| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joshua Calvert
   |
Posted - 2003.08.14 19:49:00 -
[31]
Nowhere does it say you have to fire back if fired upon.
Sure, you're pretty much ****** if you are unlucky enough to get webbed or warp-jammed, but if its Tank CEO running the blockade you can pretty much afk by it.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Cyrus Troy
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 19:57:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Cyrus Troy on 14/08/2003 20:07:02
What is crap, are people crying about this new change. Why return fire if you can't win?!? The illustration of ground forces returning fire to perform a tactical retreat doesnÆt apply at all in this world. The enemy ships have shields, and the way combat is setup, thatÆs all that a weeker ship will damage. You canÆt slow down the enemy by returning fire. In a 1 on 1 battle between a cruiser and a battleship, the cruiser should just RETREAT!!
The Devs had to listen till their ears were bleeding about pirates using their ECM, and that act wasnÆt a ôact of aggressionö. SO THEY FIXED IT!!! Now the other half are going to ***** about the fact that the devs listened and make their ears bleed all over again. JESUS, MARY and JOSEPH! shut your PIE holes! 
|
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 19:57:00 -
[33]
You warp in. The gate is being camped. you will get locked, scrambled, webbied and jammed (no more mwd out of warp at full speed).
you won't have any problems with the gate locking you out of jumping, because you will not make it.
And yeah, in the remote possibility that you do, you cannot fire back anything.
The campers have advantage:
1. locking
2. jamming
So, send a bait ? What is a bait good for, if the camper can jam it and warp anywhere in the system ?
_______________________________________________
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:01:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 14/08/2003 20:02:31
Pretty good points.
Hmmmm.
What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module.
This means that even if a pirate has a level 2 warp-jammer he has to get to within 7.5km of you to do it.
ECCM is completely useless atm though.
Especially since sensor dampeners are very popular forms of elec warfare at the moment and none of the appropriate counter measures can nullify sensor dampeners completely.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Gafton
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:03:00 -
[35]
This patch pleases the majority of the player base. CCP knows they cant please all the whiny morons on the boards so they go for the majority. For gate/station camping this is indeed an improvement over the last patch.
To original poster: It's not wise to neglect reading the patch notes, as errors in judgement usually occur from lack of knowledge.
Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead. |
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:08:00 -
[36]
 Quote:
I'd tend to agree. I was under the impression that (certainly on one of the builds) it was the person initiating combat who was blocked from the gate/station?
My impression as well.
If returning fire means you are classed as engaging in a hostile act and so are barred from jumping and docking, CCP has REALLY ****** up.
--
Callas
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:10:00 -
[37]
Quote:
What was the point in returning fire anyway? If you cannot beat them and intend to warp away then doing a few shield points in dmg won't get you anything.
I am boggling at the number of people who have argued this point.
The fact is, returning fire is NOT an aggressive act. Whether or not it's effectual is utterly *utterly* UTTERLY irrelevent.
It should NOT lead to gate/dock blocking.
--
Callas
|
Callas
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:11:00 -
[38]
Quote:
Boo hoo HOO. Cry more noob. This is a much-needed change, combat might actually take strategy now.
Low IQ Post Of The Week Award.
--
Callas
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:11:00 -
[39]
Bah,
Carebears had it too easy since the patch before last.
Now it is the Rise of the Pirates until the next patch.
It's, like, instant-patch-karma.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Hiro Protagonist
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:13:00 -
[40]
Quote:
What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module.
The decision about how many stabilizers and jammers to outfit is part of coming up with a good pirate/anti-pirate strategy. Why simplify things?
In regards to anti-webifying module - MWD seems to be it. Webifyers might need to be tuned down a bit though, it seems like there should be some level of parity.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:15:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Quote:
What we need to do is make warp-jamming non-stacking (obviously, warp core stabilizers become non-stacking too) and introduce an anti-webifying module.
The decision about how many stabilizers and jammers to outfit is part of coming up with a good pirate/anti-pirate strategy. Why simplify things?
In regards to anti-webifying module - MWD seems to be it. Webifyers might need to be tuned down a bit though, it seems like there should be some level of parity.
Give me a solution to freeing yourself from a flock of pirates all warp-jamming in concert then, smarty pants.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Hiro Protagonist
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:20:00 -
[42]
Quote:
Give me a solution to freeing yourself from a flock of pirates all warp-jamming in concert then, smarty pants.
Solution: Check your galactic before trying to go through that particular system.
P.S. Please keep your eyes off my pants. Not interested.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:22:00 -
[43]
I believe checking your route WAS mentioned in one of my previous posts.
I was asking for a module-based solution though.
As for your pants - did you get them cut-price from a Jovian?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Hiro Protagonist
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:26:00 -
[44]
Quote:
I believe checking your route WAS mentioned in one of my previous posts.
I was asking for a module-based solution though.
Ahh, that wasn't clear to me from your post.
I don't think there is a module-based solution. I think I disagree with the fundamental premise though - I don't think that a single ship should always have a way to get out of any situation.
Quote:
As for your pants - did you get them cut-price from a Jovian?
Hell yeah, there's a Jovian Salvation Army store in Venal, isn't there one in Stain? I'm not paying full price, the markup is too high because nobody has the BP.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:28:00 -
[45]
No Oxfam in Eve?
I'll have to shake a can outside of stations then.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Fusco T
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:36:00 -
[46]
This patch sux the big one. Nothing but a bunch of pirate love.
I hear one more pirate whine about how hard it is to lead the pirate life and I'm gonna puke smelly sardine intestine all over them.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:38:00 -
[47]
Well its all a bag o'crud. Firing back will prevent you jumping...even though the patch notes say: INITIATOR of combat. So ECM is also offensive (don't get me wrong, understandable in certain circumstances) but due to this "error"* you can't use ECM to blockade run, even if you are simply defending against being shot at.
I bet this is a***** up and CCP will issue a further patch to alter the game behaviour to match the patch notes: Initiator gets gate blocked only.
|
Freddy Krueger
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 20:40:00 -
[48]
What a load of *******s. Gate camping noncing bastard pirates have had it far too easy for far too long.
So, you get attacked approaching a gate, you lob off a couple of cruise & torpedoes in self defence & rush for gate. You reckon it is "correct" that the defender cannot then jump through gate, hogwash. It's bad enough that you cannot now activate AB nor MWD on way to gate, & have to wait untill "warp active" leaves screen. Do these noncing gate campers want it all their own way? It'll be fine I suppose when the majority of the player base decides enough is enough & cancels subscribtion, then the gate campers can waste their time camping a gate that no one is ever going to go through.
|
Eilora Wingshy
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 21:25:00 -
[49]
How come no-one looks at it from the other way? All I hear is either, "Just don't return fire!" and "Why can't I return fire!". Now for the sake of argument, I stand with the first, if your'e travelling from point A to point C, via point B, which happen to contain pirates, arnt't you still interested in going to point C? Wasn't that the reason you ever crossed point B? And now that there is a very unobtrusive way to achive this (that is, avoid being gatelocked), what makes it so hard to keep away from the guns?
But hey, let's look at it from the other side. What if only the initiator is gateblocked? So now you can safely return fire, then jump. All fine and well, -but- that is when we are talking about the standard venture like above (moving from point A to point C). Why do you think this happened in the first place? Was it so that pirates(P) that camp a gate was able to jump away at a moments notice when a strikeforce(SF) -aimed- for those pirates shows up. I believe it was.
Now what if this SF shows up, the P now have 2 options, fire and be gatelocked, jump and most likely get away. Here is where it get's interesting, if they do decide to attack, they still have the advantage of early locks, I they decide to jump, ok so they get away, but that's nothing new really.
Now they have only a very short time to decide which to go for, dally to long and their early lock advantage is gone should they decide to fight, while if some stay and fight while some bail, they pirates will be split in two and further weakned.
Now for my main point, what if the ones fired upon could bail at their leasure? Let's imagine this scenario, there are 4 P blocking a gate, a SF of 6 ships warp to the gate to take them out. Now the P have must in a matter of seconds decide if they can take on the new threat or not before loosing any advantage they have in a fight. So they see that they can probably take a BS, or two if they play their cards right. So they lock on to the chosen targets, and wait.
The SF locks as soon as possible, and unleashes hell upon the P, which in turn focuses all their fire on a single target. This target will most likely go down in flames rather quickly. And here's the twist, the P can still jump, at -anytime- they so choose to. When they are taking to heavy dmg, they can leave, without the SF is able to follow.
Now my friends, if anything is helping out the P, such a setup would be the one. If your'e gateblocked the second you use your guns, then finally a SF might be able to catch the P, if they can entice them to fight. But at least, it wont give the P the added immunity of not even being chased.
*Put's on asbest coat, raises flame shield, prepares watercannon and braces for impact*
--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are my own and not those of my corp
I don't suffer from insanity, I revel in it.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research. |
Arondos
|
Posted - 2003.08.14 22:15:00 -
[50]
From the patch notes. It doesn't say initiates combat...
"If you have recently initiated aggression against someone, then stargates and stations will refuse to allow you to jump and dock respectively. Once aggression has ceased between the two parties for approximately 60 seconds, usage will be allowed again."
Initiating aggression doesn't mean fire first. Returning fire would be an act of aggression and you can't jump.
You shoot me = act of aggression.
I shoot back = act of aggression.
I don't shoot back = no act of aggression.
Like it or not that's what the rules are. Basically I think the intent is to make it so if you choose to start a fight actually have to finish it.
Life isn't fair and neither is Eve. Get over it. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |