Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lady Thanatos
Nomadic Shadows
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:00:00 -
[1]
Is the ability to make mission ships unprobeable an intended mechanic or a product of not thinking ahead on CCP's part? Why would T3's and other ships be allowed to mission in peace in dangerous space without paying their tax to me!
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:02:00 -
[2]
I asume it is because they don't care about you in the least. They are also all laughing at you and calling you names. I bet you could do something about it, if you could find them.
But you can't.
-- I am now on a Crusade to Fix the Omen!
For Great Justice!
|
Lady Thanatos
Nomadic Shadows
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:02:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Alara IonStorm I asume it is because they don't care about you in the least. They are also all laughing at you and calling you names. I bet you could do something about it, if you could find them.
But you can't.
All true!
|
Amarrbone
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:09:00 -
[4]
Because every tactic has a counter to it, but there is also a drawback to making a ship that way. You have to sacrifice a bit of tank and spank for the ability. Don't like it? Dec them or camp them at the gates/stations.
Pirate whining is much more fun then carebear whining :) *Laughs as my cloaky unprobable interdiction ignoring T3 sits under your nose*
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:13:00 -
[5]
I think it might not be intended, as in "they planned it that way", but rather intended as in "wahey, look at what the players figured out! neat!" They tend to be pretty keen on emergent gameplay, and since the tactic comes at a cost (and still leaves the ship as vulnerable as everà or more) in all the other situations where you'd try to kill someone, I don't think it's something they consider "bad" or in need of rectifying. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Random Alt1467
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:24:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tippia I think it might not be intended, as in "they planned it that way", but rather intended as in "wahey, look at what the players figured out! neat!" They tend to be pretty keen on emergent gameplay, and since the tactic comes at a cost (and still leaves the ship as vulnerable as everà or more) in all the other situations where you'd try to kill someone, I don't think it's something they consider "bad" or in need of rectifying.
The Dissolution Sequencer sub system would like to have a talk with you. Also T3 ships were not the first to be able to pull this off so the mechanic has been in place for a while now. If CCP didn't want unprobable/hard to probe ships, they wouldn't have put the formula in place that allows it to be done.
|
Riho
Gallente Enterprise Estonia Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 21:40:00 -
[7]
didnt ppl do that before t3 was released to claymores ?? they should be the easiest do it with as they get bonuses for skirmish links. ---------------------------------- Fighting for something
|
rain9441
Big Head Want Dolly
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 22:45:00 -
[8]
TBH: Not working as intended.
There needs to be more ways to make yourself safer in space. Fitting a ship to be resilient to probes should be one of many ways to endure the risks of low sec. As it stands now, it is the only way.
Passive dscan mods, probe jammers, local jammers, sentry probes, decloaking fields, whatever. Just more options. Nothing that would provide complete safety of course. And nothing that would significantly alter the state of 'actual pvp'.
Apply the same logic that that criminals do when dealing with police, but treat criminals as carebears and police as pirates. If you want to rob a bank, you have a lookout mechanism to know when to get out early. If you want to speed, you buy a radar detector. If you want to do something terrible (eg go to prison for life type stuff) you do it where nobody is.
Right now it's just completely lopsided in one sides favor.
|
Footoo Rama
Gallente Beyond Control.
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 22:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lady Thanatos Is the ability to make mission ships unprobeable an intended mechanic or a product of not thinking ahead on CCP's part? Why would T3's and other ships be allowed to mission in peace in dangerous space without paying their tax to me!
Man I better stop probing those wrecks out... It must be a cheat...
Or even worse the drones that people have out when they are missioning...
Honestly the unprobable ships are not being used for missions. ------- "Because the Dominix is the Chuck Norris of Eve!" |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 22:54:00 -
[10]
Edited by: NoNah on 10/11/2010 22:54:30
Originally by: Riho didnt ppl do that before t3 was released to claymores ?? they should be the easiest do it with as they get bonuses for skirmish links.
The probing system was redesigned in apocrypha, the same expansion where t3's were released. Unprobability became common knowledge some time later. Meaning there wasn't much glap between where t3's were common and knowledge of the new system was.
Originally by: Footoo Rama
Man I better stop probing those wrecks out... It must be a cheat...
Err,yes, that does sound like cheat? Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 814436
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 23:39:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Random Alt1467 The Dissolution Sequencer sub system would like to have a talk with you.
The Dissolution Sequencer alone doesn't do this, and is rather intended to harden you against ECM ù the fact that, with a bit of help, it will shield you from probes is largely a side-effect (admittedly one that is far more useful than ECM protection, but still).
I'll stand by my assessment that it was more a case of "hey, nifty ù and it neatly balances itself out as well" from CCP's side when it became widely known, rather than as a fully premeditated and intentional part of the design. It wasn't intended, but didn't unintentionally break anything either, so they saw no reason not leave it in the game, just like many other unintentionally functional uses the players have discovered throughout the years. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Mavnas
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 03:26:00 -
[12]
Wait, wrecks are probable? I knew drones were.
|
Target Painter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 04:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Mavnas Wait, wrecks are probable?
No, they are not. Or else there would be no way to have an unprobeable mission-runner.
|
Mavnas
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 05:18:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Target Painter
Originally by: Mavnas Wait, wrecks are probable?
No, they are not. Or else there would be no way to have an unprobeable mission-runner.
Salvagers and/or shooting wrecks. Back when I thought WoW was cool and I was on a PvP server, I really liked that being a skinner I could skin animal corpses causing them to disappear, removing all evidence that I was killing stuff in an area.
Also good to know.
|
Target Painter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 06:05:00 -
[15]
The average mission-runner generates wrecks far faster than they salvage them. Shooting wrecks is a better idea but still tedious and a reasonable chance of failure.
Originally by: Lady Thanatos Why would T3's and other ships be allowed to mission in peace in dangerous space without paying their tax to me!
It's not 100% safe in the slightest. You catch them at the gates, coming or going. You catch them at stations and alpha their bufferless missionboat into an insurance payout. Or you hunt in Minmatar space and a string of target-painting rats catches them at the wrong time.
I farm Dram and Cynabal BPCs, missioning for Angels, and while it's certainly hard to catch my Loki, it's far from impossible. Unprobeable mission-runners add an element of depth to the cat and mouse game that is piracy. Whereas before it was difficult to mission effectively unless you had an area locked down, now you can ninja all sorts of content.
|
Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 06:09:00 -
[16]
The only person an unprobeable mission runner is grieving is himself. Big upfront investment, crappy ISK earnings and eats up a lot of time. Could easily make more ISK doing a whole lot of other things.
*** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Target Painter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 06:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Artemis Rose The only person an unprobeable mission runner is grieving is himself. Big upfront investment, crappy ISK earnings and eats up a lot of time. Could easily make more ISK doing a whole lot of other things.
Farming Dram and Cynabal BPCs is the most profitable mission-running I've done so far. Six hours a week provides roughly 350M. The big upfront investment is approximately 600M for a suitably equipped T3. Of all the PvE activities I've tried, only running sites in high-class WHs provides more ISK/hour.
I suppose there is a certain skill and SP barrier, but honestly it's not a particularly high one.
|
Mutant Caldari
Caldari Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 08:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Target Painter
Originally by: Artemis Rose The only person an unprobeable mission runner is grieving is himself. Big upfront investment, crappy ISK earnings and eats up a lot of time. Could easily make more ISK doing a whole lot of other things.
Farming Dram and Cynabal BPCs is the most profitable mission-running I've done so far. Six hours a week provides roughly 350M. The big upfront investment is approximately 600M for a suitably equipped T3. Of all the PvE activities I've tried, only running sites in high-class WHs provides more ISK/hour.
I suppose there is a certain skill and SP barrier, but honestly it's not a particularly high one.
Never done FW, huh? LOL. Yeah I am a pirate. What are you gonna do about it? Killboard link is not allowed to be used in a signature.Applebabe
|
Target Painter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 08:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mutant Caldari Never done FW, huh? LOL.
No.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 13:50:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Target Painter
Originally by: Mutant Caldari Never done FW, huh? LOL.
No.
u make more money in cheaper ships, try it.
oh and theres plenty pvp too and from the misisons!
|
|
Random Alt1467
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Random Alt1467 The Dissolution Sequencer sub system would like to have a talk with you.
The Dissolution Sequencer alone doesn't do this, and is rather intended to harden you against ECM ù the fact that, with a bit of help, it will shield you from probes is largely a side-effect (admittedly one that is far more useful than ECM protection, but still).
I'll stand by my assessment that it was more a case of "hey, nifty ù and it neatly balances itself out as well" from CCP's side when it became widely known, rather than as a fully premeditated and intentional part of the design. It wasn't intended, but didn't unintentionally break anything either, so they saw no reason not leave it in the game, just like many other unintentionally functional uses the players have discovered throughout the years.
Then you stand by your own ignorance. Sadly the only person that can help you with that is you. Just because you don't like a mechanic that is working and has been known for a long time now does not mean you are right. Unprobable T3 shpis with cloaks and nullifiers were intended and serve multiple purposes in 0.0, WH space, and lowsec. Those that took the time look at the ships figured it out and passed on the knowledge.
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:32:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Random Alt1467 Then you stand by your own ignorance. Sadly the only person that can help you with that is you.
So you start with an insult with no real proof.
Originally by: Random Alt1467
Just because you don't like a mechanic that is working and has been known for a long time now does not mean you are right.
At no point was it stated that Tips doesn't like the mechanic.
Originally by: Random Alt1467
Unprobable T3 shpis with cloaks and nullifiers were intended and serve multiple purposes in 0.0, WH space, and lowsec. Those that took the time look at the ships figured it out and passed on the knowledge.
In your opinion with no evidence to back it up.
-- I am now on a Crusade to Fix the Omen!
For Great Justice!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:36:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Tippia on 11/11/2010 14:35:58
Originally by: Random Alt1467 Then you stand by your own ignorance.
You have a dev quote that states it was something they planned for when they designed the subsystem? If not, there is no ignorance (or, rather, if there is, you share it since you make the exact same kind of assumption).
Quote: Just because you don't like a mechanic
àand as this proves, your assumptions are based on pure fantasy. Where on earth did you get this little piece of nonsense?
Quote: Unprobable T3 shpis with cloaks and nullifiers were intended and serve multiple purposes in 0.0, WH space, and lowsec.
Again, quote or stop complaining about others making the same assumptions you engage in. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Random Alt1467
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:53:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 11/11/2010 14:40:24
Originally by: Random Alt1467 Then you stand by your own ignorance.
You have a dev quote that states it was something they planned for when they designed the subsystem ù especially a quote that explains why the subsystem in and of itself would not have the desired effect, but that it was still design for that express purpose ù I take it? If not, there is no ignorance (or, rather, if there is, you share it since you make the exact same kind of assumption).
Quote: Just because you don't like a mechanic
àand as this proves, your assumptions are based on pure fantasy. Where on earth did you get this little piece of nonsense?
Quote: Unprobable T3 shpis with cloaks and nullifiers were intended and serve multiple purposes in 0.0, WH space, and lowsec.
Again, quote or stop complaining about others making the same assumptions you engage in. My assumption is based on CCP's oft-expressed love for emergent gameplay; your assumption is so far based of nothing (and you have shown that you suck at assuming things).
Fine. Where are your dev quotes that prove you are right?
|
BITEK HOLDING
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:59:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Lady Thanatos
Originally by: Alara IonStorm I asume it is because they don't care about you in the least. They are also all laughing at you and calling you names. I bet you could do something about it, if you could find them.
But you can't.
All true!
Look, Mr Frodo! Pirate tears. Some of the rarest kind in all of EVE.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 15:16:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Random Alt1467 Fine. Where are your dev quotes that prove you are right?
Emergence is key Emergent gameplay at its best The gameplay is emergent Emergent gameplay [is] what makes EVE great Emergent gameplay is a priority for EVE
àin fact, just go through the list yourself (or this one to catch the off-site mentions).
So yeah, they kind of like this whole "emergent gameplay" bit, apparentlyà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Random Alt1467
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:26:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Random Alt1467 on 11/11/2010 16:27:37
Originally by: Tippia So yeah, they kind of like this whole "emergent gameplay" bit, apparentlyà
I see nothing in those article that pretain to ships being unprobable. If you want to say emergent gameplay is the reason then all forms of cloaking should also be removed from the game. When a person cloaks up and sits in the middle of no where they are also unprobable.
|
rain9441
Big Head Want Dolly
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 20:00:00 -
[28]
There is an AFK cloaker in this thread! All productivity halt!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 21:28:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Tippia on 11/11/2010 21:29:33
Originally by: Random Alt1467 I see nothing in those article that pretain to ships being unprobable.
Oh come on. You wanted quotes to prove I was right. I provided them. You've simply confused yourself over what I'm right about.
Originally by: Tippia I think it might not be intended, as in "they planned it that way", but rather intended as in "wahey, look at what the players figured out! neat!" They tend to be pretty keen on emergent gameplay
Originally by: Tippia It wasn't intended, but didn't unintentionally break anything either, so they saw no reason not leave it in the game, just like many other unintentionally functional uses the players have discovered throughout the years.
Originally by: Tippia My assumption is based on CCP's oft-expressed love for emergent gameplay
See? You wanted proof of that; I gave it to you. Now where's yours?
Quote: If you want to say emergent gameplay is the reason then all forms of cloaking should also be removed from the game. When a person cloaks up and sits in the middle of no where they are also unprobable.
Why should it be removed? What do you mean by "also"? What does cloaking have to do with anything ù it's as far away from emergent gameplay as it comes, since it says right on the tin what it does. You're still dreaming up this notion that I'm somehow against the idea of unprobable ships. Nothing of the kind has ever been mentioned. Again, you're assuming things, and doing a very poor job of it as wellà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Random Alt1467
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:25:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Random Alt1467 on 11/11/2010 22:30:41
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 11/11/2010 21:29:33
Originally by: Random Alt1467 I see nothing in those article that pretain to ships being unprobable.
Oh come on. You wanted quotes to prove I was right. I provided them. You've simply confused yourself over what I'm right about.
Originally by: Tippia I think it might not be intended, as in "they planned it that way", but rather intended as in "wahey, look at what the players figured out! neat!" They tend to be pretty keen on emergent gameplay
Originally by: Tippia It wasn't intended, but didn't unintentionally break anything either, so they saw no reason not leave it in the game, just like many other unintentionally functional uses the players have discovered throughout the years.
Originally by: Tippia My assumption is based on CCP's oft-expressed love for emergent gameplay
See? You wanted proof of that; I gave it to you. Now where's yours?
Quote: If you want to say emergent gameplay is the reason then all forms of cloaking should also be removed from the game. When a person cloaks up and sits in the middle of no where they are also unprobable.
Why should it be removed? What do you mean by "also"? What does cloaking have to do with anything ù it's as far away from emergent gameplay as it comes, since it says right on the tin what it does. You're still dreaming up this notion that I'm somehow against the idea of unprobable ships. Nothing of the kind has ever been mentioned. Again, you're assuming things, and doing a very poor job of it as wellà
Show me the dev post that says unprobable ships is not an intended mechanic. All you are doing is giving your thoughts and opinions based on the concept of emergant game play. There is nothing in any of the links that you provided that specifically address the issue. You are simply stating your opinion based on what you read.
My proof is the fact that it is in the game, it is a well known mechanic, and not a single CCP post has been made stating it is an unintended mechanic. Until you can provide something directly from a CCP Dev/GM that says otherwise you are simply stating your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |