Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:13:00 -
[301] - Quote
I agree with all except the "delay reappearing in local after decloaking"
20 seconds is a long time. Most ships can decloak, warp+recalibrate, and point within that time period. It essentially brings back logonski en masse.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:57:00 -
[302] - Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if that was considered an essential feature of the whole slew of changes. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 15:40:00 -
[303] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:...snip... The dozen pilots docked due to an afk cloaky are NOT responsible for that risk adverse behavior, the game mechanics made it the logical descision and all null sec alliancies policy on ratting with an afk in system reflects this....snip...
So...Tell me again why these 12 faction/ T2 BS pilots are not in a fleet?
i) Recon points sanctum-running faction BS.. ii) 11 faction/T2 BS's warp to unfortunate sanctum-running BS at optimum range... iii) Recon insta-pops if he/ she is not already gone when they lock.
Quote: 1 afk cloaking in system makes it the logical choice to stay docked, counter fleets can be tried but its still not worth having faction or t2 bs's out due to hotdrops.
So the problem is Hotdrops not cloaks? Nerf hotdrops?
Quote:Remove local or disconnecting from local only makes this 10x worse and unless the null sec pve rewards were upped along with it...snip...
So up the rewards? I'd have no problem at all with making null-sec PvE extremely profitable if the risks were in line with the reward.
If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:01:00 -
[304] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Heisenburg Certainty wrote:...snip... The dozen pilots docked due to an afk cloaky are NOT responsible for that risk adverse behavior, the game mechanics made it the logical descision and all null sec alliancies policy on ratting with an afk in system reflects this....snip... So...Tell me again why these 12 faction/ T2 BS pilots are not in a fleet?...
Yep thats the answer to the problems this proposal brings - get in your own blob.
Torin Corax wrote:Quote: 1 afk cloaking in system makes it the logical choice to stay docked, counter fleets can be tried but its still not worth having faction or t2 bs's out due to hotdrops. So the problem is Hotdrops not cloaks? Nerf hotdrops? Quote:Remove local or disconnecting from local only makes this 10x worse and unless the null sec pve rewards were upped along with it...snip... So up the rewards? I'd have no problem at all with making null-sec PvE extremely profitable if the risks were in line with the reward.
Not only would this kill small gang and solo pvp - at least that which doesn't just involve ganking pve ships. (which no one that does that sort of pvp can refute) it also completely throws the pve balance out the window.
There is a rough balance between high, low, wh, and null sec right now. This proposal completely throws that off. Thats why you have to admit well we would need to nerf hotdrops or improve rewards in null sec. But what are the proposals for doing that? What you will find is those proposals have problems of their own.
This change is proposed so people can have an easier time ganking pve ships in null and low sec. Yet it screws up so much about the game its ridiculous.
(Yes I know the op claims it is proposed to appease people complaining about afk cloakers, but this solution obviously only makes things worse for that crowd. )
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:10:00 -
[305] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Not only would this kill small gang and solo pvp - at least that which doesn't just involve ganking pve ships. (which no one that does that sort of pvp can refute) it also completely throws the pve balance out the window.
There is a rough balance between high, low, wh, and null sec right now. This proposal completely throws that off. Thats why you have to admit well we would need to nerf hotdrops or improve rewards in null sec. But what are the proposals for doing that? What you will find is those proposals have problems of their own.
This change is proposed so people can have an easier time ganking pve ships in null and low sec. Yet it screws up so much about the game its ridiculous.
(Yes I know the op claims it is proposed to appease people complaining about afk cloakers, but this solution obviously only makes things worse for that crowd. )
Other would argue that it would improve small scale PvP by making it such that smaller gangs of cloaked vessels would be more able to move freely about looking for fights, and they'd have to actively go searching for it rather than have an alt camp a system and freak the locals.
You can argue both sides, and for different people both sides will be true. The question is, with the unpredictability of people in Eve, where would the balance ultimately fall. Only in practice would we know.
Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. The way null is I have no interest in going there, and I'll vehemently oppose any short-sighted proposals that are designed to nerf cloaks that take don't consider their ripple effects on the rest of the game, especially wormholes. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:18:00 -
[306] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote: Not only would this kill small gang and solo pvp - at least that which doesn't just involve ganking pve ships. (which no one that does that sort of pvp can refute) it also completely throws the pve balance out the window.
There is a rough balance between high, low, wh, and null sec right now. This proposal completely throws that off. Thats why you have to admit well we would need to nerf hotdrops or improve rewards in null sec. But what are the proposals for doing that? What you will find is those proposals have problems of their own.
This change is proposed so people can have an easier time ganking pve ships in null and low sec. Yet it screws up so much about the game its ridiculous.
(Yes I know the op claims it is proposed to appease people complaining about afk cloakers, but this solution obviously only makes things worse for that crowd. )
Other would argue that it would improve small scale PvP by making it such that smaller gangs of cloaked vessels would be more able to move freely about looking for fights, and they'd have to actively go searching for it rather than have an alt camp a system and freak the locals.
Yeah it would take longer for them to find fights. Thats clear. It would limit their intel when they do engage so its more just chance who wins. Moreover no one who does allot of small scale or solo pvp other than pirates who like to gank industrials have actually argued that this would improve small scale or solo pvp.
Ingvar Angst wrote: You can argue both sides, and for different people both sides will be true. The question is, with the unpredictability of people in Eve, where would the balance ultimately fall. Only in practice would we know.
Actually the effects would be pretty obvious to those who 1) have half a brain and 2) do allot of pvp in low and null sec.
Ingvar Angst wrote: Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. .
Then why don't you make that clear in your op?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:22:00 -
[307] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Actually the effects would be pretty obvious to those who 1) have half a brain and 2) do allot of pvp in low and null sec.
When you can no longer attack the proposal, attack the proposer.
Ingvar Angst wrote: Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. .
Then why don't you make that clear in your op? [/quote]
If the second paragraph didn't make it clear then it adds a certain irony to your "half a brain" insult. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:28:00 -
[308] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Yep thats the answer to the problems this proposal brings - get in your own blob.
Anyone with half a brain in null-sec already is. If there are a dozen PvE BS's running about (as per the poster I was quoting) they should already be in a gang to facilitate helping each other in an emergency. Not the cloaky pilots fault if these hypothetical BS pilots are unwilling or incapable of helping a corp/ Alliance-mate out.
Quote:Not only would this kill small gang and solo pvp - at least that which doesn't just involve ganking pve ships. (which no one that does that sort of pvp can refute) it also completely throws the pve balance out the window.
How does nerfing Hotdrops kill small-gang PvP?
Quote:There is a rough balance between high, low, wh, and null sec right now. This proposal completely throws that off. Thats why you have to admit - we would need to nerf hotdrops or improve rewards in null sec. But what are the proposals for doing that? What you will find is those proposals have problems of their own.
In-depth discussion of changing rewards and/ or nerfing hotdrops are matters to be discussed in other threads tbh.
Quote:This change is proposed so people can have an easier time ganking pve ships in null and low sec. Yet it screws up so much about the game its ridiculous.
(Yes I know the op claims it is proposed to appease people complaining about afk cloakers, but this solution obviously only makes things worse for that crowd. )
It would naturally depend on how any changes were implemented, and what measures where added to give careful pilots on both sides the ability to function well in null sec....the outcome of any potential confrontation having far more to do with player skill than it does at this time.
As for Local in low/ high sec, it has issues. The amount of information it gives is over the top. Nothing with such a profound effect on combat, survival, wars etc. should come for free, that information should be trained for (both character and player training) imho. If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:33:00 -
[309] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. The way null is I have no interest in going there, and I'll vehemently oppose any short-sighted proposals that are designed to nerf cloaks that take don't consider their ripple effects on the rest of the game, especially wormholes. If only you considered the ripple effects your proposals would have on the game as well. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:34:00 -
[310] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. The way null is I have no interest in going there, and I'll vehemently oppose any short-sighted proposals that are designed to nerf cloaks that take don't consider their ripple effects on the rest of the game, especially wormholes. If only you considered the ripple effects your proposals would have on the game as well.
I do. That's why I made the proposal, offered what I feel are counter balances and opened it up to discussion to find flaws.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
345
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:37:00 -
[311] - Quote
And when I point out at least some of the flaws, were they taken aboard, or shut down with "htfu carebear, botter, RMTer"? |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:42:00 -
[312] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:And when I point out at least some of the flaws, were they taken aboard, or shut down with "htfu carebear, botter, RMTer"?
I never promised to agree with all perceived flaws. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:49:00 -
[313] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Cearain wrote:
Yep thats the answer to the problems this proposal brings - get in your own blob.
Anyone with half a brain in null-sec already is. If there are a dozen PvE BS's running about (as per the poster I was quoting) they should already be in a gang to facilitate helping each other in an emergency. Not the cloaky pilots fault if these hypothetical BS pilots are unwilling or incapable of helping a corp/ Alliance-mate out.
This also applies to low sec. It would also lead to a solo bs easily being ganked by a cloaked gang. So the proposals causes problems well beyond that hypothetical.
Quote:Not only would this kill small gang and solo pvp - at least that which doesn't just involve ganking pve ships. (which no one that does that sort of pvp can refute) it also completely throws the pve balance out the window.
Torin Corax wrote: How does nerfing Hotdrops kill small-gang PvP?
I didn't say it would. But proposals to nerf them would likely cause other problems. My overall point is this op causes problems throughout the game. Then when these problems are pointed out we just have a flip "well nerf hot drops" or "Well buff pve in null sec" By saying this it is clear that there is an acknowledgment this proposals throws that balance off. But the details of how we would GÇ£nerf hot dropsGÇ¥ or GÇ£buff pve in null secGÇ¥ are not given.
Include those details in the op and I bet we see different problems. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:50:00 -
[314] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Quote:There is a rough balance between high, low, wh, and null sec right now. This proposal completely throws that off. Thats why you have to admit - we would need to nerf hotdrops or improve rewards in null sec. But what are the proposals for doing that? What you will find is those proposals have problems of their own. In-depth discussion of changing rewards and/ or nerfing hotdrops are matters to be discussed in other threads tbh.
Not when this proposal so clearly throws them out of whack. This proposal buffs hot drop mechanics too much - so it should address how it will be balanced again. It add lots more risk to pveing in null sec - so it should address how it will make up for this. This proposal is causing these problems so its not ok to just say " well they will think of something to correct these problems"
Torin Corax wrote:Quote:This change is proposed so people can have an easier time ganking pve ships in null and low sec. Yet it screws up so much about the game its ridiculous.
(Yes I know the op claims it is proposed to appease people complaining about afk cloakers, but this solution obviously only makes things worse for that crowd. ) It would naturally depend on how any changes were implemented, and what measures where added to give careful pilots on both sides the ability to function well in null sec....the outcome of any potential confrontation having far more to do with player skill than it does at this time.
Skill would have nothing to do with it. You would have no way of knowing how many people the other side has cloaked up in system so you would just be rolling the dice.
Torin Corax wrote: As for Local in low/ high sec, it has issues. The amount of information it gives is over the top. Nothing with such a profound effect on combat, survival, wars etc. should come for free, that information should be trained for (both character and player training) imho.
Local is not over the top. Local gives you the bare minimum you need to help you avoid being blobbed. It tells you how many are in system and if they are in the same corp or alliance. Nerfing it beyond this will just mean you will have more pvp becoming lame blob ganks.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:52:00 -
[315] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And when I point out at least some of the flaws, were they taken aboard, or shut down with "htfu carebear, botter, RMTer"? I never promised to agree with all perceived flaws. Bleh... I should be a little clearer on that... I'm seeing what... 70 likes now for this concept, yet at most two or three people against. As such, it's difficult to accept the idea as inherently flawed when the vast majority favors it. I'm certain tweaks and refinements may be necessary, but not certain a complete abandonment of the idea is justified at this time.
Would this "vast majority" per chance be people who can't get kills in nullsec because they're not good enough, and wants to make it even easier for them, regardless of the long-term effects? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:54:00 -
[316] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I didn't say it would. But proposals to nerf them would likely cause other problems. My overall point is this op causes problems throughout the game. Then when these problems are pointed out we just have a flip "well nerf hot drops" or "Well buff pve in null sec" By saying this it is clear that there is an acknowledgment this proposals throws that balance off. But the details of how we would GÇ£nerf hot dropsGÇ¥ or GÇ£buff pve in null secGÇ¥ are not given.
Include those details in the op and I bet we see different problems. And add any sort of counters to cloaks, and there'll be whines about how it nerfs wormholes, and suddenly the changes are wholly unacceptable. vOv |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
106
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:59:00 -
[317] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote:
Actually the effects would be pretty obvious to those who 1) have half a brain and 2) do allot of pvp in low and null sec.
When you can no longer attack the proposal, attack the proposer.
You never claimed to do allot of pvp in low and null sec so this comment couldnt' even apply to you. But yeah if you did do allot of pvp in null or low sec and you still couldn't figure out how this proposal would effect things then you be pretty dumb.
Ingvar Angst wrote: Just to reiterate... I prefer leaving the system alone. .
Then why don't you make that clear in your op? [/quote]
If the second paragraph didn't make it clear then it adds a certain irony to your "half a brain" insult.[/quote]
Well it doesn't make it clear because it doesn't say you prefer to leave the system alone. If you said "I would prefer that they not implement this proposal and leave things as they are" that would make it clear. But you didn't say that. And you have done nothign but argue with people like myself and lord zim who think we are better off as things are than doing your change. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:05:00 -
[318] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Torin Corax wrote: As for Local in low/ high sec, it has issues. The amount of information it gives is over the top. Nothing with such a profound effect on combat, survival, wars etc. should come for free, that information should be trained for (both character and player training) imho.
Local is not over the top. Local gives you the bare minimum you need to help you avoid being blobbed. It tells you how many are in system and if they are in the same corp or alliance. Nerfing it beyond this will just mean you will have more pvp becoming lame blob ganks.
This is way too much information, at least where war decs are concerned. To repeat one of my greatest annoyances at local (high sec)....Attempting to be a scout for your corp while at war is utterly pointless unless you either drop corp, or create an alt for scouting. This is crappy mechanics imo. Why the hell should a 1 hour old alt in a reaper be a better scout than a 60mil SP recon pilot who wants to remain in the corp he loves? All because of a little red flag in a chat channel.....you did nothing to earn that information, you need take no precautions beyond watching a chat window in order to remain safe from anything that's not an alt. Sure it works for CCP, more alts= more cash, but it is still a crappy mechanic.
I am a recon/ cov-ops pilot. I have trained to be sneaky so that I can fulfil the role of a forward scout/ intel gatherer for my corp. It is utterly absurd that I should have to use an alt for this. This is my main, this is the character I have trained for years to use while playing ...**** Alts. If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
107
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:14:00 -
[319] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Cearain wrote:Torin Corax wrote: As for Local in low/ high sec, it has issues. The amount of information it gives is over the top. Nothing with such a profound effect on combat, survival, wars etc. should come for free, that information should be trained for (both character and player training) imho.
Local is not over the top. Local gives you the bare minimum you need to help you avoid being blobbed. It tells you how many are in system and if they are in the same corp or alliance. Nerfing it beyond this will just mean you will have more pvp becoming lame blob ganks. This is way too much information, at least where war decs are concerned. To repeat one of my greatest annoyances at local (high sec)....Attempting to be a scout for your corp while at war is utterly pointless unless you either drop corp, or create an alt for scouting. This is crappy mechanics imo. Why the hell should a 1 hour old alt in a reaper be a better scout than a 60mil SP recon pilot who wants to remain in the corp he loves? All because of a little red flag in a chat channel.....you did nothing to earn that information, you need take no precautions beyond watching a chat window in order to remain safe from anything that's not an alt. Sure it works for CCP, more alts= more cash, but it is still a crappy mechanic.
Here we have the old you did nothing to earn that information cry. What should I need to do toe earn it? Press button like dscan. Pay a certain amount of isk per month to concord who watches the gates and makes sure you do not jump through if you have an agression timer?
And if this proposal goes through what are you going to scout? You won't see any of the cloaked ships in local or on dscan or with your probes. So what is the point? I guess the point is you will see an industrial that doesn't have a cloak. You will also see people who can't cloak because they are doing pve. But beyond helping you kill pve ships scouting will be pretty pointless. But oh it will be so nice to gank all those pvers - until they all go back to high sec to run lvl 4s and incursions that is. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:26:00 -
[320] - Quote
Did you miss the part where I specified war-decs for that example? I'm talking about how much info local gives you. I'm a scout, I have the patience to actively hunt wartargets if needed. I'll spend time building lists of names/ ships/ ship names (and naming conventions if any). I'll track movement patterns and time zones if required.
Without the flagging system this activity actually becomes a lot harder for me, but I'm still willing to do it in order to gain the advantage in war. I'm not the only one willing to do this if it means I get to use my main as a scout rather than an alt. Those who are unwilling to put in that effort are the ones desperately clinging to their free intel channel.
It's not about "pressing a button" it's about exercising patience and dedication to give you an edge. If my opposite number is willing to do the same it becomes a contest as to who is better at it. Do you really think this is unfair? If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
108
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 18:04:00 -
[321] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And when I point out at least some of the flaws, were they taken aboard, or shut down with "htfu carebear, botter, RMTer"? I never promised to agree with all perceived flaws. Bleh... I should be a little clearer on that... I'm seeing what... 70 likes now for this concept, yet at most two or three people against. As such, it's difficult to accept the idea as inherently flawed when the vast majority favors it. I'm certain tweaks and refinements may be necessary, but not certain a complete abandonment of the idea is justified at this time.
You have constantly bumped this to the top page since we have had these new forums. You now have 71 likes for your op after 4,467 views. How is that a vast majority?
Edit: and just because people don't go into the same arguments about how nerfing local will majorly screw the game over in every thread doesn't mean they recognize it. You can't dislike a thread so you assume that everyone that reads this and decides they do not want to "like" this idea and also do not want to bump this thread couldn't possibly be against this idea. Nice logic. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
108
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 18:06:00 -
[322] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Did you miss the part where I specified war-decs for that example? I'm talking about how much info local gives you. I'm a scout, I have the patience to actively hunt wartargets if needed. I'll spend time building lists of names/ ships/ ship names (and naming conventions if any). I'll track movement patterns and time zones if required.
Without the flagging system this activity actually becomes a lot harder for me, but I'm still willing to do it in order to gain the advantage in war. I'm not the only one willing to do this if it means I get to use my main as a scout rather than an alt. Those who are unwilling to put in that effort are the ones desperately clinging to their free intel channel.
It's not about "pressing a button" it's about exercising patience and dedication to give you an edge. If my opposite number is willing to do the same it becomes a contest as to who is better at it. Do you really think this is unfair?
Ok I think we both agree on the effect this will have on pvp - you will need more patience to find quality pvp.
We just disagree on whether this is good or bad. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3357
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 12:34:00 -
[323] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Heisenburg Certainty wrote:later that day when faction and t2 battleships are out Heisenburg Certainty wrote: a faction or t2 bs pretty much anytime they wanted Why don't you rat in PvP fit ships instead? Or don't you think you should have to reduce the risk and feel it's your god given right to farm at maximum ISK per hour? Do you have any numbers on how much that'd affect the ISK/hour rate, and how much time they'd spend regaining the lost isk when they've lost a ship to a gang? So you don't want to answer the question either? No I don't have the numbers, but if you want to take the risk and use T2/Faction, then do it. It's called risk v reward.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
350
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:03:00 -
[324] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Heisenburg Certainty wrote:later that day when faction and t2 battleships are out Heisenburg Certainty wrote: a faction or t2 bs pretty much anytime they wanted Why don't you rat in PvP fit ships instead? Or don't you think you should have to reduce the risk and feel it's your god given right to farm at maximum ISK per hour? Do you have any numbers on how much that'd affect the ISK/hour rate, and how much time they'd spend regaining the lost isk when they've lost a ship to a gang? So you don't want to answer the question either? No I don't have the numbers, but if you want to take the risk and use T2/Faction, then do it. It's called risk v reward. The reason I asked is because no matter how you fit your ship, it will be popped at some point. So add that to the cost of securing the system, and what do you get? Yep, that's right, hisec is looking more and more inviting.
I'm going to pull a shocking fact out of the hat at this point, and point out that we're talking about a game here. A game where the PVE isn't very fun, and you have to maintain your vigilence for hours at a time, just to be able to afford to do the fun things in eve, i.e. blow other people's **** up. With Ingvar's changes, this would turn into a game where everyone would have to expend a lot of time and energy just to keep a system safeish, let alone actually make isk or even recoup isk lost due to ganks. And after all that's done, you can start recouping isk lost while PVPing.
Now, pray tell, just how much of this do you suppose normal people would deal with, with the reward that's possible, before saying **** this, and doing their isk-making in hisec, where while boring, at least would give them the possibility of doing something other than just grind isk all day long? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3357
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:10:00 -
[325] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:The reason I asked is because no matter how you fit your ship, it will be popped at some point. So add that to the cost of securing the system, and what do you get? Yep, that's right, hisec is looking more and more inviting. High sec has been far more inviting for years and many have asked for that to be adjusted. Yes your ship will pop at some point, but whether you risk a 200mill ship or a 1 bill ship is your choice and risk to take.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
350
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:16:00 -
[326] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:The reason I asked is because no matter how you fit your ship, it will be popped at some point. So add that to the cost of securing the system, and what do you get? Yep, that's right, hisec is looking more and more inviting. High sec has been far more inviting for years and many have asked for that to be adjusted. Yes your ship will pop at some point, but whether you risk a 200mill ship or a 1 bill ship is your choice and risk to take. And? I'm having a problem seeing your point as it pertains to this thread. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3357
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:31:00 -
[327] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Mag's wrote:Lord Zim wrote:The reason I asked is because no matter how you fit your ship, it will be popped at some point. So add that to the cost of securing the system, and what do you get? Yep, that's right, hisec is looking more and more inviting. High sec has been far more inviting for years and many have asked for that to be adjusted. Yes your ship will pop at some point, but whether you risk a 200mill ship or a 1 bill ship is your choice and risk to take. And? I'm having a problem seeing your point as it pertains to this thread. You answered a question I put to someone else, with a question. You then extended the parameters of your question, still without actually answering the first question. This is indeed a problem you have.
Maybe you should actually read what the guy posted, then you will see why I asked what I asked.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:15:00 -
[328] - Quote
Actually, that just makes the proposed local change even worse, because I'm such an accomplished ratter I didn't even remember that lots of people use faction ships or t3s to make a boring part of the game suck less ****.
I guess it'll actually be a more severe move back than I first expected if Ingvar's changes are implemented. vOv |
Dr Karsun
Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Care Factor
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:17:00 -
[329] - Quote
This is a quite well thought over idea about nerfing the cloaks and I agree to it. As long as both ends are met - he loses local and we don't see him in local.
I'd also advise to keep d-scan but remove the on board scanner. Probes would naturally still work, I just want the on board scanner gone.
Reason? Cloakers would have an unfair advantage above anomaly runners if it didn't happen, since in fact they COULD see where the anomaly runners are, bu tthe anomaly runners wouldn't know about the cloaker, who would have access to ALL of the system (Except plexes).
And I'd approve of BO and recons not having the cyno delay - after all they are designed for lighting up cynos and hotdropping.
The solution, even if implemented without my ideas would still be by far better than the current situation. "Have you had your morning coffee?" -> the Coffee Lovers Brewing Club is recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=363976#post363976 |
eleve
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:28:00 -
[330] - Quote
So basically this would make 0.0 anomalys totally worthless.
Well yeah, you could always do anomalys with combination which won't be killed easily even if someone lights a cyno up, but that would make anomaly income suck even more. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |