| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
   |
Posted - 2013.09.21 12:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tool: "Hybrid Module" example: Hybrid Afterburner
Effect: Reduces effectiveness of all forms of warp disruption when multiple modules of the same type exist with-in a fleet.
Perks:
- 1-3 pilots receive no change ( Pirate gate camping not directly effected )
- Fleets who have at least 10 engaged in system, or within a proximity, will trigger residual bonus ( if modules go offline due to explosion or warpoff the fleet on grid will retain effect for a period)
- Less noob FC panic
- Small gangs are encouraged to take risks as cyno hot drops, fights off gates, and stations, would not spell certain doom.
- classic baiting and hiding small fleets in other systems would be replaced by combat ability.
- More fleet engagements
- More kills for everyone
- Less cost to do pvp per engagement
- Offering more opportunity for skilled pilots and commanders to succeed while continuing to punish the weak.
- Loses effectiveness once active engagements in system reaches 50 capsuleers allowing bubbles and points to retain traditional results.
Cost: increase module cost to around 10 mill; Other effects can apply such as increasing timer on gate usage and docking access, allowing winning side a chance to recapture survivors.
Cosmetic: Post Ad in captain quarters screen: illustrating higher module cost increases viability of teamwork ( aka newbies can feel better about doing small gangs + several other funny Ad possibilities).
I've listed multiple ideas in short list form. Reasoning/ more explanation -> concept development I can offer to defend how this can be introduced and how its effects are positive. Such as working out hard values ( requirements( who what when where how); costs analysis; useability). I also believe this can open doors for developers in new production trees and content encouragement.
Wormholes as an example could increase in use if materials from there are needed. A role play argument can be that these modules are tech 3, showing progression from themes in the incursion, inferno, and odyssey expansions. Tech 3 being said not only would give people happy tingles but can even justify a small 5m3 volume of the modules to allow for storage in cargo hold for swap-out situations... None the less we want more activity and i think this anti point mechanic is just the trick. |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Samurai Pizza Cats
3459
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 12:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
You forgot the basics:
1) problem
2) solution
. |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 13:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
"Basics" addressed |
Ludi Burek
Toilet Emergency
JIHADASQUAD
253
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 13:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Your solution is not compatible with your problem. |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Samurai Pizza Cats
3460
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 14:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
I don't think that problem exists.
. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
1496
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 14:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
No. All you'll accomplish is pushing even more fleets and small-medium gangs toward an alpha doctrine.
Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 14:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Domanique you are the first person to say something really meaningful. Thank you!
An alpha doctrine is something that already exists and has counters and weaknesses. Notice how sniper fleets are phased out throughout. My presented concept is limited to the size of the parties involved. If i cyno in 10 battleships on your cruiser fleet, your fleet just can leave. if i cyno in 10 tornado, im still dealing with factors that a cruiser fleet can address.
I mention cruiser for the same reason ccp gives them so much attention and flexibility. However if you are talking about small gangs of BC fitting for alpha i have to ask why is this not already exploited?
I can only offer the view of what i see on the western side of eve. if there exist lowsec and null spaces where several small alliances are fighting bigger ones and getting kills daily please let me know. As for most people i know, we have to roam with caution and avoid fights if we only have 10 or 12 people.... "only" 10 or 12 meaning gate camping is the best pvp we can get i think is something that can be fixed.
The concept needs adjustment and frankly im not in the know of what limitations the devs have to code for something like 'on grid fleet bonus'. |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 14:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Also, if someone posting does think small gang fleets do not have a problem with being "blobbed" AND if you never seen a equal size fleet run away just so they could get more numbers then commenting is likely not something that person is qualified for.
If they have seen these things and are confuses or believe i am unclear, then I have to apologize for not putting the concept more simpler.  |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Samurai Pizza Cats
3460
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sounds like you are flying in the wrong space for small gang pvp.
. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
1500
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 16:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Roime wrote:Sounds like you are flying in the wrong space for small gang pvp.
Pretty much this.
More numbers is always a force modifier, and everyone in their right mind will always try to bring more people than you if they can. If everyone consistently brings more people and effectively blobs you, then you're in the wrong part of town for what you're doing.
Also, OP, alpha fleets are not confined to the traditional sniper setups and ranges. You can drop a load of 720mm Ruptures on someone at 18k and start mopping the floor with them; the same can be scaled down into the realm of arty Thrashers, Talwars, and Corms, or up into rail Feroxes or arty Canes. In many instances a point on the target isn't even needed. You simply blap them before they can align and warp anyway.
The final issue I see with your plan is that you have yet to define what constitutes a 'fleet' for the purpose of reducing the effectiveness of these modules. If it's what's in your fleet window, you can be guaranteed that every tackle group is in a 'fleet' by itself that includes no more than the number necessary to avoid the penalty, or isn't even fleeted at all. Everyone else will be fleeted up separately, and won't care.
Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 17:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
First of all this is a general issue not a personal one. I make maybe the most compelling argument at the end of this. Feel free to choose to ignore room for improvement and if anyone does no see a problem with how things are then its pretty easy to remove yourself from the discussion, because i am asking for constructive feedback.
No where in this concept does it say any side is limited on the numbers they can bring to a fight... I specifically said a change would only occure after say 10 or more that are in a bubble for example. Your load of ruptures sounds more like gate camping and getting a few victims, which in no way do i see anything wrong with that. Still it overlooks what i was talking about... A fight is going to play out with or without points being on.... um thats exactly what i agree with.
As for Domanique's final issue, it is not a penalty placed others. What i stated was that the fleet gets a bonus ( i avoided saying boost), but essentially it works as introdiction nullifying boost. I also stated the boost is removed once so many ( say 50 ) players are tagged as having been engaged in combat in the system. This individual player tagging already exists thanks to the rules of aggression patch and like incursions so does triggers based on fleet size. THUS splitting into smaller fleets will not be a means to exploit it and it will not hurt the way "large" (easily over 50) fleet fights work.
And because it seems i have to say it; a fleet is those people you see in your fleet window. Meet the req, get the boost, same goes for everyone us and you guess it, if the maximum is 50 then thats a maximum of 5 fleets containing 10 people engaged in the fight AND no cause it seems i need to say it the fleet size does not matter nor the number of people in system so yes this means you can have 100s of scouts in fleet who do not engage. If that fleet is being tackled by 1 person they must all be engaged and on grid for that tackle ship to fail to land a point. OR it could be added that the effect only triggers with those conditions but also a certain number of outside engagers must attack the fleet purhaps to where the minimum would be that to which both sides get the boost or none do. Keep in mind the game now tracks who engages who and has a timer for limited engagement or duels, so my idea would be an extension of that information/ tool. Recall here i have implied that in 1 case a lone tackle ship would lose its own point if it engages a fleet of 10 people ( possibly excluding the scram effect on microwarpdrives) and the other case withholding any effect till the fleet is engaged by another of a certain size. In most cases the difference here would not matter cause the people with the larger number would win anyway.
Again this should do nothing to harm a much larger force from butt stomping a smaller one. Unless it was a hot drop of under the system maximum that cancels the anti introduction for everyone. Yes this would mean that titan and blackop bridges would need to be over 40 people to make things completely as they always have been. This is where we can talk about % chance to warp distrupt and where i ask people to offer ideas on how to balance it out. It is a concept so it can change like so that all the limitations are a formula of what is on grid and excluding what is in system. This realistically depends on what the devs more willing to program and so i'm trying to consider that.
Any ship that leaves grid should also lose the anti-introdiction boost. where they are then fair game as ever before unless the teamwork, that this idea helps slightly to encourage, succeeds and they warp together to the same location thereby possibly reactivating the boost if they meet the minimum. Which as i said, would not instantly remove the anti introdiction boost from those who remain on the field should your fleet size go from 10 to 9. And this boost would only remain after the fleet has gone down below the minimum for say 2 min putting the clock on the ships still attempting for kills, which easily can play in favor of either side. And if you cant figure out the effect will boost both sides that meet the simple list of conditions then now you should now that it does benefit any fleet meeting the minimum and whose grid ( maybe an additional for system) does not break the maximum.
A great FC could then take 12 people and engage 20 more freely. Superior numbers does not mean superior skill, but if those 12 could say kill the 20 and the FC knows it, but a scout for the fleet of 12 reports 10 more are coming and thus they would be stuck in a fight they would lose. OR if the fleet of 20 realizes they are losing and are then meet with another 10 from the side who had 12 the result is that both FC's would foresee this and neither side would want to fight. That is a situation that presents the problem of hesitation to engage, not just for the side that had fewer numbers to begin with, but with both sides. Now i'll take it a bit deeper. Both sides have scouts and both sides report more ships coming. With my idea it would make it so that this can still result in a engagement because both sides know that if the other brings too much, then it can result in a disengagement ironically encouraging an engagement. This also should encourage fleets to be the size of this minimum! All part of my intention for this mechanic, because it not only adds some safty so you can get more noobs to supply you numbers, but also should increase fights. So that boths sides do not have to fear the other of adding numbers in a way that is totally unavoidable after a fight has started.
Again a 25 v 25 would be the max i proposed for the effect or 15v10v25. It will not effect 3 v 10 or 3 v 15... those 3 hopefully die in fire! It would work on 15 v 30 and thus YES alpha can wipe the floor so have good scouts and FC, but fight! |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 18:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Again I ALSO believe this should be a unique module not a static mechanic. It is one of the rewards for older player and those who continuiously play to use EVE's mighty learning curve to their advantage. And I believe if people are unwilling to use new technology and take the time to work with others then they have no right to be on the same level as others who commit to teamwork and deserve to die horribly and remained docked up till they figure it out. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
1501
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 18:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
I'm not going to quote your entire text.
The idea is purposeless. I don't say that because "HURR I HATE CHANGE," but because it is.
First you propose that a small group gains a bonus for being a small group, but the bonus goes away it too many people are fighting in system. You are aware that more than two opposed groups can be in a system, correct? So my small gang should be punished on one end of the system because someone else is running a 30 man gate camp on the other, and we're all combat flagged, for very different engagements?
Secondarily, if friends come to help, they come to help. **** happens, and when it does, it's usually bad. If your FC has made no plans whatsoever to attempt to extract the group if for some reason things turn bad, then he is a bad FC. This is why you bring force multipliers like damps and ECM; it's not just to tone down the other side, but can be instrumental in trying to clear the field if others start to interfere.
Finally, getting your ass stomped is the dice roll in EVE. Are you sure you can take that 20 man gang with your 12 man gang? If you are, then you take the fight and have fun. Sometimes you take the fight anyway, even if you're not sure. If all you ever do is sit around and wait to fight until the odds are in your favor, mechanically or otherwise, then you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of sitting.
Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3264
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 18:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
So to decrease "risk aversion" in PvP you created a module that allows for more "risk adverse" behavior (see: the ability to disengage when the odds are not stacked in your favor)?
I don't get it.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Takari
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
204
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 19:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
I want to be sure I understand what you're saying.
You are proposing that smaller fleets be given bonuses to get away if they see a blob incoming because:
"Hey we don't want to fight a blob we should be allowed to leave if we want."
Is this correct?
This is a slippery slope that leads to miners being unattackable in high-sec. You can' t give someone an option to avoid combat they don't want and not expect it to be given to others in more and more granular ways over time.
It's not that I believe "everything is fine the way it is" I just don't see how you believe you have a right to chose your battles.
"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things.
Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
Eternal Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 21:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
@ Domanique You are not reading what I wrote. From the start you ask me if I'm aware if more than one group can be in the system when i clearly gave several examples of more than 2 groups being involved in this mechanic =(. If you cannot read that much I can't help you figure it out.
@Shahfluffers your thinking of it with too much emotion. People don't engage when it is not stacked in their favor either. This is meant to make a two way street have two way traffic. It is not a simple thing to understand so i do not blame people for not getting it. If anything it makes things more difficult for those who are less prepared and less skilled. Think about how you would counter it, how it can generate false confidence. You'll always have those with something that is stacked in their favor, this is meant to make that more uncertain who it is. Titan bridging and for me black op drops are the best part of EVE, this change would not touch the 90% of how that is used and actually may introduce new ways.
@Takari No this is not about getting away from blobs people see coming. First and foremost its about increasing engagements. Look at the target breaker CCP already released... it is a similar line of thought. It is not about simply dps, it is about how fights progress and may occur. Im looking for compromises to move away from "ahh blob run away!". An idea could be to do other things entirely and maybe apply it to areas like lowsec. But for me i notice it more in null where the distance to travel offers several skipped opportunities for a fight, because of over-stacking in the favor of unknown. Yes its legit in my eyes to hot drop, but this is spaceships and future stuff.... there must be a way to fight back. Again this is to choose too battle at all in the first place, does NOTHING for 2 3 5 6 man fleets. You see a slippery slop to unattackable high-sec carebears.... WTF are you doing in highsec?! That is my response to that.
Too everyone, it may be better to think of it as a eve social problem that can be addressed with sophisticated mechanics. Take scamming for example. The game offers mechanics and basic knowledge and warnings that you can "avoid" ever falling for one. Here we have a problem were people whom, i've flown with over the years and keep discovering more, are unable to avoid. Lots of people are loyal and I cant fault them for that, so they will stick with corps and alliances that give them bad pvp, which gives me bad pvp with them and against them. To which is mostly bad because of the way things are allowed to be stacked preventing a good number of people from learning. I love seeing carebears and highsec pirates move to lowsec and null, but then they get stuck again... As far as how things are stacked, dont insult yourself by gambling i dont know it unbalanced or trying to suggest it is not a game guided by balanced rules. And ask yourself why is this spaceship game not allowed to introduce new technology to overcome technological issues? If anyone gets what i've said then prove your here with a purpose and that understanding by offering alternatives to the problem. You dont have to agree still in my 8 years i've read a lot of the same arguments by whats now more recognizable sorts of people, watched several get proven wrong, changed my opinion countless times, but never did i fail to come out ahead. So it just stands to reason as far as i can tell that this thread needs a extra smart dev to read it. Cause this is the most intellectual game in the world. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
283
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 22:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
When dealing with human nature it takes more than new modules or alterations to mechanics to effect real behavioural change.
Not supported.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3267
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 23:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vodiann wrote:@Shahfluffers your thinking of it with too much emotion. People don't engage when it is not stacked in their favor either. This is meant to make a two way street have two way traffic. It is not a simple thing to understand so i do not blame people for not getting it. If anything it makes things more difficult for those who are less prepared and less skilled. Think about how you would counter it, how it can generate false confidence. You'll always have those with something that is stacked in their favor, this is meant to make that more uncertain who it is. Titan bridging and for me black op drops are the best part of EVE, this change would not touch the 90% of how that is used and actually may introduce new ways.
It's not an emotional thing.
I see things from a low-sec, Faction Warfare perspective (which mostly involved small-gang and solo engagements).
From what I understand of your idea, your module gives a people the ability to get out after committing to a battle and/or avoid committing in the first place without making trade-offs to the ship fitting.
In fact, this actually makes things easier for people who are less prepared and less skilled to survive (not a bad thing, but also not good) as, again, they don't have the make hard choices (ex. use a MWD or AB) and/or stick to tactics they prepared for beforehand.
If anything... without the ability to force people to commit to a fight (and/or reliably catch them) you actually encourage blobbing and gank type fights as the only surefire way to assure victory through destruction is to bring enough people to make escape impossible.
And I disagree with regards to Blop-dropping and Titan jump bridging. They're fun things to do, sure... but not the best part of EVE. Small-scale brawling, solo combat, and using meta-gaming (intel and "I know what you think I'm thinking of doing") against hostiles are some of the things I have enjoyed most in EVE.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
1511
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 03:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
OP, your posts make it seem that you know little to nothing about small gang PvP. Given that this is the case, why is it that you feel the need to introduce changes to small gang PvP? There are already strategies and ships in place that will allow a good FC, with some luck, to disengage most of his force from a fight gone wrong. As Shah has reiterated multiple times, allowing people to more easily disengage from a bad fight simply encourages even more risk-averse behaviour.
Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
78
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 06:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
I don't really see the problem as being a problem. If anything it makes it less likely people will engage in battles. Why fight someone if you know they can just get away? If anything it would negate the reason for disruptor and scrams altogether.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
984
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 06:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
I agree with the last three posts and I'll add in the issue of Malcanis' Law:
Quote:Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
What is to stop the larger fleet from fitting these types of modules and benefiting even more? The older players also have better skills for fitting (Weapons Upgrades 5, Advanced Weapons Upgrades 6, along with other support skills). Thus you could have an entire fleet of 256 people with these hybrid modules.
So, not supported.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy
The ROC
943
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 06:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
So... you think that there will be more pvp, if you make it easier to run away from a fight...?
What?
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 04:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
Well more people shown they struggle with the cause and effect. Or lack understand to apply to what was said. CCP already is releasing a crude version of what i was proposing it seems =(. So each person who suggested it was pointless.... take a look at the next expansion and lick my nu#*@. 
As I got to thinking I realized what if cynos had something that decreased sig radius of all ships in the immediate area of it being lit. Exponential decrease in change would occur with respect to ship size. Take a carrier or Jump frieghter would have no sig radius change so a cyno drop can result in instant capture and frig to cruiser having a massive sig radius change where targeting time is so long that they may escape ( JUST near the cyno ). Someone suggested the cyno distruption being something that placed the cyno 150km away from target spot. That would be called constructive thinking unlike the rest of you.
Again if you fail to understand and think faction warfare lowsec is how it is everywhere else then do not post any response. I think faction warfare lowsec is great and just fine, but im not going to go through and name off every region where things seem fine, nor am i going to go through and try and provide context of the issue to those that announce they are clueless.
@kaarous The idea was simple this. It is an enhanced version of why you cannot use a stargate once you engage. Thought that was just some random game mechanic? Provides a fleet a place to escape if the fight doesnt look fair.... and guess what it isnt a perfect escape mechanic... nor is what im trying to talk about despite people being stupid and reading it that way. If a fight is known to be reliably-even, then people will be willing to lose ships. Even if anyone could run away at any time fleets will want to push it. If two fleets are unable to kill anyone and either just runs away.... who cares. Not going to let carebears dictate a good mechanic change for better pvp for pvpers. It is all in the the secondary effect that is the the target effect. That AGAIN being to get a fight more likely to happen. My ideas on small fleets being able to get free of traditional traps is the same line of thought that the devs are aiming for. And it is the right one.
I want people to weigh the roles of cynos,bubbles, and points effects and reason counters that is better than a 100% jam. Think about ship class dynamics. If more advanced methods of counter-interdiction / counter blobing are not put in then crude ones will be!
LOOK at the expansion, where they are offering small gangs the ability to take on bigger groups. If you refuse to see im making valid points you'll be making a mistake. You will be ignoring this expansion having any valid uses. YES FCs need to research, bait, and plan. If you can't assume I get that and seeing into the real point then your being a noob. Pointing out baiting is legit, however baiting is not everyone's ideal and it will be removed as the most common option over time. "Front line Wars" will increasingly ( dec or not ) become more popular exercised.
Again look at what this next expansion deals with and still try and tell me my focus on improving small gangs is invalid... go on say i didnt call it  |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 04:55:00 -
[24] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I agree with the last three posts and I'll add in the issue of Malcanis' Law: Quote:Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. What is to stop the larger fleet from fitting these types of modules and benefiting even more? The older players also have better skills for fitting (Weapons Upgrades 5, Advanced Weapons Upgrades 6, along with other support skills). Thus you could have an entire fleet of 256 people with these hybrid modules. So, not supported.
More experienced players or very talented players are suppose to have an advantage. This is meant to enhance that not benefit new players.
You, and the person you quoted, did not read what i posted. cause i already answered your question several times over. Originally in a summery outline... sigh... the reason 256 people couldnt take advatnage of thise hybrid modules is cause it is limited to small gangs and a limited number of them in the same system. Where i over and over and over stated no more than 50 total people. read mo betta |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 05:00:00 -
[25] - Quote
Samillian wrote:When dealing with human nature it takes more than new modules or alterations to mechanics to effect real behavioural change.
Not supported.
Totally untrue. The game mechanics have 100% control over what humans are able to do in the game. Evaluating it and predicting it is real... cant see that?.... okay. |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 05:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lord Battlestar wrote:I don't really see the problem as being a problem. If anything it makes it less likely people will engage in battles. Why fight someone if you know they can just get away? If anything it would negate the reason for disruptor and scrams altogether.
Maybe because this is a pvp game and not all of us would run away just because we can..... maybe some of us would gladly die to get one more hit in to cause ships to exploid!!! Even if there wasn't warp disruptors. IF you would run away from every fight then your not a real pvper. Are you all trying to suggest that there isnt enough real pvpers? thereby helping my arguement. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
1101
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 05:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
Vodiann wrote:Lord Battlestar wrote:I don't really see the problem as being a problem. If anything it makes it less likely people will engage in battles. Why fight someone if you know they can just get away? If anything it would negate the reason for disruptor and scrams altogether. Maybe because this is a pvp game and not all of us would run away just because we can..... maybe some of us would gladly die to get one more hit in to cause ships to exploid!!! Even if there wasn't warp disruptors. IF you would run away from every fight then your not a real pvper. Are you all trying to suggest that there isnt enough real pvpers? thereby helping my arguement.
That is some pretty weak tea. You are appealing to some sort of space e-honor for a valid objection to your proposal.
Still not supported.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Vodiann
Department of Defence
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 16:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
"That is some pretty weak tea. You are appealing to some sort of space e-honor for a valid objection to your proposal."
You said i am appealing for a valid objection to my proposal. I made it clear that I am looking for supporting evidence and what I'm getting is complaining. You may have misspoke, but ill go ahead and tell you that no honor is necessary in my argument.
Its a fact that real pvpers like ship explosions and are willing to go out and make that happen. That is what i said. Where you see honor seems like your reading ability is 'some pretty weak tea'.
Your opinion was asked not be made in that manner, as drawn out pretty clearly, so if you keep making such remarks I may or may not take the time to explain how your poor position is reflected by your complete lack of reference toward specific game mechanics . I'll restate that for your sake; talk about specific game mechanics here. If you are upset and are unsure what i may mean by mechanics, bring it up elsewhere. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
1103
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 18:06:00 -
[29] - Quote
Vodiann wrote:"That is some pretty weak tea. You are appealing to some sort of space e-honor for a valid objection to your proposal."
You said i am appealing for a valid objection to my proposal. I made it clear that I am looking for supporting evidence and what I'm getting is complaining. You may have misspoke, but ill go ahead and tell you that no honor is necessary in my argument.
Its a fact that real pvpers like ship explosions and are willing to go out and make that happen. That is what i said. Where you see honor seems like your reading ability is 'some pretty weak tea'.
Your opinion was asked not be made in that manner, as drawn out pretty clearly, so if you keep making such remarks I may or may not take the time to explain how your poor position is reflected by your complete lack of reference toward specific game mechanics . I'll restate that for your sake; talk about specific game mechanics here. If you are upset and are unsure what i may mean by mechanics, bring it up elsewhere.
Sure PvPers like to PvP, that is a truism, and tells us very little. It is not a fact though that because of the truism that PvPers like to PvP that they'll engage in fights willy nilly. They will evaluate their chances and may decide not to engage if the odds are too much against them. So where you see hesitation, I see it as assessing the tactical situation and then deciding on the correct course of action.
For example, if an FC takes a fleet out to do somethingGäó and on the way back a cyno goes up as they are landing on a gate the FC may initially order the fleet to align out in preperation to warp off. But then the FC notes that the fleet landing on grid is a kitchen sink fleet and likely a mish-mash of shield and armor--i.e. the logistics will be a mess...if they even have any. The FC realizing he has a superior logistics capability then orders his fleet to anchor up and starts calling primaries. But then the hostile fleet, despite being bubbled warp off. Ahhh the one ship they did kill shows one of these hybrid modules. This happens a few more times. Evenutally the FC actually has his guys first hold on the gate till the hostile start shooting, then jump through the gate and keep on heading for home. Why engage a bunch of guys you know you can't hold down?
So yeah, the mish-mash fleet might be more inclined to fight, but then the other FC decides not to engage as its a waste of time.
So your claims of more fleet engagements and more kills is dubious, IMO. How can I kill somebody if they can simply run away if they are starting to lose?
Still not supported.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Guardian Ryu
Guardian Ipseity
Omega Vector
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 03:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Vodiann wrote:"That is some pretty weak tea. You are appealing to some sort of space e-honor for a valid objection to your proposal."
You said i am appealing for a valid objection to my proposal. I made it clear that I am looking for supporting evidence and what I'm getting is complaining. You may have misspoke, but ill go ahead and tell you that no honor is necessary in my argument.
Its a fact that real pvpers like ship explosions and are willing to go out and make that happen. That is what i said. Where you see honor seems like your reading ability is 'some pretty weak tea'.
Your opinion was asked not be made in that manner, as drawn out pretty clearly, so if you keep making such remarks I may or may not take the time to explain how your poor position is reflected by your complete lack of reference toward specific game mechanics . I'll restate that for your sake; talk about specific game mechanics here. If you are upset and are unsure what i may mean by mechanics, bring it up elsewhere. Sure PvPers like to PvP, that is a truism, and tells us very little. It is not a fact though that because of the truism that PvPers like to PvP that they'll engage in fights willy nilly. They will evaluate their chances and may decide not to engage if the odds are too much against them. So where you see hesitation, I see it as assessing the tactical situation and then deciding on the correct course of action. For example, if an FC takes a fleet out to do somethingGäó and on the way back a cyno goes up as they are landing on a gate the FC may initially order the fleet to align out in preperation to warp off. But then the FC notes that the fleet landing on grid is a kitchen sink fleet and likely a mish-mash of shield and armor--i.e. the logistics will be a mess...if they even have any. The FC realizing he has a superior logistics capability then orders his fleet to anchor up and starts calling primaries. But then the hostile fleet, despite being bubbled warp off. Ahhh the one ship they did kill shows one of these hybrid modules. This happens a few more times. Evenutally the FC actually has his guys first hold on the gate till the hostile start shooting, then jump through the gate and keep on heading for home. Why engage a bunch of guys you know you can't hold down? So yeah, the mish-mash fleet might be more inclined to fight, but then the other FC decides not to engage as its a waste of time. So your claims of more fleet engagements and more kills is dubious, IMO. How can I kill somebody if they can simply run away if they are starting to lose? Still not supported.
Neither of you seem to have been keeping up with all things EVE. I must say though that at least the original poster isn't putting words in other people's mouth. The last poster i quoted asks how can he kill someone if they can simple run away, how about making it so that if the fleet with the hybrid afterburners engages they are stuck unless a cyno is lite right near them, there by activating its ability for a "run away". WHEW i nearly died thinking of that.
I agree that Vodiann's idea isn't sound as it stands, however he at least is on the right train of thought with what ccp is wanting to do. While the rest of you nay sayers just describe fleets you've witnessed. Get over it because engagements will have new sets of conditions and EVE combat will change... if the player community doesn't want to help guide it then so be it. That's cool you all think you're the best FC's out there. Isn't Vodiann so lucky to get all this FC advice that has nothing to do with what he was talking about.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |