Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 18:30:00 -
[271] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem.
Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend.
Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2663
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 18:44:00 -
[272] - Quote
Hiply Rustic wrote:Malcanis wrote:On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem. Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend. Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario.
Actually Hiply, depending on where those carrots go.... Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 18:53:00 -
[273] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hiply Rustic wrote:Malcanis wrote:On a side note, I suggest you get used to doing this kind of analysis, because people who make the mistake you made are the exact reason that our RL politics are dominated by corrupt lying weasels. A politician who offers a 10% rise in wage levels at the cost of a 10 percentile rise in the level of taxation isn't as much your friend as the first part of the proposal makes it seem. Actually Malcanis, depending on where those tax dollars go he may indeed be my friend. Carrots>sticks when one is discussing attempted changes in behaviour in a place where no one has to be. And at the very least, the illusion of a carrot will always beat an obvious stick in that scenario. Actually Hiply, depending on where those carrots go....
Actually Mal...depending on who's on the receiving end...perhaps it should be cucumbers? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2664
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 18:58:00 -
[274] - Quote
It seems like we're verring off onto a WiS features tangent here. Possibly a lo-sec only one. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
427
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 00:04:00 -
[275] - Quote
*swoons* MARRY ME!
+1 I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 02:58:00 -
[276] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Well, I can read just fine and I agree that your fears of any place in New Eden being "PvP free" are completely unfounded.
Lets state the facts again - there is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP. Absolutely none whatsoever. Not in highsec, not anywhere. There is NO place in this game where you cannot PvP non-consensually.
The game is stacked to favor gankers. Even in highsec. Always has been.
I disagree, compared to other Sandbox MMOs built around player conflict EVE is very heavily slanted against non consensual PvP combat. In High Sec being killed by another player mostly comes down to ignorance of the game, reckless lack of awareness, or was consented to in one form or another. If you're paying attention the only real danger in High Sec is Suicide Gankers, which again under most circumstances you can avoid or prepare against, and the ganker will without fail have their ship also destroyed by CONCORD. In Sov Null the only real danger is traveling through Gates when you lack Intel..well if you're part of a big alliance and in home territory you probably don't lack for that Intel, everything else can be avoided
EVE does not favor combat PvP, anyone trying to make ISK from PvP will be very disappointed if they compare to what they could make with comparable effort and time from High Sec PvE. The fact that non consensual PvP exists at all in EVE largely comes down to the tenacity and creativeness of some of the player base. So, yes PvP can currently happen anywhere, but the likelihood of it doing so with an unwilling participant is still rather slim, and over the years has become ever more and more slim.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Also, for the record, I have not seen ONE proposal yet to EVER create an "immunity bubble" where players cannot be harmed against their will. If there is, please link and I'll stand corrected.
Nearly every thread complaining about "AFK cloaking" or "High Sec Incursion griefers" is a defacto call for PvP free PvE. But since you asked for an actual proposal here you go: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=27600
As to Sandbox, Risk vs Reward, and conflict... I've gone out of my way in my posts to state that Manufacturers and Traders are perfectly fine in High Sec. My last comment to Malcanis was to say that there doesn't need to be a bonus to production in lower security space, they're fine doing what they do in High Sec and I see no problem with that side of EVE. So, I'm not sure where you got the idea I wasn't?
In fact if you took out all the raw resources and non newbie PvE from High Sec I wouldn't mind seeing the part of the ridiculous proposal I linked where you couldn't activate offensive mods on another player be implemented there. However, where players bring resources and ISK into the game I believe should be subject to the real risk of unwanted PvP... and I don't just mean suicide ganks for tears or KB stats.
..That's how most Sandbox MMOs work, it's dangerous everywhere, but a few usually NPC controlled areas used mostly for trade and production, sometimes with an additional area for brand new players to learn the basics of the game unhindered.. Games that have separate PvP and PvE zones are Themeparks, EVE needs to move in the opposite direction of that by having all valuable PvE in areas where PvP can freely happen without having to resort to metagaming and shenanigans. |
Lucius Tal
Tal Holdings Limited
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 03:17:00 -
[277] - Quote
Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before - This thread is starting to take a full day to read
Adding to OP's proposal:
1) Mission rats should be similar to WH rats to encourage mission ships to be fitted for PvP.
2) Local should be removed from 0.9 systems and lower so PvP players will have to scan to find targets in mission areas. Mission runners will be encouraged to mission in more "off the beaten track" areas to play the percentage game and hope that a PvP player doesnt end up in their system - similar to what most mission runners do in low sec except with local
Anyhow, just my 2 ISK worth |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2669
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 08:03:00 -
[278] - Quote
Lucius Tal wrote:Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before - This thread is starting to take a full day to read
Adding to OP's proposal:
1) Mission rats should be similar to WH rats to encourage mission ships to be fitted for PvP.
Lucius Tal wrote: 2) Local should be removed from 0.9 systems and lower so PvP players will have to scan to find targets in mission areas. Mission runners will be encouraged to mission in more "off the beaten track" areas to play the percentage game and hope that a PvP player doesnt end up in their system - similar to what most mission runners do in low sec except with local
Anyhow, just my 2 ISK worth
Whilst I'm not at all keen on the "instant omni intel" aspect of local, any discussion on removing it is on hold pending a reasonable replacement system as far as I am concerned. Plus I think local removal should start in 0.4 (or at best 0.5)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
174
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:10:00 -
[279] - Quote
@ Malcanis
This is a very informative topic here and your ideas are spot on. I wasn't able to push myself to read passed the third or fourth page but I read enough to get a general idea of what's going on.
Being that I am a season miner and I usually enjoy dwelling in 0.5 space (usually close to low-sec systems or in systems where ships have been destroyed), I would actually welcome the idea of replacing Concord with the faction navy coming in.
As it stands right now, mining in 0.5 space is not all that fun unless you willingly throw yourself into a system that has a statistically high number of ships destroyed in the last 24 hours. On top of that, the risk is disproportionate to the rewards one gains when mining there. Therefore, removing Concord and handing it over to the Faction Navy (which can be tanked, but not for long) would allow for a greater sense of danger when mining and usually I prefer that mining should have more risk to it when you progress lower along the sec status.
Other than the obvious drama plaguing corporations in Eve Online, the way high-sec is currently laid out is the main reason I decided to stay in a NPC corp. Doing away with the current system and implementing the gradiated sec system you proposed could actually encourage me to join a player-run corp again willing to take the plung into 0.5 and below.
Of course, I also like FloppyTheBanjoClown's suggestion of allowing dreadnaughts to enter into certain parts of high-sec to help deal with the large POS towers that belong to corps that are war decced. Those take forever to destroy and that is before the Strontium kick in. I would know as I have been to more than enough POS bashes before during my time in null-sec to see that if you don't have a dreadnaught by your side, bashing large POSes with a blob is a boring chore.
But to be fair for the carebears, dreadnaughts should be limited to at least no higher than 0.7 space and (as Floppy suggested) only fire when in seige mode. This way, weak corps with small POSes in 0.8 and higher won't have their medium-small towers popped instantly because of a dreadnaught, but still allow dread pilots to leave their footprint in high-sec. For once, I would like to pilot a dread and do orbital bombardments on a planet in 0.5. But that's just me. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2672
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:47:00 -
[280] - Quote
At the risk of sounding even more egotistical than I am, I urge you to read all of the thread - lots of people have come up with some really good stuff.
I'm kind of unsure about allowing dreads & carriers into hi-sec - there're good reasons to keep them out too. Maybe into 0.5s with restrictions, like drawing faction navy response if they go into siege mode/deploy fighters. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
174
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:52:00 -
[281] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:At the risk of sounding even more egotistical than I am, I urge you to read all of the thread - lots of people have come up with some really good stuff.
I'm kind of unsure about allowing dreads & carriers into hi-sec - there're good reasons to keep them out too. Maybe into 0.5s with restrictions, like drawing faction navy response if they go into siege mode/deploy fighters.
It was only a suggestion anyways. Besides, I didn't mention carriers as I felt they are too much to have anywhere in high-sec. Perhaps limiting dreads to 0.5 space is the better option instead of 0.7.
As for the rest of the thread, I'm trying my best. It's a really long thread after all.
EDITED |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 18:23:00 -
[282] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:The constant fear of warping to a belt because a bunch of 12-year olds with thrashers and an hour lesson from a Goon instructor are going to nuke your ship is NOT IMMERSIVE. Its annoying, and disruptive. He woke up to the sound of alarms going off. An unmarked minmatar destroyer had just appeared in his belt. Moments more, several more popped up on his scanner as he slammed the warp button. As his mining ship began to accelerate, the keening sound of yellow-boxes reverberated in his pod.
xxXSephiroth 420SSJXxx has started warp scrambling Innocent Miner
I think now people use the Gallente destroyer for ganking on new alts. Though it is of course true that nowadays ganking with better ships is necessary to kill tanked Hulks, Orcas and especially Freighters.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Theoretically, this already exists in 0.0 - an alliance could create a Jita with enough force and effort, potentially - but that would require a single, organized, powerful dictatorship, which doesn't foster player choice or player freedom. This situation sounds oddly familar. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
862
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 18:37:00 -
[283] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:He woke up to the sound of alarms going off. An unmarked minmatar destroyer had just appeared in his belt. Moments more, several more popped up on his scanner as he slammed the warp button. As his mining ship began to accelerate, the keening sound of yellow-boxes reverberated in his pod.
xxXSephiroth 420SSJXxx has started warp scrambling Innocent Miner
Hahaha, I enjoyed that. I'm sure the reason that most miners hated the ice interdiction is because they lacked appreciation for the exhilarating rush it can be to get caught in the midst of the pinnacle of EvE gameplay.
All miners need is the proper narrative framework, perhaps with a little more Goon fiction we can silence the complaints of empire citizens once and for all. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 18:50:00 -
[284] - Quote
The pinnacle of EVE is shooting big guns at big things that have massive hitpoints, timers and do not shoot back.
X for POS destruction.
Exhibit 1: Raiden propaganda video showing the amazing art of POS shooting. Highsec people will never get to siege their dreadnaught and shoot at enemy POSes for hours on end. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2678
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 18:53:00 -
[285] - Quote
I'm rather attached to shooting medium sized guns at things with moderate hit-points, if truth be known. T2 cruisers are the old man's interceptor; fast and agile enough to be fun to fly, durable enough to forgive the odd error or slightly slower reaction. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2678
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 18:55:00 -
[286] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:He woke up to the sound of alarms going off. An unmarked minmatar destroyer had just appeared in his belt. Moments more, several more popped up on his scanner as he slammed the warp button. As his mining ship began to accelerate, the keening sound of yellow-boxes reverberated in his pod.
xxXSephiroth 420SSJXxx has started warp scrambling Innocent Miner
Hahaha, I enjoyed that. I'm sure the reason that most miners hated the ice interdiction is because they lacked appreciation for the exhilarating rush it can be to get caught in the midst of the pinnacle of EvE gameplay. All miners need is the proper narrative framework, perhaps with a little more Goon fiction we can silence the complaints of empire citizens once and for all.
Honestly, I don't understand why people complain about Goons. A game with a player-driven narrative needs someone to step up and wear the black hat; cowboys'n'injuns is no fun if everyone's a cowboy and you have to persuade mom to be Cochise. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
862
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 19:06:00 -
[287] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:. A game with a player-driven narrative needs someone to step up and wear the black hat; cowboys'n'injuns is no fun if everyone's a cowboy and you have to persuade mom to be Cochise.
I agree, and The Mittani certainly has done a great job and casting himself as the man in the black hat. The one the steps on screen and gets equal parts cheers and boo's. He loves it, is good at it, and I don't see him retiring that role any time soon!
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
161
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 19:48:00 -
[288] - Quote
two ways to make high sec bears happy...
re do the missions system (after so many years one can do angel extravaganza/worlds collide so many times...)
two. redo the war dec system... integrate it with contracts... and enhance the hell out of it... alot of players are "casual" and would love the ability to pew pew but more like a wild west duel at dawn...
pvp in eve is usually a waiting game to which requires loads of free time to invest too... most of it is align to this warp to that for hours to finally come to a fight that is exhilarating and rewarding but lasts not long enough for the time investment so people will tend to drift away after years of doing so...
having a more casual approach to pvp by enhancing the war dec system by integrating it into the contract system would allow for casual players to get thier teeth wet... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2700
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 20:09:00 -
[289] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:two ways to make high sec bears happy...
re do the missions system (after so many years one can do angel extravaganza/worlds collide so many times...)
two. redo the war dec system... integrate it with contracts... and enhance the hell out of it... alot of players are "casual" and would love the ability to pew pew but more like a wild west duel at dawn...
pvp in eve is usually a waiting game to which requires loads of free time to invest too... most of it is align to this warp to that for hours to finally come to a fight that is exhilarating and rewarding but lasts not long enough for the time investment so people will tend to drift away after years of doing so...
having a more casual approach to pvp by enhancing the war dec system by integrating it into the contract system would allow for casual players to get thier teeth wet...
It's all too easy to say "enhance" the war dec system, but the devil is in the details. Enhance how, exactly? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
161
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 20:31:00 -
[290] - Quote
well if you look at the war dec system... its i dec you we are at war for a week... and thats pretty much it.. (as long as i have money to war dec you thats it)
what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system
i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets...
example...
contact pvp 1v1 time limit 5 hours max kills 4 isk needed to accept contract 10 million ship size limit tech I frigs... system: jita
i would then put up this contract and when someone accepts it the time limit would start we would get a our own chat comms and we could engage in pvp once we undock (or the time limit starts when the undock happens)
the contracted pvp would usurp rights of engagement like if you are in a fleet... so a gang member cant just join in the fray with out getting concorded...
what i would like is a the dirty word "dueling" system but not arena based just enhanced wardecs on the contract system... i know lots of people who would get back into eve if there was such an option to have casual pvp... |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
64
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 20:58:00 -
[291] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system
i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets....
That's not an enhanced Wardec system, it's not a Wardec system at all! I'm indifferent to whether CCP adds a dueling contract system as you suggest, but it would be an epic leap backwards to replace Wardecs with anything remotely like this. Wardecs must be free from the need of consent of both parties.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
161
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 21:15:00 -
[292] - Quote
Xorv wrote:MeBiatch wrote: what i am looking for is more of a mutual war dec system
i would like it so i can put up a pvp contract that has specifics like 1v1 or 5v5 or corp vrs corp and so on... time restraints are an open variable... ship types aswell.... also could be specific victory rules like... up to how many kills... there could be isk bets....
That's not an enhanced Wardec system, it's not a Wardec system at all! I'm indifferent to whether CCP adds a dueling contract system as you suggest, but it would be an epic leap backwards to replace Wardecs with anything remotely like this. Wardecs must be free from the need of consent of both parties.
sorry if i was not specific... i dont want the current war dec system to disapear... perhaps lack of better words made it seem soo...
i should have just cut to the chase and said dueling system... |
Shazzam Vokanavom
Hedion University Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 22:26:00 -
[293] - Quote
I support your High sec manifesto Malcanis.
Is it possible to link any proposed offical threads of interest that need voting support for?
(Might aswell follow the process) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2706
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 08:04:00 -
[294] - Quote
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:I support your High sec manifesto Malcanis.
Is it possible to link any proposed offical threads of interest that need voting support for?
(Might aswell follow the process)
The idea is to inspire a change of thinking so that you make the proposals.
(Or look at other people's proposals in a new perspective) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Shazzam Vokanavom
Hedion University Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 19:16:00 -
[295] - Quote
Nah I wouldnt waste my time currently under the current CSM co-ordination.
No point having view points collecting dust. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 13:54:00 -
[296] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:MaiLina KaTar wrote:Good ****, dude. Few things I kinda have my gripes with... Malcanis wrote:(5) "Carebears". These are players - often with significant assets and skills - who simply won't accept the risk of losing a ship to PvP at any price, regardless of other considerations. Economic, gameplay and game balance considerations are not of interest to them; the idea that other players can destroy their ship is revolting to them. The reality is: If losing a ship doesn't serve a purpose for the owner, you can't reasonably expect him to expose it to situations where such losses can and will occur "cause it's a pvp game". Obviously, the majority of players who invested billions in isk and weeks in playtime into their (PvE) rigs will not take the risk of potential pvp encounters if the projected profit isn't absurdly high. And their reasons are perfectly valid. Despite the general consensus on this forum, most players are not dumb. When the deck isn't stacked in their favour, they'll look for alternatives and rightly so. Whatever you change gameplay-wise will change not one iota here. Stripping the alternatives will accomplish nothing except lowering subcount. For example you have the industrial types, who are all too often labeled "carebear" out of sheer ignorance. They're in it for the isk only, and they'll do whatever it takes to prevent losing ships to pvp encounters. It's not fear, ignorance or some mental disorder, it's industrial players maximizing in their particular profession. They're doing it right. The "carebear" as you define it here needs not to be worried about. He doesn't exist beyond a few nutcases who aren't relevant either way. Malcanis wrote:One idea that occurred to me was: reintroduce level 5 missions to hi-sec, but make the mission deadspaces themselves lo-sec areas. This preserves the concept of level 5s only being available to those willing to risk PvP, but makes them easily accessible. We could also introduce 4/10 and 5/10 plexes which are nullsec within the deadspace. This would give the casual players a chance to experience the high-end PvE available, and also enjoy a little bit of thrilling danger. This is a great concept. However, it'll remove even more players from the low-/nullsec areas since highsec becomes even more attractive. Another serious problem is the fact that in areas with high population density you'd be absolutely stupid to fly PvE encounters where you know you'll have a very high chance of dying to PvP fitted raiders. Best case, there would be little to incentive to play these things in highsec for the average player. The pvp-addicted minority might welcome the change, but in the great scheme of things not much would change except less people in lowsec. Note that a hi-sec level 5 agent would necessarily pay rather less than one based in lo-sec - this is significant when the rewards for L5s are primarily the LP. The risk side of the equation is complex; the high sec system will have more people in it, but fewer of them will be actively looking to attack you. It's also worth noting that anyone aggressing someone in a lo-sec deadspace is stuck inside that deadspace until their GCC clears. That might lead to some extremely interesting gameplay possibilities, with pirates hunting mission runners being stuck inside a fixed area for 15 minutes. It would also answer the long-standing desire by mission runners to be able to shoot savlagers taking "their" salvage. Personally, I don't think you'll find all that many 0.0 players giving up the chance to run 8/10 and 10/10s in a quiet bit of 0.0 for the opportunity to do 5/10s in a busy hi-sec area.
No mission runner is going to take their pimped out mission ship into a GÇ£PvP enabledGÇ¥ deadspace pocket for any reward short of GÇ£full ship and fit replacementGÇ¥ levels. My reason for saying that is that mission running as a whole has a terrible flaw. The AI used by all mission rats is ancient, basic and dumb. The rats all shoot the same damage types, never switch targets, and never run away. The only challenge to mission runners is the sheer weight of fire they have to tank. For this reason mission ships have terrible fits with no point, no eccm and huge holes in their resistances. Also, if a PvPer shows up the rats will not switch aggro so the mission runner will have to continue to tank the rat dps whilst also dealing with whatever the PvPer is doing. That is never going to end well (for the mission runner).
I think that mission running as a whole needs some love. The game already has 2 AIGÇÖs that are far better than the one currently used by mission rats. Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically letGÇÖs have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on. Mission runners will fit their ships accordingly (i.e. omnitanks, point, eccm etc) and the PvPers and mission runners will be competing on a level playing field.
Obviously this is a huge change in terms of work required, because every single mission would need to be re-balanced, but I think it is overdue. I have never understood why it is necessary to use a ridiculously gimped fit to mission run effectively.
As for the comment about hi-sec L5 agents paying less than low-sec ones due to relative risks GÇô you have that the wrong way round. Whilst in the deadspace pocket the risk is exactly the same in either location, but the player in low-sec has the added safety margin of being able to assume anyone in local is a definite threat, whereas the high-sec player will have a crowded local with no way of telling who are potential aggressors and who are not. This means that it is actually safer in low-sec.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2721
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 14:21:00 -
[297] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: No mission runner is going to take their pimped out mission ship into a GÇ£PvP enabledGÇ¥ deadspace pocket for any reward short of GÇ£full ship and fit replacementGÇ¥ levels.
I suggest you read a little further into the thread. Mission runners do take their pimped out mission ships into PvP enabled deadspace pockets all the time, for rewards somewhat greater than hi-sec Level 4s, but only incrementally so. I know this is true because I am in fact one of them, and I have made a good deal of ISK at it.
My mission Tengu isn't all that pimped (Around 1.6B, including the hull, at a rough estimate, but it would take many more than a single mission to replace it. Nevertheless, I have found it very worthwhile to mission even while sharing a system with a very competent, very hostile alliance (Darkside).
Anyway, read on on the discussion some more and consider some of the refinements that we discussed - and remember that the key principle is that if you think lo-sec deadspace L5s would be too dangerous for your liking, you can choose another level of risk that suits you better. Personally, I think that you're reflexively over-estimating the danger without fully analyzing the situation. After all, people do missions in lo-sec and in 0.0 already. It's not intended that you would never lose a ship, but I think that it would be more than possible to keep losses sufficiently infrequent that it would still be worthwhile. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 21:14:00 -
[298] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:[...]Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically letGÇÖs have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on.[...]
NPCs in Known space missions belong to Empire and Pirate Factions, they should not switch targets randomly, they should act as players would. If I'm in space being shot at by Malcanis and then Imyrn shows up and starts shooting at Malcanis, I don't switch from shooting Malcanis to Imyrn, that would be stupid. All that's not even counting standings...
If I'm shooting Angel NPCs and some pilot with positive standing to Angels shows up and starts shooting me, what craziness would motivate those NPCs to start shooting at an ally helping them rather than the enemy blowing them up for bounties? Doesn't make sense. NPCs shouldn't even aggress players with very high standing that don't take any aggressive action against them.
|
Dzajic
63
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 08:58:00 -
[299] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:[...]Get rid of the existing AI and use either the sleeper or incursion AI for mission rats. Specifically letGÇÖs have mission rats that use multiple damage types, switch targets as new targets appear, warp off if they are primaried, switch fire to vulnerable opponents, and so on.[...]
NPCs in Known space missions belong to Empire and Pirate Factions, they should not switch targets randomly, they should act as players would. If I'm in space being shot at by Malcanis and then Imyrn shows up and starts shooting at Malcanis, I don't switch from shooting Malcanis to Imyrn, that would be stupid. All that's not even counting standings... If I'm shooting Angel NPCs and some pilot with positive standing to Angels shows up and starts shooting me, what craziness would motivate those NPCs to start shooting at an ally helping them rather than the enemy blowing them up for bounties? Doesn't make sense. NPCs shouldn't even aggress players with very high standing that don't take any aggressive action against them.
And that beautiful suggestion takes current "pretty much a frig can kill a missioning BS if it catches it with full pocket agro" even further. I'm sure victims would enjoy such a change and would love doing missions in lolsec and null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2735
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 11:06:00 -
[300] - Quote
So let's say you're doing a L5 in a moderately active high sec mission hub with 60-70 other missioners. Assuming you haven't named your ship "L5 SHIP X-TYPE FIT", what's to make your ship look any different from any other standard level 4 ship to a prober?
Also, I'm inferring that you've chsen to ignore or skip the part of the discussion where I suggested that hi-sec level 5 missions be awarded by all level 4 agents?
PS If you're flying a BS and you can't deal with a single frigate, then you should maybe ask for some advice on the Tactics forum. Hint: Neuts, Drones. Advanced Hint: ECM Drones. Super Double Advanced Hint: watch DSCAN for probes. Ultra-Hint 9000Gäó: Friends: have them. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |