| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
15
   |
Posted - 2014.05.18 05:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
It makes you wonder with how hard CCP are making it to actually kill anything, particularly in small gangs whether this it is a deliberate business strategy as we all know the bears provide most of the subs.
Its become way too hard for solo and small gang roamers to get kills, and we all know how this module will largely be used.... as a means of escape or for positioning....such as through an acceleration gate and 100km off the beacon where it takes considerable time to be caught.
This progression towards PVP being consensual is worrying, and personally makes me wonder whether the effort is worth it anymore. It has become too time consuming and frustrating for too little reward to keep bothering with. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
16
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The argument focused on small gang and solo is more persuasive in this case, although the idea that this module will somehow kill all kiting gameplay is fairly silly. There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release..
The thing is every expansion seems to bring a new way of avoiding combat and risk. Bugger all development goes into increasing danger and risk to the game especially in small gang/solo situations. I would give you the ceptor changes but even that has been largely offset by so many people using them as a near invulnerable, very cheap, taxi service to travel from one place to another. By increasing survivability in so many ships you've made it so there is hardly any realistic targets for small gang pvpers, particularly in 0.0.
I agree that BC's needed a buff, but this isn't the right one, personally I think a large part of the problem is that cruisers are too fast, I don't think it makes much sense that cruisers are faster than destroyers for example. You could even have provided the BC's with a new unique role of their own, maybe a new tackle related one.
And just because the original plan for MJD's wasn't for them to be unique to battleships doesn't mean that feedback and results shouldn't affect how you develop (or not develop!) them further. There is a lot of people who believe that the reasons MJD's have been on the whole successful is because they're unique to battleships, and that they allow them to compensate for vulnerabilities.
Just please stop calling giving players more opportunites to escape/avoid combat, while rarely increasing risk 'development'. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote: I guess you designed it mainly as a "get away card" for the DST.
It's a 'get away card' for both. Soloers are going to be left having to just accept they can't kill them in many cases, it's a pretty crappy choice being forced to dive on a target which often means getting blobbed and dying or having to watch it mjd away.
I mean a lot is being made of the fitting requirements for them, but you can swing that argument right around and talk about the requirements for roaming then. It's not like you've got endless amounts of mids to go for a long and short point, so do you select a disrupter which can't hold down much at all anymore or go with a scram where you not only have to be pretty welpy to catch anything but in most scenarios the target is going to start further than 9km away and more than likely just watch them warp off. And this is in an era where there is so few legit targets anyway.
I guess we're just all expected to play consensual blobs online 2014. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Annedalda Dixenme wrote:I feel like maybe some of the people in the thread aren't ACTUALLY familiar with how MJD work. I wish to help.
"It is just a git out of jail free card." "People will just be uncatchable." "I don't want to have to fit my ship for anything but gate camping, so this ruins the entire balance of the game!"
If you fall into these groups I think I might be able to ease some of your worries. First is that it take 12 seconds for them to take off. If you can't catch them in 12 seconds when there is no way you could catch them before the leave a bubble now. Lets look at the math. Lets say you have a tackle in your gang who travels at 3k/s. They would have to be more than 45km away to escape the scram. Lets look at it another way. On the UniWiki they have the Drake's align time at 12.2sec, so if you have a scram fit there is no noticeable difference. Sure the long point isn't guaranteeing you that care-bear kill anymore, but hey we need to get better anyway.
Have you ever actually small ganged yourself? Because your attempt at being patronising is just showing your ignorance and lack of experience on the subject. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Annedalda Dixenme wrote:Use numbers. They help. Trying to insult someone when you cannot refute an argument doesn't help anybody.
Edit: No point in arguing with stupid.
Use realistic application, it helps. I'm sorry but getting your nose bent out of place after trying to patronise everyone whos concerns you don't understand is funny.
Your logic was/is completely flawed on the basis that your suggesting the only thing that matters is whether or not you can scramble somebody.
Anybody with real experience on the subject knows how much more to the discussion there is than that. Such as your argument only applies if you have a dedicated tackler, which many genuine small gangs don't, and obviously soloers definately don't. Or secondly you're assuming it's a :highfive: moment getting into scramble range, which for agile ships trying to avoid getting ganked in hostile territory, it usually isn't. Or how about a situation where your stretching a fight and the frigate you've decided to yolo after the BC has to minimize his transversal and head straight back into the hostiles friends to tackle? GL with that.
Of course.....those aren't elements interpreted very effectively on a calculator. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 22:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Annedalda Dixenme wrote:Bionic Wolf wrote:Annedalda Dixenme wrote:Use numbers. They help. Trying to insult someone when you cannot refute an argument doesn't help anybody.
Edit: No point in arguing with stupid. Use realistic application, it helps. I'm sorry but getting your nose bent out of place after trying to patronise everyone whos concerns you don't understand is funny. Your logic was/is completely flawed on the basis that your suggesting the only thing that matters is whether or not you can scramble somebody. Anybody with real experience on the subject knows how much more to the discussion there is than that. Such as your argument only applies if you have a dedicated tackler, which many genuine small gangs don't, and obviously soloers definately don't. Or secondly you're assuming it's a :highfive: moment getting into scramble range, which for agile ships trying to avoid getting ganked in hostile territory, it usually isn't. Or how about a situation where your stretching a fight and the frigate you've decided to yolo after the BC has to minimize his transversal and head straight back into the hostiles friends to tackle? GL with that. Of course.....those aren't elements interpreted very effectively on a calculator. The point is that the ideas of the MMJD being completely overpowered or not having a counter are ridiculous. As are the arguments that new mods need to be in place to counter them. The numbers are to back that claim up. That is how you make and discuss arguments. With facts. What matters if you are trying to get someone tackled if they have a MJD? Why a scram matters. That is the counter, so of course it is important. Same as a MWD. If you can't deal with either of those then you really need to work on your strategies. Sometimes people will be fit in a way that outclasses you or at least doesn't give you a free loot pinata. You will have to deal with that. Don't expect CCP to keep a stale boring meta so that you can feel like a 1337 solo PVPer.
Lol you're right there is no point arguing with stupid. Let me know when you're done playing calculators online and actually get a grasp how things work in reality. I mean lol at your suggestion that the solution is some kind of charge manouver.
Could we grab a cynabal and fit a scram and go barrelling into targets? Sure. Is it a good idea? Obviously not (although possibly to you based on the arguments you've made so far.)
Forcing everybody to use scrams instead of disrupters which the proposed change is on the verge at least of doing is destroying a major engagement strategy, and your suggestion that having everyone brawl is the opposite of a stale boring meta is ridiculous. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Annedalda Dixenme wrote:These are some of the saddest misinterpretations I have ever seen.  .
Pot meet kettle |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Viceorvirtue wrote:a 50km jump would ultimately give pilots more options than a 100km jump.
I'm completely against the idea of the module altogether, but, I agree with the above, if it is intended to have combat application as opposed to simply a gtfo module then a 50km range makes much more sense. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 02:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
If Ishtars are typically at 70-80km, how do they tackle? Most kiting systems would struggle much worse against a 50km jump... the brawler could jump straight into where the kiter is heading and would have far more chance of landing tackle before the kiter counter pilots away. It would also allow a kiter who is paying enough attention a more realistic opportunity to burn roughly where the target is going to land. Which is why I said I think it has more combat application than the 100km one which the majority of time is just used as a way to avoid dying. |
Bionic Wolf
Drunk Till Dawn
21
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 03:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Maraner wrote:Bionic Wolf wrote:If Ishtars are typically at 70-80km, how do they tackle? Most kiting systems would struggle much worse against a 50km jump... the brawler could jump straight into where the kiter is heading and would have far more chance of landing tackle before the kiter counter pilots away. It would also allow a kiter who is paying enough attention a more realistic opportunity to burn roughly where the target is going to land. Which is why I said I think it has more combat application than the 100km one which the majority of time is just used as a way to avoid dying. They have other ships with them for the long range point. Arazu / lach or proteus... that or factions points with links. That or your all bubbled in. The point I was making is about how things are now rather than post patch. Personally I can't wait to boosh myself either towards or away from Ishtars as needed. Again I suspect your motives for arguing against 100km MJD are not completely honest. Like I suggested maybe there should be variants. - that or you could set the range of your MJD.
I'm not going to repeat myself and bore others because I've already posted in detail my thoughts on the subject, but I am curious what you think my hidden agenda is? I've been banging on the effect to solo and small gang and all of a sudden I'm covertly trying to defend the medium sized gangs meta?...... OK....... 
I assure you for how I play an Ishtar sitting at 80km is largely pointless. |
| |
|