Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
403
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
'CSM Minutes' wrote: CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.
Aleks remarks that this would be great for enabling more frigate use in lowsec piracy.
Aleks asks when all of these changes will be released, and when there will be dev blogs released for this information.
CCP Masterplan explains that this is where everything is at in the design process, that they're looking forward to working more on this as the Inferno stuff dies down.
CCP Soundwave: "It is looking like a December release."
Aleks and CCP Greyscale briefly discuss community response to these changes, Greyscale acknowledges that the changes to "suspect" flagging would upset some players, particularly can-flippers.
Aleks pointed out that the one real concern is that removing can-flipping means removing the one way for a legitimate 1 vs. 1 to occur in high sec.
CCP Greyscale proposes instead that there be a flag fleet-to-fleet option that would allow free fighting to occur.
Aleks supported this possibility.
CCP Greyscale explains that it would enable two fleets to enter a temporary state of wardec, that would function exactly like a concord-sanctioned wardec from a mechanical standpoint, it would simply last for 15 minutes or whatever the agreed-upon time would be.
Two step jokes that there should be a "dueling glove" item (purchasable by Aurum) that you could drop in a can and if looted it would prompt such a flagging.
The gun changes *might* allow for frigate pilots skilled in the art of the bounce to engage more often at gates, which could be a good thing. However, it'll change gate camping drastically for most ships in low sec, save the tornado ( and other ships set for sniping ) which can safely camp outside the range of sentry guns.
The idea of Arenas, to me, is counter to everything eve-like. -- Eve is supposed to be such that you can pvp with anyone, anywhere, anytime, provided you are willing to accept the consquences for the area that you are in at the time. Setting up arenas is counter to that, but also sounds like a great excuse to later on start putting hard limits on when and where you can pvp. -- don't like this idea at all. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
771
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
What an informative post title. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=139804&find=unread |
Alara IonStorm
2847
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Wooooot!
Arena stuff. I hope they go all out and make it like AT Combat. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Honestly, I have no idea as to what is the point of these proposed changes; someone please enlighten me.
Would this honestly increase pvp in low-sec? 4.5 minutes seems a pretty short time before you have to start thinking about loosing your carrier. Actually, I've never seen a carrier at a low-sec gate camp (or any gate camp for that matter.)
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm in favor of lo-sec gate changes, I'd like to see something done about it.
As for Arenas... not a fan.
I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what? |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
2504
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yet more blob support and a kick in the arse to soloers. pathetically out of touch. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
778
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote: I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?
If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure. |
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management Unified Church of the Unobligated
507
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
It sounds like the ides of the gate gun changes is to prevent what happens in systems like Rancer and Amamake and pretty much nowhere else in the game. Hopefully it won't end up that way and since those potential ideas were discussed they've thought about it and thrown away that post-it note. Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims. |
Natasha Mendel
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 02:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Syphon Lodian wrote: I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?
If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.
Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch.
Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome. |
Alara IonStorm
2847
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Natasha Mendel wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote: If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.
Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch. Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome. I just hope it doesn't turn into if you're not max skill with a Sleipnir with Complex Invulns and a Crystal Set go home sort of thing.
|
|
lanyaie
478
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Goodbye rancer I dont post often, but when I do i'm probably trolling you Currently offering 100% legit hulkageddon security sponsored by the mittani, send 50m to me and 50m to him |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
778
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Natasha Mendel wrote:
Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch.
Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome.
Page 49 of the minutes
CSM did argue some 0.0 strife was simply to egg on a fight and arenas would take away from that. Yet on the other hand, training rookies in easy to set up scenarios (no can flipping BS), non-fleet oriented people to participate in balanced pvp who don't want to learn via gate camps, or for strictly e-peen fighting could be beneficial. |
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management Unified Church of the Unobligated
507
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Natasha Mendel wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote: If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.
Wouldn't be bad if all of the above was true, and there was a way to watch fights and establish brackets for tournaments, with prizes coming from entry fees or somesuch. Basically, if it was all player-run with the infrastructure in-game to avoid scams, it would be pretty awesome. I just hope it doesn't turn into if you're not max skill with a Sleipnir with Complex Invulns and a Crystal Set go home sort of thing.
In some cases it probably will, just like Incursions Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims. |
Freya Hrondulf
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
I love how the CSM spent pages and pages of those minutes trying to define their role in the development process and restating their usefulness in helping CCP to avoid PR disasters, yet they fail to recognize the looming PR iceberg when it comes to those sentry gun changes (and specifically those changes, not the crimewatch stuff as a whole).
I also enjoyed the part where they all patted themselves on the back in regards to the handling of the unified inventory mess when there is still an active 74 page thread begging for a reversion or ANY type of fixes.
These detailed meeting notes are probably the best thing to come out of this years mostly useless CSM (that by there own admission do not hold any type of regular meetings) because it always regular players to spot these impending disasters. |
Tuscor
Insidious Design
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Call it 'Arena PvP' call it 'concord sanctioned comabt' I don't think its compatible with the sandbox and with the idea of galaxy wide combat.
It will end up detracting from 'real' pvp out in space, with all the thrill and depression associated with tracking and hunting prey, going behind enemy lines etc.
It cheapens the experience, and panders to the instant gratification crowd that we dont really want to encourage. |
Stukkler Tian
Raven's Flight Vanguard.
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Arenas-if you want to pvp on tranquility you should have to accept all possible outcomes/consequences, and you have to live the life. Right now if you pvp you do it through wardecs or by living in and roaming through null and low. All of these activities put you at risk on a constant basis and expose you to unexpected dangers. If you add a "i want to be at risk for 15 min vs only this many ships button" it not cheapens the awesome experience that is eve pvp it decreases the number of targets for people who want to play eve like the sandbox that it is(boring people and cowards will only press that button and there is nothing better than killing a boring coward). Join rvb if you want a instant action, warp into a faction warfare sight if you want to control the ships and numbers you are figting, dont fundamentally change the way the game is played.
Gate Guns- This is annoying because it is so close to what i wanted but off in a few areas in such a horrible way that it will just kill lowsec. With these changes all you will need to run an effective camp is one sebo cepter with a disruptor and one arty tornado, the lamest type of camper. (have some style use a smart bombing mach). This means those instalock gate camps that discourage so many people from leaving high sec will become 100x easier and more common. I moved to low literally two days after starting my account (I didn't realize that missions increased in levels and figured ratting in low was more profitable than running mission ever could be) At first i got caught by gate camps all the time and it annoyed the hell out of me but i adapted started using smaller quicker ships and i got caught less and less. This seems like another arena move and attempt to make pvp outside of null more consensual and less surprising and interesting. On top of that it will only increase blobs because the amount of damage you will have to put on a target will be crazy and if the guns just start shooting -10s on sight they wont even be able to fight each other on the gate.
people seem to think that non-consensual pvp means the right to gank defenseless people, and it means so much more than that it means being able to adapt to the unexpected (that oh ish moment) it means tricking someone into a fight by playing the victim is impossible (its alot harder to kill a slicer with a rifter if you ask for a 1v1 first) it means that the only limitation in pvp is you and your attitude. This seems like another push to make sov "endgame" and make low a soft lead up. If you really want to fix low and not just boost null get rid of jump drives, lets see what superior logistics really means.
tldr I agree with op and this is bad
|
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
62
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Syphon Lodian wrote: I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?
If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure.
You know, on second thought.. it really might not be so bad.
It could give the Killmail fanatics an outlet, so they could free up space for people that want meaningful PvP, and not just PvP for the sake of it... Probably not, but maybe free it up a little. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
779
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tuscor wrote:Call it 'Arena PvP' call it 'concord sanctioned comabt' I don't think its compatible with the sandbox and with the idea of galaxy wide combat.
It will end up detracting from 'real' pvp out in space, with all the thrill and depression associated with tracking and hunting prey, going behind enemy lines etc.
It cheapens the experience, and panders to the instant gratification crowd that we dont really want to encourage.
You assume everyone wants a fair fight, which "arena" fights more or less enable. Highly doubt it will distract people who are camping for industrials and pods or hunting that lvl 5 mission runners, or taking a frig roam around nul looking for easy prey to pad their killmails. |
Alara IonStorm
2849
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tuscor wrote:I don't think its compatible with the sandbox.
How does it force the game into a state of Linear Progression?
Seems to me EVE will still be open ended if this is allowed.
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1055
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
can't wait for arenas. Here is how I see them. You set up objects in space one on the left and one on the right. This creates the field of battle and protects the ships inside.
This stops players from gaming the match with little to no effort. 2 teams go in, one team comes out. OR timer untill the deathshield goes down.
But here is why it's not breaing the sandbox. You can blow up the arena from the outside. You can hot drop in and take out the arena and then kill all of the yummy tasty ships inside.
Arena should be low sec only as they are illegal.
As far as set up PvP taking away from eve, that is a direct insult to my alliance. we do set up fights all of the time. Liek last week we had an atatck fleet and a defence fleet and we fought over a single Super carrier. It was awesome. The rule was if anyone outside showed up we would turn and fight them as a group.
Now here is the catch, adding in a system where we could set up an object in space to set limits and trap everyone inside is AWESOME, and i WANT IT. Plus how cool would it be for a final match to be interrupted and the fleets inside stop fighting each other while a fleet outside bashing in the shields. Once the shields are down they get to fight the 2 fleets inside. think of the panic, think of the fun, think of the sandbox. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
693
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 05:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:can't wait for arenas. Here is how I see them. You set up objects in space one on the left and one on the right. This creates the field of battle and protects the ships inside.
This stops players from gaming the match with little to no effort. 2 teams go in, one team comes out. OR timer untill the deathshield goes down.
But here is why it's not breaing the sandbox. You can blow up the arena from the outside. You can hot drop in and take out the arena and then kill all of the yummy tasty ships inside.
Arena should be low sec only as they are illegal.
As far as set up PvP taking away from eve, that is a direct insult to my alliance. we do set up fights all of the time. Liek last week we had an atatck fleet and a defence fleet and we fought over a single Super carrier. It was awesome. The rule was if anyone outside showed up we would turn and fight them as a group.
Now here is the catch, adding in a system where we could set up an object in space to set limits and trap everyone inside is AWESOME, and i WANT IT. Plus how cool would it be for a final match to be interrupted and the fleets inside stop fighting each other while a fleet outside bashing in the shields. Once the shields are down they get to fight the 2 fleets inside. think of the panic, think of the fun, think of the sandbox.
^^ oh so much yes in this post.
Arenas should be like underground cage fights, totally illegal, hugely profitable via bets and with the opportunity for the combatants to turn upon anyone who tries to interfere. Someone like Chribba holds the betting cash though, don't trust any of you bastages enough for that. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Helen Tredius
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 06:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.
Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all. |
Karim alRashid
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 07:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Go, go Space Olympics.
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1056
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 07:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
Helen Tredius wrote:Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.
Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all. Sry to break it you, but red verus blue Allready does arena fights.
So I guess we killed eve. Oh well it was fun while it lasted. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1056
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 07:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Syphon Lodian wrote: I don't even like the concept of being able to go "test" on SiSi with no risk. I hate that, I've never done it and never will. Fighting and "testing" should be happening on TQ. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but half the people who try to "school you" on what "Risk" is in EVE, usually test on SiSi for everything they do... Risk, what?
If you read the whole minutes. It goes into detail about the thoughts of "arena" fighting. A: you still lose ships B: Supports player organized events and betting with the flagging support C: Don't have to wander around for a hour looking for someone to blob jump or for a group to challenge you. D: Don't need sisi for instant gratification pvp. E: Wont stop people who want to own space or break enemy infrastructure. You missed the best part. Having something to do while waiting an hour to get your roam up. You're just sitting around anyways. Will keep people logged in with something to do when you only have an hour or two to play, or your waiting for an op to start. Right now people just log out untill the op is set to start.
Also c and d are what people seem scared of but rvb Allready those those. More tools for us please. Let us trap people in it.
Hell you know what I really want ? I want to be able to use a hacking device to trap someone into an arena. Maybe it only works once they are in hull. Then you can grocers them into a fight , and if they leave the bounary they use the ship and the pod. Arenas will lead to in game kidnapping.
Hoe could anyone be apposed to ungerground cage fights in eve? http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Stukkler Tian
Raven's Flight Vanguard.
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 07:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
I love rvb but your arena fights are way different from the ones that they are suggesting even in rvb ffa's there is the off chance that one of your 3rd party will come by and crash it, or a fellow rvber will pop you on the way over. On top of that the arena that you have created is a wonderful player creation that can be destroyed by another group of players (theoretically mate). It is not a invulnerability button for the unexpected. As far as sitting around waiting for an op being boring its called solo even if you suck its still pvp and its still fun. The destroyable sheild would be neato but dreaming it and doing it are two different things |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 08:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Helen Tredius wrote:Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.
Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all.
Quite possibly the most uninformed, speculative and over reactive post I have seen in Eve in quite sometime. Pretty much everything you said is not only a poorly constructed opinion but completetly out of touch with the game as a whole. Its almost like you and I are a playing a completetly different game.
First thing is first. Arena fighting doesn't have anything to do with any sort of fundemental shift in game mechanics. We already have this, its just that people have to work around the mechanic. Its been around for years and no one has ever complained. Why is it that when something has a work around its fine, but when they give you a mechanic that does the same thing somehow the world is ending. Its simple a way for players to fight in consentual PvP without having to circle jerk around with War Dec mechanics, criminal flagging and all the other crap. Eve is practically designed to ensure that if two people actually want to fight they have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so. This would allow for War Game Training, Tournaments, Social "lets see what you guys have" fights... Its a great system.
The problem with Sentry guns is that at present time, with the right fit they are no threat at all to criminals and hence they are useless in the purpose for which they are intended, detering crime. I like piracy and I want pirates to exist, it creates a dynamic to the game that keeps my heart rate up and thats what I want. Unfortunatly the only people getting this dynamic benefits are people entering pirate traps. Being a pirate in low sec is about the most boring thing you can do in this game short of mining, its mind numbing and it dumbs down the entire game, I barely lasted two days of being a pirate before I started falling asleep at the bloody keyboard on a nightly bases... in short, pirates are board as **** in this game because it takes zero talent, effort or imagination to be one. All you need is a **** load of time to waste, a proper fit and a gate to sit on. They need to spice it up and make it more interesting. Give pirates some tactics to use.
In the same token they need to give people motivation and reason to risk going into low sec for profit, which unfortunatly isn't the case right now for the most part. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 08:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Helen Tredius wrote:Arena idea is something that will see the biggest exodus in history of EVE if it ever becomes live on TQ. Fundamental gameplay changer. Incarna will be a joke comparing to that. If you want to kill the game beyond recovery be my guest and do that. Because you will not recover from that type of exodus.
Sentry guns in lowsec is something to look much more into in link with more changes to low. As for example removing local. So if someone wants to mine in the belts there or pvp then he have to find the target and target have chances to hide and run. Anything at all but not only sentry guns because only sentry guns will make lowsec a desert with no population at all. Quite possibly the most uninformed, speculative and over reactive post I have seen in Eve in quite sometime. Pretty much everything you said is not only a poorly constructed opinion but completetly out of touch with the game as a whole. Its almost like you and I are a playing a completetly different game. First thing is first. Arena fighting doesn't have anything to do with any sort of fundemental shift in game mechanics. We already have this, its just that people have to work around the mechanic. Its been around for years and no one has ever complained. Why is it that when something has a work around its fine, but when they give you a mechanic that does the same thing somehow the world is ending. Its simple a way for players to fight in consentual PvP without having to circle jerk around with War Dec mechanics, criminal flagging and all the other crap. Eve is practically designed to ensure that if two people actually want to fight they have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so. This would allow for War Game Training, Tournaments, Social "lets see what you guys have" fights... Its a great system. The problem with Sentry guns is that at present time, with the right fit they are no threat at all to criminals and hence they are useless in the purpose for which they are intended, detering crime. I like piracy and I want pirates to exist, it creates a dynamic to the game that keeps my heart rate up and thats what I want. Unfortunatly the only people getting this dynamic benefits are people entering pirate traps. Being a pirate in low sec is about the most boring thing you can do in this game short of mining, its mind numbing and it dumbs down the entire game, I barely lasted two days of being a pirate before I started falling asleep at the bloody keyboard on a nightly bases... in short, pirates are board as **** in this game because it takes zero talent, effort or imagination to be one. All you need is a **** load of time to waste, a proper fit and a gate to sit on. They need to spice it up and make it more interesting. Give pirates some tactics to use. In the same token they need to give people motivation and reason to risk going into low sec for profit, which unfortunatly isn't the case right now for the most part.
You Sir are an Idiot without comparison. Quite possibly the most uninformed, speculative and over reactive post I have seen in Eve in quite sometime. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1785
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 08:32:00 -
[29] - Quote
Every game that has added arena pvp has killled the pvp elsewhere in the game. Needless to say I am very worried over this. |
Helen Tredius
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 08:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote: Eve is practically designed to ensure that if two people actually want to fight they have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so.
Find a wormhole. Jump through. Fight.
If you can't do that no arenas will help you. The game is not for you then. Leave.
The rest of your post reads as heavily uninformed noob post. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |