Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
582
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:02:00 -
[241] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:CCP Falcon should be forced to run D&D campaigns for other CCP staff so that he can learn how to build events within a ruleset and think on his feet when it comes to emergent player responses. See, but what if, after internal discussions, making ~100% sure TTIs get to Pator was part the ruleset. It's like the treasure below the dragon. The dragon is there to make sure you die when you are foolish enough to try to get the gold. And there are enough DMs that want to make sure you die trying, no matter what crazy idea you come up with.
That's not what rulesets are in this context you anus. If that was part of the ruleset in the context I'm using it in (a D&D campaign) it would have been pre-emptively told to the players as part of the pre-story dialogue you invariably get when you have any homebrewed rules.
The ruleset in this context is the set of rules as defined by EVE's mechanics. Those are essentially the same as the D&D 3.5 rulebook. If it came up that in internal discussions the TTIs 100% had to make it there and the PCs threw a wrench in it, it's the job of a good DM to come up with a clever way to get his objective completed, despite the players' intervention, within the realm of reasonable play. Otherwise it's not much more than masturbatory storytelling as opposed to a live roleplaying event in a sandbox environment. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
92
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:13:00 -
[242] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:That's not what rulesets are in this context you anus. Thanks for the compliment! :D
DurrHurrDurr wrote:The ruleset in this context is the set of rules as defined by EVE's mechanics. Those are essentially the same as the D&D 3.5 rulebook. If it came up that in internal discussions the TTIs 100% had to make it there and the PCs threw a wrench in it, it's the job of a good DM to come up with a clever way to get his objective completed, despite the players' intervention, within the realm of reasonable play. Otherwise it's not much more than masturbatory storytelling as opposed to a live roleplaying event in a sandbox environment. Well, and as you could see during the live event, those QA Shield Extenders were part of the EVE mechanics (as evidence by there ingame existence). Yes, they were extremely overpowered. So are some NPCs in PnP. E.g. angelic creatures, greater demons or such. If the players had managed to get enough alpha to break the QA Shield Extenders, the Devs would indeed have been in the position you describe.
Finally I'd like to point out that, as I wrote in my first post in here, that I would indeed have appreciate more ways to interact with the delegates than via locale. But I do understand why the event was planned this way and enjoyed witnessing it. |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:16:00 -
[243] - Quote
I'm not much into RP'ing, but do enjoy some of the EVE backstory (e.g. the books, the lore on the wiki, etc.)
I'm sure this has been said, but I'm another player who believes that devhaxing the Live Event, CCP actually lost on an opportunity to build on lore based on the actions of the players. Goonswarm attacks a Minmatar trade delegation. CCP can make all Goons have terrible standings with Minmatar. Minmatar can pay bounties for Goon kills. Minmatar can pay hisec white knights to invade Deklein, whatever. There are any number of creative ways to change the storyline based on player actions, even if those players aren't RP'ing.
Like many said before the delegates need not never die even if their transport is destroyed.
I think CCP should consider making all live events truly interactive and urge them not to GM tank the actors again. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
582
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:17:00 -
[244] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:That's not what rulesets are in this context you anus. Thanks for the compliment! :D DurrHurrDurr wrote:The ruleset in this context is the set of rules as defined by EVE's mechanics. Those are essentially the same as the D&D 3.5 rulebook. If it came up that in internal discussions the TTIs 100% had to make it there and the PCs threw a wrench in it, it's the job of a good DM to come up with a clever way to get his objective completed, despite the players' intervention, within the realm of reasonable play. Otherwise it's not much more than masturbatory storytelling as opposed to a live roleplaying event in a sandbox environment. Well, and as you could see during the live event, those QA Shield Extenders were part of the EVE mechanics (as evidence by there ingame existence). Yes, they were extremely overpowered. So are some NPCs in PnP. E.g. angelic creatures, greater demons or such. If the players had managed to get enough alpha to break the QA Shield Extenders, the Devs would indeed have been in the position you describe. Finally I'd like to point out that, as I wrote in my first post in here, that I would indeed have appreciate more ways to interact with the delegates than via locale. But I do understand why the event was planned this way and enjoyed witnessing it.
No, QA Shield Extenders are not part of what I said when I specifically, in my last post, mentioned "reasonable play". That's like saying I could give my PC a sword that does 1d100+50 damage at level 4. It's not part of the standard game environment and it's not in any way reasonable for another player to assume that it would be present on a ship. It granted *invulnerablity*. If you want to be a stupid pedant about the deepest technicalities of what you may consider "within the mechanics", that's fine, but it's clear for anyone who spends more than eight seconds thinking about it that it is far outside the realm of reasonable play and to claim otherwise would be intentionally feigning stupidity. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
92
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:32:00 -
[245] - Quote
I really should go to bed, but! Someone is wrong in the internet (alledgedly)!
DurrHurrDurr wrote:No, QA Shield Extenders are not part of what I said when I specifically, in my last post, mentioned "reasonable play". That's like saying I could give my PC a sword that does 1d100+50 damage at level 4. It's not part of the standard game environment and it's not in any way reasonable for another player to assume that it would be present on a ship. It granted *invulnerablity*. If you want to be a stupid pedant about the deepest technicalities of what you may consider "within the mechanics", that's fine, but it's clear for anyone who spends more than eight seconds thinking about it that it is far outside the realm of reasonable play and to claim otherwise would be intentionally feigning stupidity. Right, but that sword wasn't given to a player character. It was wielded by an NPC via a Dev. The same way you are now mixing up PCs and NPCs, you ignored my comment on extremly powerful NPCs. Those can have stats that make them for all intends and purposes invulnerable. And players can't acquire these stats. Meanie! |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:34:00 -
[246] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:I really should go to bed, but! Someone is wrong on the internet (alledgedly)! DurrHurrDurr wrote:No, QA Shield Extenders are not part of what I said when I specifically, in my last post, mentioned "reasonable play". That's like saying I could give my PC a sword that does 1d100+50 damage at level 4. It's not part of the standard game environment and it's not in any way reasonable for another player to assume that it would be present on a ship. It granted *invulnerablity*. If you want to be a stupid pedant about the deepest technicalities of what you may consider "within the mechanics", that's fine, but it's clear for anyone who spends more than eight seconds thinking about it that it is far outside the realm of reasonable play and to claim otherwise would be intentionally feigning stupidity. Right, but that sword wasn't given to a player character. It was wielded by an NPC via a Dev. The same way you are now mixing up PCs and NPCs, you ignored my comment on extremly powerful NPCs. Those can have stats that make them for all intends and purposes invulnerable. And players can't acquire these stats. Meanie!
Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
92
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:39:00 -
[247] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. Which doesn't change anything for the argument. It's mostly the fact that they now realized alternatives they weren't aware of before.
I personally btw disagree with the reimbursement and I _think_ so does Falcon. It was always made pretty clear by him and other Devs that you risk your ship in live events and that your actions have consequences. I have lost ships myself this way.
In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the players inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner.
But, it is indeed a grey zone, so I'm also not mad they reimbursed the losses and I do see where the decision came from. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
586
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:41:00 -
[248] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. Which doesn't change anything for the argument. It's mostly the fact that they now realized alternatives they weren't aware of before. I personally btw disagree with the reimbursement and I _think_ so does Falcon. It was always made pretty clear by him and other Devs that you risk your ship in live events and that your actions have consequences. I have lost ships myself this way. In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner. But, it is indeed a grey zone, so I'm also not mad they reimbursed the losses and see where the decision came from.
As someone in TEST I'm contractually obligated to not give a **** about CCP Falcon and his opinions because he used to be a shitspewing anti-goon/test publord before he worked at CCP. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
92
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:42:00 -
[249] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:As someone in TEST I'm contractually obligated to not give a **** about CCP Falcon and his opinions because he used to be a shitspewing anti-goon/test publord before he worked at CCP. :D |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
558
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:49:00 -
[250] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:That's not what rulesets are in this context you anus. Thanks for the compliment! :D DurrHurrDurr wrote:The ruleset in this context is the set of rules as defined by EVE's mechanics. Those are essentially the same as the D&D 3.5 rulebook. If it came up that in internal discussions the TTIs 100% had to make it there and the PCs threw a wrench in it, it's the job of a good DM to come up with a clever way to get his objective completed, despite the players' intervention, within the realm of reasonable play. Otherwise it's not much more than masturbatory storytelling as opposed to a live roleplaying event in a sandbox environment. Well, and as you could see during the live event, those QA Shield Extenders were part of the EVE mechanics (as evidence by there ingame existence). Yes, they were extremely overpowered. So are some NPCs in PnP. E.g. angelic creatures, greater demons or such. If the players had managed to get enough alpha to break the QA Shield Extenders, the Devs would indeed have been in the position you describe. Finally I'd like to point out that, as I wrote in my first post in here, that I would indeed have appreciate more ways to interact with the delegates than via locale. But I do understand why the event was planned this way and enjoyed witnessing it. If we had more time we would have probably tried to wardec that NPC corp. Vote Nullsec for CSM8 Mynnna | Crossing Zebras Interview <- Economist Unforgiving Storm | Crossing Zebras Interview <- Industrialist |
|
Preceptor Stigmartyr
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:51:00 -
[251] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner.
Who scans sandcastles before kicking them? It was only after I broke my toe I wanted to know what was in that thing 4/27-á NEVER FORGET-á-áa¦á_a¦á |
Sepherim
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
277
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:54:00 -
[252] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:As someone in TEST I'm contractually obligated to not give a **** about CCP Falcon and his opinions because he used to be a shitspewing anti-goon/test publord before he worked at CCP.
If you don't care about it, why bother continue the debate? You offered your point of view, and care not for the other side of the coin's view, so why continue.
Oh, and, btw, I agree with Sephira on everything she said. Not to mention the ruler of the Minmatarr is not a level 4 character, maybe your char is though ;) Sepherim Catillah Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris Initiate Ex-Imperial Navy Imperator Commander |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
559
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:57:00 -
[253] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the players inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner. Hi, We used shipscanners and scouted them beforehand. That's where the screenshot of the fitted hardeners came from. Vote Nullsec for CSM8 Mynnna | Crossing Zebras Interview <- Economist Unforgiving Storm | Crossing Zebras Interview <- Industrialist |
Alizabeth Vea
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
224
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:00:00 -
[254] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the players inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner. Hi, We used shipscanners and scouted them beforehand. That's where the screenshot of the fitted hardeners came from.
I covered what I ~though~ happened in another post: "I do not know why the QASE's were not communicated (my guess is they didn't register as anything out of the ordinary, no nice icon at the corner that exclaims "Amazing Mod. Click for Info!")."
Can you confirm why the devhax module was not reported to the ganking fleet? Staff Writer: themittani.com -á If you are going anywhere else to get your Eve News, you are wrong.
|
Preceptor Stigmartyr
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:33:00 -
[255] - Quote
Alizabeth Vea wrote:Powers Sa wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:Except that in this case CCP have already pseudo-admitted that should not have been the case and are offering reimbursements to everyone that attempted to suicidegank one of the dev-extended ships. In my opinion it's not CCPs turn to reimburse losses due to the players inability to properly use and react on the results of a ship scanner. Hi, We used shipscanners and scouted them beforehand. That's where the screenshot of the fitted hardeners came from. I covered what I ~though~ happened in another post: "I do not know why the QASE's were not communicated (my guess is they didn't register as anything out of the ordinary, no nice icon at the corner that exclaims "Amazing Mod. Click for Info!")." Can you confirm why the devhax module was not reported to the ganking fleet?
4/27-á NEVER FORGET-á-áa¦á_a¦á |
Alizabeth Vea
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:53:00 -
[256] - Quote
Preceptor Stigmartyr wrote:Alizabeth Vea wrote: I covered what I ~though~ happened in another post: "I do not know why the QASE's were not communicated (my guess is they didn't register as anything out of the ordinary, no nice icon at the corner that exclaims "Amazing Mod. Click for Info!")."
Can you confirm why the devhax module was not reported to the ganking fleet?
^ ThisI was my fault. Being unacquainted with "QA" shield extenders I did not sound the alarm. I wasn't until after we fired and I was reading his mods out that other vets went: An important military ship out on diplomatic mission fitted with 3k rounds of fireworks seems a bit out of character IMO. Ultimately I think that this as been a good opportunity to ensure future RP events are worthy of the sandbox.
Pretty understandable. If you just glance over the scans, they look t1, nothing special, just a funny name (But lots of meta stuff can have odd names). If, in the future, a special Dev Module is needed (Doesn't have to be QASE, maybe a gun or what not) an officer-type icon (or one specifically for Dev Mods) one the icon of the mod itself should be used. Staff Writer: themittani.com -á If you are going anywhere else to get your Eve News, you are wrong.
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:55:00 -
[257] - Quote
Having player actions that de facto auto-fail isn't railroading, since there are quite probably any number of other, more reasonable actions the PCs could have taken instead. They just chose to do something really dumb with a negligible chance of success. On the other hand, allowing a player action, having it succeed, and then having that success actually have zero impact on the progress of events is pretty much the definition railroading.
If CCP wants unkillable NPCs, that's actually not a big, since players aren't entitled to have every choice be viable. But they really should provide some methods of interaction, and make sure those methods are reasonably apparent.
Not to mention, the whole live event as executed is kind of goofy, since relying on the efforts of random bystanders for VIP protection is pretty dumb. Especially since even allowing someone in a position to attack a VIP generally means security screwed up somewhere. But then people would be whining about CONCORD blowing up their ship for violating |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 03:14:00 -
[258] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Having player actions that de facto auto-fail isn't railroading, since there are quite probably any number of other, more reasonable actions the PCs could have taken instead. They just chose to do something really dumb with a negligible chance of success. On the other hand, allowing a player action, having it succeed, and then having that success actually have zero impact on the progress of events is pretty much the definition railroading.
If CCP wants unkillable NPCs, that's actually not a big, since players aren't entitled to have every choice be viable. But they really should provide some methods of interaction, and make sure those methods are reasonably apparent.
Not to mention, the whole live event as executed is kind of goofy, since relying on the efforts of random bystanders for VIP protection is pretty dumb. Especially since even allowing someone in a position to attack a VIP generally means security screwed up somewhere. But then people would be whining about CONCORD blowing up their ship for violating
Jesus Christ, it's almost like all of you have never had to work around an obstacle before.
If you want to defend transiting VIPs in highsec, use probes and ships with ECM Bursts to ruin suiciceganking attempts.
One of the biggest marketing points in EVE is that everyone is somewhat vulnerable at all times. This should hold true for live event actors as well. Such is life in New Eden. |
Faulx
Brother Fox Corp
121
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 03:46:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Quick couple of questions for those who are angry or upset by the use of the modules.
1. Is it that the module itself (being unavailable on the market, having an immersion breaking name, etc) was used, or is it the stats that it provides? 2. Where is the "cutoff" on a ship being "indestructible". For instance, we have used Navy Apoc setups with Aurora implants (that are used frequently in live events and rarely if ever get complaints) to tank focused fire from a large fleet with minimal logistic support in the past. 3. What if, hypothetically, we had used a ship with a different name and description, but same/similar skin, which was unavailable to players but had a far larger tank than anything currently in the game, and the description explained this.
Really hope to get some serious feedback on these. It will help a lot. Your motivation for these questions, I assume, is that you don't want your main characters being killed off indiscriminately. Some people are harder to kill than others because of the influence they wield rather than their ship's capabilities. If Shakor or any high ranking government official wants safe passage, the obvious solution is that the NPC flies in a capital ship, which is cleared to jump into High sec. This, of course, obviates the need for an "escort" for said ship and denies many interesting game play avenues. Likewise, the current cloaking mechanic renders stealth ships (nearly) equally untouchable. The same again for a huge NPC support fleet or special modules programmed to fire upon or jam anyone locking the target.... They all make your NPC too removed from player interaction.
The whole point of bringing these characters to the field is that they influence the story and can, in turn, be influenced.
The first thing I thought of when I read the news article was... "They're going to get ganked." I assumed then that was the whole idea for the event. After seeing how the event played out, I realized the "point of failure" for this event was probably the internal strife between the tribes. If that was the case, the question you, as storyteller, should be asking is "Why are they even in space?" The whole event could have been done in the station, and, then, players would have had better understood that their main avenue of influence was through conversation.
So basically, the answer to all your questions: 1.) Both 2.) NPC actors should be as vulnerable as players. Their presence in space should make them vulnerable but more able to wield influence in the story. As such, they should not venture out without good reason: for example, to complete some otherwise unobtainable goal. Ultimately, this will make their presence in the sandbox more meaningful (rather than being the distant set-dressing that the empires, and all their agents, have previously been). 3.) This would be fine, but (assuming the ship is of Empire design and not based on Ancient technology, like Jamyl's Abaddon) the tank should not be so large as to cause people to ask the question, "Why isn't this technology more widely available?" Consequently, the NPC should still be killable.
P.S. I tinkered with some numbers (scroll to the bottom), and if you put your VI NPC into a (top of the line) tank-only TTI fit that relies on RR for repairs... you could achieve 400,000-600-000 EHP... modestly well protected. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:04:00 -
[260] - Quote
Give information for T2 fits, not top-of-the-line; they can only use T1/T2 modules. They're free to use any implants they want, however, since those can't be injected into the EVE landscape upon death. |
|
Faulx
Brother Fox Corp
121
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:06:00 -
[261] - Quote
Actually they said they were looking into 0% loot drop rates, so top of the line will do nicely from both a mechanical and a rollplay perspective.
*assuming its implemented **and would be a damn sight better than randomly adding modules of unknown origin (i.e. deus ex machina) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
147
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:12:00 -
[262] - Quote
DurrHurrDurr wrote:
Jesus Christ, it's almost like all of you have never had to work around an obstacle before.
If you want to defend transiting VIPs in highsec, use probes and ships with ECM Bursts to ruin suiciceganking attempts.
One of the biggest marketing points in EVE is that everyone is somewhat vulnerable at all times. This should hold true for live event actors as well. Such is life in New Eden.
Uh, learn your mods? ECM Bursts are Capital only modules. Meaning.... YOU CAN'T USE THEM IN HIGH SEC!
Goons are complaining they had no way to influence the event. Well thats nice. Neither did the 'Defending Fleets' who were putting a lot more time on the line assembling a bunch of random alliance people together and organising them into a semblance of a fleet.
Maybe it's time for 'Remote Shield Extender' 'Remote Armour Enhancers' and the like to exist. So you can actually do a real escort vs a suicide gank on whatever ship you want. *vanishes to the FRF & gets the asbestoes underwear on now* |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
527
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:14:00 -
[263] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:
Jesus Christ, it's almost like all of you have never had to work around an obstacle before.
If you want to defend transiting VIPs in highsec, use probes and ships with ECM Bursts to ruin suiciceganking attempts.
One of the biggest marketing points in EVE is that everyone is somewhat vulnerable at all times. This should hold true for live event actors as well. Such is life in New Eden.
Uh, learn your mods? ECM Bursts are Capital only modules. Meaning.... YOU CAN'T USE THEM IN HIGH SEC! Goons are complaining they had no way to influence the event. Well thats nice. Neither did the 'Defending Fleets' who were putting a lot more time on the line assembling a bunch of random alliance people together and organising them into a semblance of a fleet. Maybe it's time for 'Remote Shield Extender' 'Remote Armour Enhancers' and the like to exist. So you can actually do a real escort vs a suicide gank on whatever ship you want. *vanishes to the FRF & gets the asbestoes underwear on now*
Remote ECM Bursts are capital mods. Regular ECM Bursts can be fit to any ship you want.
However, ECM Bursts are more or less useless against alpha fleets. Not to mention will get you CONCORDed in Highsec very quickly. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
147
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:21:00 -
[264] - Quote
Grideris wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:DurrHurrDurr wrote:
Jesus Christ, it's almost like all of you have never had to work around an obstacle before.
If you want to defend transiting VIPs in highsec, use probes and ships with ECM Bursts to ruin suiciceganking attempts.
One of the biggest marketing points in EVE is that everyone is somewhat vulnerable at all times. This should hold true for live event actors as well. Such is life in New Eden.
Uh, learn your mods? ECM Bursts are Capital only modules. Meaning.... YOU CAN'T USE THEM IN HIGH SEC! Goons are complaining they had no way to influence the event. Well thats nice. Neither did the 'Defending Fleets' who were putting a lot more time on the line assembling a bunch of random alliance people together and organising them into a semblance of a fleet. Maybe it's time for 'Remote Shield Extender' 'Remote Armour Enhancers' and the like to exist. So you can actually do a real escort vs a suicide gank on whatever ship you want. *vanishes to the FRF & gets the asbestoes underwear on now* Remote ECM Bursts are capital mods. Regular ECM Bursts can be fit to any ship you want. However, ECM Bursts are more or less useless against alpha fleets. Not to mention will get you CONCORDed in Highsec very quickly.
Ah, true, my mistake, I thought he was refering to the remote ones, given the regular ones really don't do a lot other than get you concorded as you said. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6756
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:23:00 -
[265] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Maybe it's time for 'Remote Shield Extender'
I believe it's called a "Siege Warfare Mindlink" ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
142
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:50:00 -
[266] - Quote
After reading through here, I agree with some of the points said. Yes, players should be allowed to kill actors (the Amarr militia would have jumped at this opportunity, IMO), but on the other hand these actors should also be significantly harder to kill than players (make them on par with "boss" type NPCs in other RPGs). On the flip side, loyalist pilots should somehow be allowed to support the svyotd. If there had been constant RR on the dev actors, the loyalists would have gotten Suspect flags and simply would have been killed off before the actors were (assuming the actors had been vulnerable). Maybe this would have given the actors time to warp off or somesuch, but it's still pretty bad that the gankers wouldn't be able to be countered in spite of the fact that these are supposed to be government officials with top-of-the-line equipment, security, all while being escorted by a loyalist vanguard.
If there's going to be heavy player interaction, at least have it go both ways. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:52:00 -
[267] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:After reading through here, I agree with some of the points said. Yes, players should be allowed to kill actors (the Amarr militia would have jumped at this opportunity, IMO), but on the other hand these actors should also be significantly harder to kill than players
Yeah, they could easily accomplish that with dev Aurora implants, which give a large series of boosts, including 40% extra shield/armor capacity and 40% omni-resists to both. |
DurrHurrDurr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
587
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:52:00 -
[268] - Quote
Or, you know, Slave implants. Those are a thing. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
147
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 05:18:00 -
[269] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:After reading through here, I agree with some of the points said. Yes, players should be allowed to kill actors (the Amarr militia would have jumped at this opportunity, IMO), but on the other hand these actors should also be significantly harder to kill than players (make them on par with "boss" type NPCs in other RPGs). On the flip side, loyalist pilots should somehow be allowed to support the svyotd. If there had been constant RR on the dev actors, the loyalists would have gotten Suspect flags and simply would have been killed off before the actors were (assuming the actors had been vulnerable). Maybe this would have given the actors time to warp off or somesuch, but it's still pretty bad that the gankers wouldn't be able to be countered in spite of the fact that these are supposed to be government officials with top-of-the-line equipment, security, all while being escorted by a loyalist vanguard.
If there's going to be heavy player interaction, at least have it go both ways.
We discovered something this event actually. As we did have constant RR on the ones the Amarr gang attacked. As long as you don't shoot back, it doesn't create a limited engagement, so the Logi did not go suspect. But Logi RR's are irrelevant to any decent suicide gank, because it's all alpha damage. At best assuming 4 RR's, a Logi is puting maybe 5000 EHP (Depending on resists) into the target over the course of a suicide gank, and thats assuming you are staggering your reps and they don't get a perfect syncronising of fire. In most cases Logi put 0 EHP onto the target, because it's dead before a single rep lands, especially armour reps.
Quite simply, as mentioned by a number of people in this thread, there need to be new modules added that allow for protection against a suicide gank/alpha attack. The 'denying lock till protecting ship is destroyed' option is one (I.e. Death Star & Shield projector) but not so Eve'y, while some kind of remote buffer is another. |
Niveuss Nye
The Advent of Faith
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 06:05:00 -
[270] - Quote
Goonswarm shennanigans aside here.
When I dungeon mastered games, I had players that constantly did things that were "not in the story". But, as a DM, I had the tools to create consequences for the player's actions that would effect the rest of the campaign.
Did I prevent them from doing what they wanted? No.
BUT - I would dare say if your group blew up a ship containing an important NPC, you would tee off that NPC. That NPC might know folks in NPC corps in empire space.
Goonswarm would find all members of member corps unable to dock in that empire's stations and any clones there terminated.
Tee an empire or NPC corp off bad enough, make them KOS to militia.
Live event planners need that kind of tool instead of invincible npcs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |