap owners know this.
There are other things in game you can do that will restrict you from doing other things, however:
* If I tried to raise a proposal to allow me to be a -10 pirate most of the time but still be allowed to run missions in empire when I felt like it without getting attacked then you would laugh.
* If I tried to raise a proposal to allow me to enter gallente space without being attacked while I remain in the caldari militia you would laugh.
I could go on but it boils down to this: Some things in game require you to make a choice and accept the outcome/drawbacks.
I see no compelling reason to put in a change to create less risk considering the huge buff supercarriers just got.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 08:00:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 23/01/2010 08:02:06 Do these so called "the risk is needed" members even fly super capital ships?
All I see here are a bunch of "self proclaimed experts" claiming that the risks are acceptable yet I get the sneaking suspicion none of them fly supercaps themselves.
How utterly ironic.
I don't fly a supercap (obviously) but I know people who do... and I can tell you right now... they don't exactly have a fun time doing it...
Personally I have no intention of flying a supercap (maybe a cap) if all I have to look forward too is an another damned alt to park my damned ship.... no thanks.
There's got to be a reasonable yet better way to do that.
Using the argument "He's prob really rich and can afford an extra account" is totaly stupid and very foolish of an assumption. People who fly Super Capitals are likely going to lose them... the alliance (hopefully) will likely bankroll his replacements provided he does something in exchange for said supplies... its a teamwork effort... I doubt seriously these pilots have bling bling and fat wallets to boot for this kind of work.
Even then... the time to take to train a pilot to fly a super-carrier let alone a titan is insane... and not something people would go out of there way to do... aside form "cheating" by buying a char already trained up... legitimate in CCP's eyes or not.
That's like saying I have a Nomad.... and I can afford to pay for plex's in game and not worry about paying the accounts... guess what... nope... can't even afford to replace the damn thing.
Shocking isn't?
So please... stop with the foolish none-sense arguments.... use rationality and common sense for once.
Parking it at a pos with an anchoring module and passwording it or some such would not prevent theft... in fact it would increase the meta gaming that goes on. Somehow I fail to see why people (people who don't fly supercaps) would have a problem with this.
Pros: Supercapital pilot can take a break and fly smaller ships... not so paranoid now. Cons: Harder to rob the ship... but no different that it would be to compromise a POS shield password and to nick the ship because of a foolish password choice.
At least it won't involve POS Bowling or something stupid that people tend to think is exploitative... in fact this legitimatize the theft business... kinda nice balance if you ask me.
Yes... lets keep EVE risky... but flying a super capital ship is supposed to be fun.... not a chore that keeps you chained to the damn desk.
For once... lets encourage the use of a single char or keeping to a single account.... all your doing is encouraging mass-account use and multiple alt crap.... and if there's one thing we could use less of... is alts. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 09:31:00 -
[21]
common, peole are you insane? this guy is suggesting that 60+ billion ships instead of magically dissapearing ill be placed at relative ris in the harm`s way? Yes! i do frealking support that, let peopE anhor motheships within one hour and titans within two, and half the supeecaps instead of magically dissapearing will be always there. that is a very good suggesrion. about passqords-you can use a holing corp for the pos with a cap, it does sound reasonable to be able to password protect ships in space, although that means thag tealing from corp or alliene poses becomes impossible. i am newtral on the whole passwod thing
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 10:25:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 23/01/2010 08:02:06 Do these so called "the risk is needed" members even fly super capital ships?
All I see here are a bunch of "self proclaimed experts" claiming that the risks are acceptable yet I get the sneaking suspicion none of them fly supercaps themselves.
I have two characters that fly them tyvm.
CCP tried to prevent the proliferation of supercaps by making them very expensive - we all know how that turned out ('we expect about three titans in-game at any given time, and only in major alliances' quote from devblog '05). The only thing that is keeping everyone and his dog from having one is the risks and efforts that storing one brings. If you have lots of ISK or RL money you can pay for an alt to store it, or for a POS, but there will always be risks involved when swapping the thing (see: constantinee).
I stick firmly to the 'if you don't want to dedicate a char to it, you don't really want to fly one'.
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 13:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Drake Draconis All I see here are a bunch of "self proclaimed experts" claiming that the risks are acceptable yet I get the sneaking suspicion none of them fly supercaps themselves.
How utterly ironic.
It is only ironic that I can fly a supercapital ship (almost any carrier pilot in game can fly a supercarrier right now, though training for fighter bombers takes extra time) but have chosen not to fly one because I don't want to dedicate a pilot to it.
Working as intended methinks.
Originally by: Drake Draconis
I don't fly a supercap (obviously) but I know people who do... and I can tell you right now... they don't exactly have a fun time doing it...
And I know people who fly supercaps and are having a great time with their unique abilities, even more so with the new fighter bombers. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
Parking the ship at a pos so your character can fly something else is your choice, but it has risk in doing so if you don't trust the others in your corp. If an alliance provide supercapital ships they could also provide somewhere to leave them if required.
The cost argument was only brought up because the OP complained that CCP were forcing him to pay for a second account just to fly a supercap which we have already proven isn't the case.
Originally by: Drake Draconis Even then... the time to take to train a pilot to fly a super-carrier let alone a titan is insane.
But any carrier pilot in Eve can fly a supercarrier if they wanted. There are factors why people don't (can't afford one, don't accept the drawbacks, didn't think they were useful enough) but that is working as intended.
Originally by: Drake Draconis That's like saying I have a Nomad.... and I can afford to pay for plex's in game and not worry about paying the accounts...
But when you bought the nomad you knew the limitations on it (can't jump into empire, can't jump without a cyno character/alt to assist). You were able to except the limitations on one ship type but think drawbacks on a supercap shouldn't apply.
Originally by: Drake Draconis So please... stop with the foolish none-sense arguments.... use rationality and common sense for once.
Parking it at a pos with an anchoring module and passwording it or some such would not prevent theft... in fact it would increase the meta gaming that goes on. Somehow I fail to see why people (people who don't fly supercaps) would have a problem with this.
Speaking of nonsense, what exactly is the point of allowing a supercap to "anchor" at a pos if it doesn't prevent theft? Isn't that being what the OP is so upset about in the first place?
Originally by: Drake Draconis Yes... lets keep EVE risky... but flying a super capital ship is supposed to be fun.... not a chore that keeps you chained to the damn desk.
I could make the same arguement about running a pos, I don't want it to be a chore but it is. The reward for the pos chore is isk but I'm not forced to do it. The reward for a supercap is unique abilities but you are not forced to fly one.
Originally by: Drake Draconis For once... lets encourage the use of a single char or keeping to a single account.... all your doing is encouraging mass-account use and multiple alt crap.... and if there's one thing we could use less of... is alts.
All we are doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for their choices in game instead of whining that they can't fly a supercap on a single account AND fly anything else whenever they like without risk.
I and others do not want to see the barrier to entry for supercapitals to be so low that a solo player can decide to fly one casually. They are supposed to be end game ships for alliances to use and whilst solo players can own and fly one they have to accept the drawbacks on that ship.
You are not forced to use an alt to park it so the initial argument falls to bits. It might be inconvenient to be stuck in a ship but it was your choice
It isn't rocket science.
|
Van Haulen
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 16:59:00 -
[24]
The most disturbing thing about this thread seems to be that there is no variety of opinion amongst any of the CSM members.
Is this how you guys see a discussion developing, by shooting down a proposal because you all seemingly have a vested interest against it?
A post-hoc argument like "being stuck in a ship comes as part of the risk of flying the ship", completely made up, is not exactly a good rational one, is it? Sounds more like dogmatism to me.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 17:26:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Van Haulen The most disturbing thing about this thread seems to be that there is no variety of opinion amongst any of the CSM members.
Is this how you guys see a discussion developing, by shooting down a proposal because you all seemingly have a vested interest against it?
A post-hoc argument like "being stuck in a ship comes as part of the risk of flying the ship", completely made up, is not exactly a good rational one, is it? Sounds more like dogmatism to me.
You saw that too?
I would call it something far more explicit but then I'd get banned. : O P ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 17:43:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Van Haulen The most disturbing thing about this thread seems to be that there is no variety of opinion amongst any of the CSM members.
Because two CSM members giving feedback represents the whole of the CSM
Notice (on the subject of variety) that you are getting the same reaction to this proposal from supercap and non supercap pilots within the CSM.
Perhaps rather than pointing at the CSM as being biased you should instead examine the proposal (except there isn't one).
Originally by: Van Haulen Is this how you guys see a discussion developing, by shooting down a proposal because you all seemingly have a vested interest against it?
Would you rather I reserved my comments for when we are in session and can vote the proposal down without public discussion?
Surely by being open about the reason I dislike the proposal I am giving the OP a chance to look at it from another point of view and possibly amend it.
Of course the OP decided against actually making a proposal in here (even after I pointed this out) preferring instead of a proposal to link to a nice story about how he has a dream to fly every gallente ship in game and that evil CCP won't let him without an alt.
As we have said, you do not need an alt to fly a supercapital thus that argument is fail.
You might choose to have an alt (or a trusted friend) look after the ship for you when you decide to fly something else, but that is up to you.
You might choose to leave it parked at a pos unoccupied but that is your choice and part of the risk is that somebody in your corp/alliance might nick it (this is no different to leaving stuff in a public corp hanger).
Originally by: Van Haulen A post-hoc argument like "being stuck in a ship comes as part of the risk of flying the ship", completely made up, is not exactly a good rational one, is it? Sounds more like dogmatism to me.
Except that the argument is not made up, it is fact and thousands of players have been willing to accept it in exchange for the powerful benefits you get from a supercapital.
I'll spell out my objection
Supercapital proliferation is not in the best interests of the game.
One of the controls on their use is the cost, but these days even non sov holding alliances can afford them. Another control is their inability to dock which means they cannot be insured (default payout only) and that it requires a greater level of commitment from a player's character in wishing to fly one because they cannot park it 100% safely.
In exchange for those restrictions you get a superior ship. Imagine that, a concious choice for flexibility in which ships you fly or be stuck in one uber ship instead. Capital ships already have limitations on use, supercapitals just take that one step further.
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 20:35:00 -
[27]
I don't care if it makes something "less fun" or "less challenging". Boo-hoo. Adapt. Thing is, this limitation makes no sense within the confines of the game universe.
In short:
game world coherence > gameplay issues
thus: supported
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 20:57:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Solo Player I don't care if it makes something "less fun" or "less challenging". Boo-hoo. Adapt. Thing is, this limitation makes no sense within the confines of the game universe.
Erm, did you even think about what you posted.
OP is the one who doesn't want to adapt This limitation has been with supercaps since they were introduced.
Anyway this isn't going anywhere, people are trying to point the finger at the CSM for being biased, trying to point the finger at CCP for "forcing" them to have an alt which we've shown isn't the case.
Some decisions in game mean you can't do other things, I've shown that is the case (here is another example, if I choose to join factional warfare on the Gallente side I shouldn't complain that caldari faction police now shoot at me if I decide I actually want to go to Jita).
If the OP actually posts a proposal instead of a cool story then either get one of the CSM to raise it or use the following procedure from page 17 of the CSM devblog
Quote: When a topic is introduced, a seven-day counter begins. During this time, the topic is open for all individuals to deliberate. Should, after seven full days, 25% of the total participants in the last general election support a topic, the CSM is obligated to allocate time for that issue in their next meeting, the results of which will be posted in the public meeting notes.
I apologise for attempting to discuss issues with the playerbase, I guess people would rather discussions were in private
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 09:47:00 -
[29]
Maybe, just maybe, if many people with quite a bit of experience on the subject agree that it is a bad idea, it is a bad idea?
Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 11:12:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Van Haulen The most disturbing thing about this thread seems to be that there is no variety of opinion amongst any of the CSM members.
Is this how you guys see a discussion developing, by shooting down a proposal because you all seemingly have a vested interest against it?
A post-hoc argument like "being stuck in a ship comes as part of the risk of flying the ship", completely made up, is not exactly a good rational one, is it? Sounds more like dogmatism to me.
So when all the people who actually know something about a subject agree on something, the most obvious reason is that they're conspiring together, right?
Seriously, Sok has two mothership characters. Being able to dock them would be a great boost for him. And yet he opposes something that would be to his personal advantage. The reason for that is because he knows full well what the consequences would be - as does just about anyone who stops and thinks for a moment (providing they know anything about capital warfare...)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |