| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marte
   |
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:11:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Marte on 22/09/2003 18:21:50
Just want to address some problems regarding combat between palyers. There is an issue that engaging in combat regrdless the reason is a war, pirating, or headhunters is near imposible if the other player don't want to fight.
The current problem about combat is that it is near impossible to be engage on it.
1.Lack of places to engage in combat:
When a player is traveling from gate to gate or to a station there is no time to apply any strategy. They warp in to the gate and stations so close, from less than 10Km to 20Km, that most of times that they are jumping or docking in less the 3 to 5 seconds. If your target takes form 8 to 12 second, you will never be able to lock them to webfier or warp jam them to avoid at least that they run away.
So there is really no need for modules like warp stabilization, MWD or others cause no-one really needs them.
2. The other side of the gate... I don't understand why people complain about the drones deployed on the other side of the gate since you will need around 8 ships with 8 drones or more to start making some lag... and if you are using your auto pilot you will be warping out before they can lock you on the other side.
3. The penalty time to start targeting a ship when you just jump in a location (please add to this time the time you need before a lock is establish) is so long that there is no way you can do before they go away. No risk involves and no need of the modules to avoid combat
Observations:
I agree that if a player do not wants to fight they should be able to avid confrontation, but this shouldn't be a fixed option as it is with the current game system. If they want to avoid confrontation they should always carry modules in their ship like a warp stabilizer, a micro warp drive or some sort of electronic warfare devise.
1st. I know that traveling big distance and warping away 30 Km form the gate and stations is a pain in the neck, but that is the way it should always be if you really want this game to be about strategy and interaction. So I think this should be a most all the timeą minimum 30km away form each gate or station and this should be form any direction you are coming from.
2nd. When jumping to a gate and you are in autopilot your ship should wait 10 second minimum to start your next warp to the next location and any ship in there should be able to lock you before you do so. This will make things more balanceą so there is risk involve but you also can avoid it if you use the proper modulesą
When you post your comments, take into account that this post is to try to balance this, and not to give advantage to pirates, they canĘt do this in a station or gate with sentry guns in secure space at this moment, but is to make things more balance when your corp is in a war and when your travel in no secure spaceą For those who donĘt like confrontation please try to think about balancing the game and not to make your life easy as pie.
Comments?
|
great white
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:18:00 -
[2]
when i first heard about eve the thing that excited me the most was the player vs player aspect.but it seems the developers are doing all they can to keep pvp action to a bare minimum...carebears invading turning game into a hugfest....
|
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:29:00 -
[3]
When autopilot was first introduced, there was a delay, less than 10 seconds I think, before it warped to the next place after entering a system. Carebears whined, CCP pleased the carebears.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Nomaar
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:36:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Nomaar on 22/09/2003 17:37:18
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that what you're asking for is CCP to make gate-camping easier. How is that balance? Gate camping is cheesy to begin with, mostly consisting of waiting for sitting ducks to wander by so you can blast them to hell in seconds. This is what you call "strategy?" If this is your sole strategy for finding your pray, you ain't no pirate.
If its challenging pvp you are looking, go search the asteroid fields. CCP says they will be introducing tracking mechanisms in the near future, along with devices to defend against them. That should go a long way toward addressing the issue of more PvP opportunities.
|
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:37:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Marte on 22/09/2003 17:39:42
I think that if pirates want to be heard, giving names like carebears is not going to help us fix this unbalance interaction. I am not a pirate but my corp is at war with another corp and combat should be fair. We have been spending so much time with so many different strategies trying to have some interaction in player vs player combat with frustrating results that even in secure space with no need to worry about sentry guns, stations firing back or police coming (because when you are at war you can attack with no problem) that is impossible to do so if the other player just want to go away... And this is a clear valid point that shows that this is unbalance...
|
Replicant Amara
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:48:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Replicant Amara on 22/09/2003 17:49:23
 Quote:
Edited by: Nomaar on 22/09/2003 17:37:18
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that what you're asking for is CCP to make gate-camping easier. How is that balance? Gate camping is cheesy to begin with, mostly consisting of waiting for sitting ducks to wander by so you can blast them to hell in seconds. This is what you call "strategy?" If this is your sole strategy for finding your pray, you ain't no pirate.
If its challenging pvp you are looking, go search the asteroid fields. CCP says they will be introducing tracking mechanisms in the near future, along with devices to defend against them. That should go a long way toward addressing the issue of more PvP opportunities.
I think is not making gate camping easier, but the current set up have make pirates take so drastic methods (exploit) to be able to have a chance to get into combat that (exploit) is the only way to do it, and makes it deadly. If there where other ways to engage combat they will not waist there times looking for exploits to try to do so.
And if there is a gate camping in non secure space, since is in nonsecure ("Dangerous place to be") it should be very dangerous to try to pass it, and you should need to look for a way to go around... As a example if you are in a dangerous street and in the cornere ther are 5 guys with machine guns... are you just going try to outrun them?
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:57:00 -
[7]
Simple fix is to allow for the warpengines to not be failsafe, that just once in a good while they fail to send you to warp and you'll have to stick around for some 30-60 seconds to try again.
Convert Stations
|
Alexia Te'Len
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:58:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Simple fix is to allow for the warpengines to not be failsafe, that just once in a good while they fail to send you to warp and you'll have to stick around for some 30-60 seconds to try again.
Would that apply to combat situations only? Or all situations?
Can picture that being a right pain in the arse for couriers....
|
Replicant Amara
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:01:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Replicant Amara on 22/09/2003 18:04:35
Why donĘt add an option when you want to warp to a station or gate that aloud you to pick up how far from gate you want to warp in? like orbits it will give you 3 optionsö warp in 30 Km, 50 Km and 70 Km awayą so you can warp away enough to see who is in there but you cant warp close enough to just jump instantlyą. I think this will give both side a balance option and is not that difficult to do (I guess) you can set it for 30Km all the time if you trave long distance...
REgarding to courier mission... is a pain to warp 30 away form the gate... but warping 20 km or less will leave no place to interact and just make this game almost a solo gaming experience...
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:02:00 -
[10]
Marte, why does your solution include a nerf to travel?
99% of the time there is nobody to avoid. So we should nerf travel everywhere just so that you get a couple extra seconds of lock time?
How about a module that shuts down a gate or increases the warp-in range. Something YOU have to fit to your ship.
This game is practically unplayable as it is because gate campers want it easy.
As I see it the Bookmark/folder/sort-by bug is intentional so that people start getting used to not using them. Probably why they haven't fixed it yet.
I do agree that we need more areas to engage people. A system wide nerf to travel is NOT the solution.
CCP needs to really sit down and have a round table so they can come up with solutions that provide something more than camp X area with X players for teh win.
|
Fetty Chico
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:08:00 -
[11]
Easy fix
Independce War 2 had it
need a way to stop warp
and then mined that kick anyone passing out of warp and KEEP them from restarting warp fo 30 sec
you can jump in..warp a bit towards a gate..drop the aint warp field mines..boom..ship is draged out of warp and you got a target
------------------------------------------------
Tell my tale to those who ask.
Tell it truly - the ill deeds, along with the good - and let me be judged accordingly.
If this world was supposed to be friendly
CCP wouldnt have wasted time paying the devs to code so many weapons |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:09:00 -
[12]
Quote:
Marte, why does your solution include a nerf to travel?
99% of the time there is nobody to avoid. So we should nerf travel everywhere just so that you get a couple extra seconds of lock time?
How about a module that shuts down a gate or increases the warp-in range. Something YOU have to fit to your ship.
This game is practically unplayable as it is because gate campers want it easy.
As I see it the Bookmark/folder/sort-by bug is intentional so that people start getting used to not using them. Probably why they haven't fixed it yet.
I do agree that we need more areas to engage people. A system wide nerf to travel is NOT the solution.
CCP needs to really sit down and have a round table so they can come up with solutions that provide something more than camp X area with X players for teh win.
I don't want to make traveling more painfull... but as much as I love when I warp 10KM away form the gate... I need to recognize that this should also be consider an exploit don't you think? And yes CCP needs to see how to address this... cause is giving people from both side a bad gaming experience...
|
Daesdemona
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:15:00 -
[13]
I think you should just warp 50km from any ship, oh wait, that still won't work, since UBER tachions can get up to 150km with various modules....
-----------------------------------------------
Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?"
Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't"
----------------------------------------------- |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:19:00 -
[14]
Quote:
I think you should just warp 50km from any ship, oh wait, that still won't work, since UBER tachions can get up to 150km with various modules....
I think that warping always at 50km away is to painfull for large trips... and Tychions been able to do that is another problem that looks to be approached in a different way from this issue...
|
Daesdemona
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:22:00 -
[15]
my hope is that static objects will give this game a lot more balance.
-----------------------------------------------
Bart: "Do you even have a job any more?"
Homer: "I think its obvious that I Don't"
----------------------------------------------- |
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 18:27:00 -
[16]
The failing warp could be put to depend on the security rating of people around you, forget about roleplaying this modification but pirates would wear their negatives with pride and stop whining about empire space if their negative status meant they scared the warpengines of pilots passing by into hickups.
This also would rid ourselves of some of the positively rated pirates out there as they would strive to achieve this tool of terror on the warpdrive.
Did I think this through for an hour before posting, hardly, am I still the genius with no off switch, likely.  
Convert Stations
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 19:31:00 -
[17]
The first post was a good post but the rest of the thread seems to concentrate on one issue only :(.
So lets try again.
Issue 1: players warp so close to gates and stations that they can jump or dock before their invulnerability timer runs out. (instadock and instajump)
There are several ways to do this, The most obvious one is to drop players out of warp at a normal distance from the gate: 30-40 km. If you don't like this you should fit a microwarp drive, i mean thats what its for isn't it?
issue 2 and 3: ships have a long invulnerability timer. They warp in, see who is there and activate warp before their invulnerability runs out. Added to that is the fact that you cannot target a ship that has an active warp drive, even if it has to turn around 180 degrees before it lines up and goes into warp.
Now what is the problem with issue 2 and 3? It makes warp stabiliser obsolete because you can warp out before they can lock on to you. You can activate your warp drive if they come too close, you can EXPLOIT the fact that your warp drive makes you invulnerable to warp scrambler if you start it soon enough.
These facts make it inpossible to initiate combat unless
1) both parties actually want to fight
or
2) one party lags the other side out so much that the invulnerability timer runs out and he can be scrambled.
Now i don't see any problem with ANYONE (pirate or non pirate fixing this) since these problems completely ruin both pirating as corporation wars alike.
So here are my personal suggestions:
1) remove the fact that you cannot lock someone when warp drive is active. That will give people the time to lock on and scramble someone if they still need to turn around to warp away. This will finally give people a reason to fit a warp stabilisor since they can't rely on the invulnerability (ecploit) to always get out.
2) warp in distances at least 30 km (with the option for the player to choose from 150, 100, 50, 30, -30, -50, -100, -150 <-- if you want to come out oon the other side of the gate :) ) This will give a lot more tactical options for people warping into battles. The 30 km is NOT much for someone with a microwarp drive.
|
Demangel
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 20:34:00 -
[18]
I've been beating this toic to death in one form or another for some time... I've wanted changes like this forever...
It's really tough to argue for these kinds of changes and win due to other problems in the game mechanics...
It wouldn't be such a big deal if players didn't have to regularly travel 10+ jumps or more to do anything.
But the plain fact remains, as the orriginal poster put it: Combat can't happen unless one of two things is true, Either both parties need to WANT to fight, or one side lags the hell out of the other.
Care bearish non agressive players would say: Good! You shouldn't have to fight if you don't want to! Nobody should be FORCED to fight!
While to them this sounds fair, because they might stay in 1.0 space most of the time or whatever... And might never **** anyone off to begin with (in game at least).
Lets examine THIS scenario...
You are at war with another corporation. You want to fight them so what do you do?
Unless you get lucky, and find out where they are mining and get the drop on them, you really only have 2 options, stargates and stations.
Now lets say I'm in a megathron, and your in a megathron and have a buddy in a maller. Chances are very good you will choose to stay around and fight me!
But lets say your in an industrial, and I'm in a thorax. You'd be a fool to try and stick around. so UNLESS I camp a gate with warpscramblers and webifiers, it's going to be realy hard to keep you in my sights long enough to even take a shot at you, let alone kill you.
Even with the webs and scramblers you can usualy get away before I can lock and activate them.
In my experiences in EVE I have yet to fight anyone I havn't "WANTED" to. even a gate camp is beatable (which is fine, except I know some people who can do it every time).
I have warped in with a few enemy corps ships flying around, my little target warning box pops up, and before I can do anything I'm already well on my way to the next gate... So even if they wanted to hit me, they couldn't and even if I wanted to hit them I couldn't.
Then only a fool would turn around at that point with the element of surprise lost.
I think of it this way.
EVE doesn't have an official PVP switch. But it has plenty of unofficial ones.
you need this module to keep a player around long enough to hurt him...
You need that module to slow him down.
You need to PVP only within about 20KM or the prey can always get away...
Once you escape there is no such thing as tracking you down, and of course, once there is, this will require *sigh* a module to do it...
So there is your damn PVP switch, you basically will need one of three or four modules for PVP to mean anything...
this is NOT PVP anymore... We might as well put in PVP zones and make PVP illegal and impossible in every other way just like in Everquest...
Of course thats when I quit EVE, but you get my drift... CCP Please do more to make combat and tactics balanced. I'm tired of the attacker "Having" to exploit to make it a remotely fair fight...
Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you
Demangel > Dude... I would call..
Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet.
Galaxion > Just a bit.
|
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 20:35:00 -
[19]
Dukath:
Thankyou.. I couldn't explain it better... And your solution are the best ones at the time...
Now how can we take this problem to the DRVs and hear their comment and how if this can be possible...?
|
MR RODGERS
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 11:56:00 -
[20]
Edited by: MR RODGERS on 23/09/2003 11:57:49
Only one problem with the invulnerability while warping is active Dukath is it doesn't work or never did. While stuck on a rock while in a warp phase meaning I had already hit my destination and was waiting for my thrusters to knock me off he rock and warp my marry way.
Well I was targeted while in a warp cycle and fired on by a Blackbird and for 3 minutes or so with me making rude comments about his lack of PvP skill as he should have killed me or at the very least maimed me as he never got me below 88% shields.
Back to topic there are plenty of PvP oppertuneties to PvP if you are below .4 in empire space. The only thing is you are going to have to chase down your prey and if this is a problem then find yourself another game.
|
EagleFour
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 12:03:00 -
[21]
Man some people have so little skill as to expect their target to be laid at their feet. Have you ever even considered that some people may actually enjoy the other aspects of the game as well and thus dont want to be a pawn for your amusement. Try working a little harder on catching your victim. No one in their right mind is gonna sit still while you destroy their possesions, not in eve or any other game.
JOBS - Got Moin?
|
Jernau Gurgeh
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 12:07:00 -
[22]
Quote:
How about a module that shuts down a gate or increases the warp-in range. Something YOU have to fit to your ship.
This game is practically unplayable as it is because gate campers want it easy.
As I see it the Bookmark/folder/sort-by bug is intentional so that people start getting used to not using them. Probably why they haven't fixed it yet.
I heard that there are plans to introduce an anchorable platform that does just that. Its designed to prevent pirates warping in close to mobile refineries etc.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Ange Noire
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 12:18:00 -
[23]
Quote:
Quote:
How about a module that shuts down a gate or increases the warp-in range. Something YOU have to fit to your ship.
This game is practically unplayable as it is because gate campers want it easy.
As I see it the Bookmark/folder/sort-by bug is intentional so that people start getting used to not using them. Probably why they haven't fixed it yet.
I heard that there are plans to introduce an anchorable platform that does just that. Its designed to prevent pirates warping in close to mobile refineries etc.
True, to avoid pirates to come and bookmark and then rejump with a huge force.
I've heard about Detress Beacon who warn the corp of an attack, and probably a lot more of passive defence systems beside the active like sentry guns
|
Soul Reaver
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 12:44:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Soul Reaver on 23/09/2003 12:53:53
Eagle Four
Quote:
Man some people have so little skill as to expect their target to be laid at their feet. Have you ever even considered that some people may actually enjoy the other aspects of the game as well and thus dont want to be a pawn for your amusement. Try working a little harder on catching your victim. No one in their right mind is gonna sit still while you destroy their possesions, not in eve or any other game.
Please could you meet me in game so you can teach me your skills :) I can gaurantee that no matter waht you do I will ALWAYS GET AWAY!! You can work as hard as you like and have all the skills in the games and I will still ALWAYS GET AWAY!! This topic is not about people sitting still! Its about balancing what was supposed to be PVP game in the first place. The orional poster is quite correct in that the area where you can engage anyone is woefully inadequate in size.
Be you a Pirate or a Simple Alt creeper! Sooner or later you'll dance with Soul Reaver and His Amazing Underpants
Currently chasing Lianhaun |
undercover
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 12:58:00 -
[25]
Edited by: undercover on 23/09/2003 13:03:26
Quote:
Marte, ......
CCP needs to really sit down and have a round table so they can come up with solutions that provide something more than camp X area with X players for teh win.
Isn't this what the CSM group was supposed to discuss?
add
EQ had several PvP only servers
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:28:00 -
[26]
From my experience of online games (MMRPGs or MUDs), you will have the largest base of satisfied customers (playing customers) if PK is under control and allows people that do not want to participate stand aside (for a cost usually).
There must be a way to avoid combat, at a reasonable cost, otherwise many players will feel griefed, they will quit and the player base will shrink. If this happens, everyone lose!
So, what is a reasonable cost?
* equipping a few modules?
or
* being trapped in empire space?
or
* training some skills?
etc
Nr. 2 is not a good option, people will want to be able to get a peek of 0.0 space without being instapodded.
A combination of Nr. 1 and Nr. 3 is reasonable.
Further, making it hard to get to the goodies in 0.0 space (bistot) without worrying of PC is a good option (that means some kind of tracking devices/evaders).
Conclusion
Do not restrict travel, i.e. do not make it easier to camp stations, gates and especially not jump-in points.
Do make it harder to be safe in roid fields by introducing trackers/evasive tools.
Do make pirates hunters instead of campers.
Do give the current war-system a major overhaul! Make special rules of engagement apply to wars. Not being able to flee mutual war engagements is not near the levels of griefing experienced when you are being trapped and outright executed by some camping "pirates".
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Elfman
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:39:00 -
[27]
Just a question. Why is it that all my experience in Eve so far of PvP has been so one sided to be almost completly a waste of time.
Answer - If in travelling mode the PvP is instantly in favour of the camper
If in NPC rat mode ditto.
Basically the only time that you may stand a chance is if you
a) Run for it
b) travel always in PvP setup (try doing that for a 50 jump run)
c) travel in a group of peeps all semi setup for travel/PvP
So far I have been podded several times due to the fact that PvP setups compared to non PvP setups means clone really quick.
There is no and I mean no chance that anyone not setup for PvP combat has any chance of beating off a attack or winning.
This is mainly why the Non gate camping peeps get peeved (and get called carebears). Now I am all for PvP where its skill involved but in eve where is the skill when unless you have a config setup just for PvP you have no option but run.
NPC hunting - config that can stand upto extended combat
Travel config - fast but limited damage
PvP - max damage in shortest time.
So far the longest PvP I have been in was 20 seconds in a thorax with both EM and thermal hardeners.
Only time been in PvP is when the instigator knows that there is absolutly no chance of loosing.
To me this is not PvP but PK
Sorry for the rant but I want PvP not PK
G
|
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:54:00 -
[28]
From my experience, things seem just about right, actually. If the person doesn't want to fight, they can do their best to avoid it, and have a pretty good chance of getting away safely when only one ship is hounding them. However if you have 3+ ships coming after them if they cannot reach a point in deadspace, they are gonna die very quickly.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
cball
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:54:00 -
[29]
Whine whine whine, just run to 0.0 space, hug a few griefers and get all the pvp you want.
I swear, morons think the game is only supposed to be about pvp, well pvp is only a part of the the game, and last time I looked, there was a lot of 0.0 space in which you could do the pvp thing....
Stop whining or stop playing
...fear the evil monkey in your hanger...
|
Wultan
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:58:00 -
[30]
You are so poor people. The only thing you know is Gate Camping. I am so sorrow with.
Wultan
|
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:01:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Arathmon on 23/09/2003 14:01:49
Quote:
You are so poor people. The only thing you know is Gate Camping. I am so sorrow with.
Wultan
Nah, we also camp jump-ins.
The reason? It's easy.
Quite honestly, I always have much more fun when we get a hunting party together to go mess up some deep-space mining operation or something by following the numbers on the map. However, this takes a good deal of planning and coordination, and the payoffs aren't as high. So, we often resort to camping where we know the players will be. Pirates have to pay the bills too.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:21:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Marte on 23/09/2003 14:37:39
Quote:
Man some people have so little skill as to expect their target to be laid at their feet. Have you ever even considered that some people may actually enjoy the other aspects of the game as well and thus dont want to be a pawn for your amusement. Try working a little harder on catching your victim. No one in their right mind is gonna sit still while you destroy their possesions, not in eve or any other game.
I am not saying that is impossible to catch somebody, and yes there is ways to hunt them downą but that only happens if you are a power player with more than 3M in skillsą your victim is under 2M in skillsą then you probably are hunting 1 guy with 4 peopleą And then let me know for every attempt to hunt someoneą (count every person that pass by you) what is your success rateą 1 every 10? Combat shouldn't only be for those powerplayers.. a noob should be able to engage combat with other noob if he wants and not have to wait 2 month to get decent skills and then go after new noobą If you say that is easyą please let us know what is your secretą tell me what is that you are doing that the rest is notą and donĘt give us theö find it for yourselföą cause I have been spending way to much time trying it with poor resulsą
|
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:34:00 -
[33]
There is a mix of two versions about this problem...
People complain about gate camping.... and those who said is impossible to engage in combat...
To help us out to go in middle ground:
Please tell us the following...
1.How many pirates have to be in a gate in order to be impossible of go jump with out been killed... (add if these are regular pirates or power players)
2. From all the times that there is pirates camping and count also the non power players.... how many times you successfully out run them? (I bet you can do that more times than actually been killed)
3. How many times have you been in 0.0 space with out a problem of gate camping... (again I bet the ratio is a lot higher with no incidents...)
If you use a common route... you should expect big pirates and it will be ok to stop doing it and find a new route that is not that popular...
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:35:00 -
[34]
Read Elfmans post, that is where a big chunk of the problem lies.
If you did not come looking for a fight, you will always lose. Not only setup-wise, also number-wise since there will not be one guy camping your jump-in point, there will be 3-8 of them...
Then you read post from campers that want more effective webbers/jammer, no sentries, no invulnerability timer etc. That is so much the wrong approach! We dont want to make it easier to execute peaceful travellers. That's not the solution to a more rewarding gaming experience.
CCP needs to promote more even fights, or making fight less fatal. You read that right. Consider what would happen if webbers and jammer were completely remove from tranq. People may actually take on more dangerous routes, stay and fight "for a while" to feel the opponent out etc. If you do not have to fear entrapment and execution you may not run on sight (which is pretty much what happens everywhere now unless you are really sure to have the upper hand). I think that would mean more fun for everyone and I think the PvP-poddings vs. PK-poddings ratio would increase! The absolute nr of poddings would perhaps go down initially, but in the long run the players adjust to the risks and the same number on non-cautious or over-confident players will be the ones that die... 
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:47:00 -
[35]
Quote:
Read Elfmans post, that is where a big chunk of the problem lies.
If you did not come looking for a fight, you will always lose. Not only setup-wise, also number-wise since there will not be one guy camping your jump-in point, there will be 3-8 of them...
Then you read post from campers that want more effective webbers/jammer, no sentries, no invulnerability timer etc. That is so much the wrong approach! We dont want to make it easier to execute peaceful travellers. That's not the solution to a more rewarding gaming experience.
CCP needs to promote more even fights, or making fight less fatal. You read that right. Consider what would happen if webbers and jammer were completely remove from tranq. People may actually take on more dangerous routes, stay and fight "for a while" to feel the opponent out etc. If you do not have to fear entrapment and execution you may not run on sight (which is pretty much what happens everywhere now unless you are really sure to have the upper hand). I think that would mean more fun for everyone and I think the PvP-poddings vs. PK-poddings ratio would increase! The absolute nr of poddings would perhaps go down initially, but in the long run the players adjust to the risks and the same number on non-cautious or over-confident players will be the ones that die...
You are talking like is there is only 4 systems in eve , and there is always 6 pirates camping there... f there is a group of power players camping in a area... move to other place... there is what? 2000 different systems? When I hear people complaining about these super pirates killing people... you go and look where they areą that is easy... and go to do your business to another place until they move...
This post is not about those specific places with specific super pirates that use exploits or are in numbers of 8... (you clearly identify them... there is 4 to 5 places "green dots" like and that is it) And that is why this thing that you complaint are happening because there is no way you can promote a more balance combat with 2 - 1 or 1 - 1, because that is impossible... so if you donĘt fix a better balance way to engage combat ... you can only expect more exploits of this class...
|
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 14:51:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Marte on 23/09/2003 14:54:10
Edited by: Marte on 23/09/2003 14:53:40
Quote:
If you do not have to fear entrapment and execution you may not run on sight (which is pretty much what happens everywhere now unless you are really sure to have the upper hand).
I am sorry but that is Bull S... That do not happens everywhere...That is only in 4 or 5 places, and don't give me that crap you can't avoid them... I have done it and the vast mayority do it to... If they are there is cause there is a good trade route there.. so stop that route and find a new one... There are to many places to go...
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:02:00 -
[37]
No I am not. But there's a reason why these hotspots are camped, because people need to go through there (ofcourse).
To underline my point. The normal EVE player will never want to lose his ship. Period. He will try to make precautions and will try to avoid being killed, regardless. Now, if engaging in combat means that you will most likely die, he will run for it, and run fast --> no combat takes place.
Solution. Make combat less fatal and the outcome less predictable. That is the only way to make PvP happen more frequently (independent from corp wars). Another part of it is to make camping less advantageous, and make tracking and attacking a better option. Then we may get some more dynamic PvP action...
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:06:00 -
[38]
I mean, from a pirates point of view, which is most fun?
1) To engage in 10 combats, 9 of them warp away badly damaged but you kill the 10:th.
or
2) To see 9 run like rabbits before you can target them but manage to target the 10:th and entrap and execute him.
2) saves some ammo, but 1) will make your evening much more fun.
Making it easier to kill peeps doesnt solve anything, the number of kills will be more or less constant. You will just see fewer player during your gaming session.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:08:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Marte on 23/09/2003 15:10:30
Quote:
No I am not. But there's a reason why these hotspots are camped, because people need to go through there (ofcourse).
Quote:
That is my point you don't need to go there... you go couse there is a bg reward of money for you... so you take your risk... You can change your route, YOU DONT NEED TO GO THERE... so this don't happen everywhere and these are especifics cases not the general.. Combat is imposible and you will alway be able to get away is not balance... unless you go to those 4 to 5 places in which in a unusuall way there are 8 pirates with exploits waiting for you... And they do that casue is the only way to engage in combat... So combat needs to be easier in order to avoid this kind of actions...
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:19:00 -
[40]
Your point being?
I was making a suggestion how to promote more PvP in favour of outright PK, which is just generally bad for the community as a whole.
PvP: Player versus Player fighting, gives interesting gameplay. Player fights on "equal terms". You may define equal terms a million times, but I hope you get my drift.
PK: Player Killing, does inevitably hurt the playerbase.
Exception: Corporate Wars. New good rules of engagement should be made for corporate wars. Here the main goal is to hurt the opponent, not to promote yourself to the same extent as normal gameplay should do (for the players sake!).
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:42:00 -
[41]
Quote:
Your point being?
I was making a suggestion how to promote more PvP in favour of outright PK, which is just generally bad for the community as a whole.
PvP: Player versus Player fighting, gives interesting gameplay. Player fights on "equal terms". You may define equal terms a million times, but I hope you get my drift.
PK: Player Killing, does inevitably hurt the playerbase.
Exception: Corporate Wars. New good rules of engagement should be made for corporate wars. Here the main goal is to hurt the opponent, not to promote yourself to the same extent as normal gameplay should do (for the players sake!).
I don't want to attack you , but my corp has been at war for the last 3 week and how many confrontations? 2 one with a shuttle that happen to not have able to use MWD and with 2 shots you can destry them ... then we speend so much time just trying to have a decent combat... but nothing cause the other party just decided that they want to fill a slot in our war corporation...
So combat is not balance
|
Sarkos
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:42:00 -
[42]
PvP combat has to be fair to all parties. Neither the campers nor the travelers should be at any disadvantage. So you need means of causing combat, and means of escaping it. Everyone is here to have fun. It's no fun for a traveler to jump or warp into a no win situation. Nor is it fun for a pirate player to always loose a target. The answer should be in the system security codes.
Empire space with security codes from 1.0 to 0.5 should always favor the traveler. Example: Defences at gates and spawn points, closer warp in to gates, ect. This would define the SAFER autopilot routes.
Empire space from 0.4 to 0.0 should be a danger. Less or no security at gates and spawn points. Longer distances from warp in to gate ect. A selection of SHORTEST route on the autopilot would include some of these.
Non Empire space, being all 0.0 should be the pirates playground. No defences anywhere. 30K plus warp in points to all gates. You want to travel here, then bring protection.
I also feel that bookmarks help help 'cheat' the system. I don't think you should be allowed to simply bookmark a location and always have it available. Items called Nav Beacons should be needed, and remain in the game until destroyed. Make them small and relatively inexpensive, but detectable and destroyable. IMHO, you should only be able to bookmark an object, whether a gate, station, planet or beacons. If your bookmark item is destroyed, you should loose that bookmark. However, since the item is owned, it's destruction would count as a hostile action. Thus starting the 60 second timer on docking or jumping.
Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
|
Marte
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:51:00 -
[43]
I like your approach thanks for the comment
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 15:54:00 -
[44]
Some loose suggestions about corporate wars.
* Introduce different degrees of war.
One-sided war-declaration (can be declared with 3 corps) gives a minor bonus.
Mutual war-declaration give major bonus to both sides.
Defensive stance, (can be declared with one corp) to cancel the one-sided war dec as a safety catch for war-dec abuse.
* bonuses could be
- preset target signatures: target locking is instant, webbers/jammers have double range, tracking computers have better effect
- no security hits/concord interference
Something like that? It would have to cover for alliances as well and be balanced out so that it's neither an advantage nor disadvantage to be in many small corps vs. one big alliance etc.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Dukath
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 16:01:00 -
[45]
Quote:
I mean, from a pirates point of view, which is most fun?
1) To engage in 10 combats, 9 of them warp away badly damaged but you kill the 10:th.
or
2) To see 9 run like rabbits before you can target them but manage to target the 10:th and entrap and execute him.
2) saves some ammo, but 1) will make your evening much more fun.
Making it easier to kill peeps doesnt solve anything, the number of kills will be more or less constant. You will just see fewer player during your gaming session.
But don't you see Needo, this is exactly what we are trying to change. We want option 1 but today only option 2 is possible. This is why we (all players who engage in combat, i am not a pirate)want these changes. Unless you are lagged out or simply AFK you can ALWAYS run away before someone can target you.
Yes, a player who is outfitted for pvp will win against a player who is outfited for travel, yes a player outfitted for pvp will most of the time win against a player outfitted for npc fighting. That is just as obvious as saying that a f1 car will win a race against a truck or a SUV.
On the other hand pvp players already need to outfit special modules to attack anoher player. If you do not want the opponent to flee you need at least a warp scrambler and a webifier. Usually you also need a sensor booster or 2 to lock on quickly before he can warp out. So you already lose 3 to 4 medslots just to make sure the other person cannot flee. (This is assuming that the proposed changes are added to the game) The 'defending' player has to fit ONE module. A warp core stabiliser or a MWD.
Currently the attacker needs to fit those 3 or 4 modules AND eitehr lag out the opponent or hope he is afk while the defending player has to fit nothing.
This isn't about making killing easier, this is about making killing without having to rely on lag POSSIBLE.
|
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 16:25:00 -
[46]
I am just saying that you are shooting yourself in the leg.
If you manage to get a lock and kill everyone that warps/jumps in, people will stop warping in. People will always try not to die. That is the one thing that will never change. Is that what you want? If you want to be able to lock everyone jumping in, you will need to remove webbers/jammers from the game, otherwise you shoot yourself in the leg.
Making it easier to kill someone jumping in is not the solution. I am saying that the dynamics of PvP combat has to change if you want more quality PvP action.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Needo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 16:55:00 -
[47]
I.e. more people need to want to engage in PvP.
Some suggestions of good reasons to enter PvP.
1) Corporate wars.
2) You think you will get some good action and the chance of being victorious.
Some bad reasons to enter PvP.
1) You think you are going to lose your ship.
So, to achieve this, one could:
1) Make corporate wars more interesting.
2) Reduce the chance of you losing your ship just because you participate.
3) Make the outcome less predictable, so that you think that you may win, even if you don't.
4) Increase the reward of winning.
5) Decrease the penalty of losing (this one is only partly true though, for psycological reasons one never want to lose, even if it doesnt hurt all that much...)
etc, etc...
I believe that making fighting more lethal will only shut down the PvP-parts of the game for many players that would otherwise participate more actively in the EVE universe.
I may be wrong, but this is my experience from MMRPGs, MUDs and online HTML games. Hope not everyone think I am nuts.
___________________________________________
You are never alone in schizophrenia.
___________________________________________ |
Arathmon
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 17:45:00 -
[48]
Aye, having harsh penalties for losing your ship/pod isn't good for the victims or the pirates.
---------------
I used to be in the FA. I like cookies. Eve Radio is teh pwn. |
Sarkos
|
Posted - 2003.09.24 14:35:00 -
[49]
Oracle and PIE agreed to enter into a corporate war for the fun of it. Before combat started, we set up a set Rules of Engagement that would lessen the chances of a ship loss as well as having no podding.
Ships are still lost though, and people still get podded, though on a much lesser degree. We fight this war for fun because that's why we are all here. Many of our battles have drawn much intrest in the EVE community, as 30+ ships on each side vie for a win. The battles are for corporate and racial pride more that sheer destruction. Forcing a side to 'stand down' is enough of a victory. We fight like heck and have a hell of a good time doing it.
I encourage more corps to do this sort of thing with friendly rivals. First, it adds content. Secondly, it's fun. Third, it gives PvP experience at a minimal learning cost.
Here are the simple RoE we use:
1) No podding by intent.
2) No Warp Disrupters.
3) No camping a Home system.
4) No chasing a fleeing ship.
Now, I know I will hear flames of being a carebear about these rules, but who cares. The fact is these fights have helped prepare our corp pilots for the the harsh world of real PvP.
Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |