Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anya Dyonas
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
The basic premise here will center around the idea that Supercarriers and Titans should not disappear when the pilot logs off.
Now, that you are angry and confused, hear me out on this.
Supers and Titans cannot dock, through the theory that 'they are too big to dock'. The intent of the game designers was that this vessel should always be in-play. It is so valuable, and so special, that you should have to work to keep it. However, this mechanic was easily bypassed by the creation of Log-off Alts. And, fair enough. I would do the same as a super capital pilot. Store your vessel in a place that is infinitely safe and secure forever. But, therein lies the problem. This is the complete opposite of the design intent. Rather than being the most vulnerable of vessels, they are the LEAST vulnerable of all vessels. They only EXIST when the pilot is reasonably certain of security and victory. Otherwise, they are hidden in oblivion, safe and secure forever.
The game has a POS module designed specifically for storing supers and titans. This was intended to give the pilots a real place to dump their supers when they are not in use, rather than relying on Log-off Alts. Obviously, this a far less secure way to store the vessel, so it's use has been extremely limited.
With the suggestion from the devs that 'all things should be destructible', then that surely includes stations built by players in Sov space. When those stations blow up, surely everything within them will also be permanently destroyed. It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an invincible and invisible location.
So, the solution is to have all supers and titans forever 'in-play'. That means they never disappear from space. You can store them in the previously mentioned POS module to keep they from prying eyes and in the safety of a POS RF timer, but logging off with them in-space will simply result in the vessel staying right there, in space, idle.
I know most super pilots will scream 'shinanigans' at this suggestion. Heck, you probably would never have trained or bought the vessel if you didn't know you could secure it via Log-off Alt when you don't want to play with it. And, that is a fair reaction. Such a change of game mechanic would definitely be pulling the rug out from under you. However, this should be the price of having a super capital ship. It should be a chore. It should be a burden. It is not a weapon. It is a SUPER weapon. Thus is should come with extra burden and responsibility to own.
Now, hear me out on the applications in alliance wars, and think of the impact it could have. Suddenly, you cannot just invade a region of null and have these giant armies of supers on a whim. You need to work out the logistics for front-line POS structures to house your army of supers. That army of supers is vulnerable AFTER the battle, when you would otherwise just log them off.
Your supers are always vulnerable, but so are your enemy's. That means if an ally back-stabs you, then you can hit them where it hurts later, getting proper revenge.
Having the supers always in-play will change the commitment and investment of attacking with supers, and the logistics of defending space that houses supers. It will raise questions like "Is it worth the burden to involve the supers in this fight/campaign?" It will push the consequences of people's actions in the game to a new level of possibilities, which is exactly the 'sand box environment' eve is based on. |
Teeva Nakisti
In Your Base Killin Your Doods
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1
This. The world must burn! |
Mos7Wan7ed
Hardcore Industries
37
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 06:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
I like the idea of always in play.
If this was ever to be viable, there needs to be a place that is slightly more secure then a POS that would keep the supers safe, but not forever safe. Some place that could be hell camped too would be interesting. Something linked to Sov level 5. Something less public then a capital ship hanger array too.
A kinda rough Idea what it could be... Some kind of personal mobile super capital maintenance array. The array is anchored for self and is invulnerable and protected under sov similar to I-Hubs. Requires a sov 5 system and the person that anchored it to be in that alliance. If the player or corp leaves the alliance or the sov drops then the array becomes vulnerable. Give it a single reinforced timer.
Outside of this improved cocoon of protection, supers are vulnerable while logged off.
This would change how supers are used in a very fundamental ways. I kinda like it.
The hate that this thread is going to generate will be epic and that is fun too. |
Daniella Moonstorm
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 07:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 for the idea, +1 for the flame war. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2769
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 07:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote: The hate that this thread is going to generate will be epic and that is fun too.
There won't be any hate.
People would simply never log supers off in space, and this change would be wasted. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today. |
Solutio Letum
Into the Ether Nulli Secunda
209
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 07:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
:P..... to hard to substain...
the only way to make this work is if the isk cost of having one is reduced to compensate maintaining it |
Renegade Dussault
Stability Significantly Disrupted
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 08:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
i bet you dont own a super or titan.. am i right? |
Markdl99
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 08:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
This is the most Terrible idea ive ever heard.
its like saving up in real life for a Ferrari and once u get 1 u leave it unlocked on a public parking lot.
People with super/titan spend months or maybe years training and saving up for a 130 billion isk ship and then u just stomp them to the ground and kill them without even able to defend themself ?
you prob came up to the idea of, hmm i want to kill some supercaps but i cant do this by myself. Hey i know lets propose they always in space so i can solo them over the night.
Supers and titan mechanics are balanced as it is. no need to nerf them even more.
|
ugh zug
97
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 08:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
*gets popcorn*
i agree with the op. Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post, 15 bil. Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 10:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Seems like decent idea. Lots of tears would follow though. |
|
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 11:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Markdl99 wrote:This is the most Terrible idea ive ever heard.
its like saving up in real life for a Ferrari and once u get 1 u leave it unlocked on a public parking lot.
People with super/titan spend months or maybe years training and saving up for a 130 billion isk ship and then u just stomp them to the ground and kill them without even able to defend themself ?
you prob came up to the idea of, hmm i want to kill some supercaps but i cant do this by myself. Hey i know lets propose they always in space so i can solo them over the night.
Supers and titan mechanics are balanced as it is. no need to nerf them even more.
maybe you need to take a deep breath and read the OP again!?
you can defend them, you can keep them in a POS but they will allways be visable so if a POS hold a lot of supers it might be attacked and the corp/alliance should be aware of this. i totaly agree on the OP it is too easy to log off a super or titan and keep it perfectly safe even if you loose all your space that is unrealistic.
so a +1 for me on the OP Carpe noctem |
Fayde Sinulf
Lonestar Distribution Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 11:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
I agree with this proposal. If the largest most powerful ships in the game can easily hide away then what risk is there attached to them? Everything should have risk, especially in war.
This would drive a new style of gameplay as someone mentioned with logistics (meaning moving people and gear, not repping in fights) and staging areas taking on a much greater importance while all the while hoping someone isnt watching you and keeping tabs on where you fleets are. Sov war would have a new "cat and mouse" dynamic with each side trying to find out where the supers were so they can attack them at the right moment. and if done correclty deliver a knock out blow.
Lets not forget thats what the Japanese tried at Pearl Harbour. Deliver a single blow to the US fleet to incapacitate them .
Fortune favours the bold so lets give people a chance to prove it. |
Gay Pornstar
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 11:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
So, what? Supers stay in space? Do you sell logoff alts? Because besides a buff to Intel this is pretty much the change. |
Shivanthar
Ace's and Eight's Brothers of Tangra
86
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 12:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1
Agreed. An intented action is never ment to be broken by any workaround that bypasses the intent. Point. Having trained for a super thing that has a workaround which strengthens its defense (of being invulnerable) unintentionally is no excuse. Those 130b. ships must be destroyed because, OP is providing the intented behavior. >xD Half the lies they tell about me aren't true. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 13:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Gay Pornstar wrote:So, what? Supers stay in space? Do you sell logoff alts? Because besides a buff to Intel this is pretty much the change.
i truly think you dont see the full picture here, if supers and titans stay in space people will use cloakies to scout for a POS with juicy "loot" read supers and titans, then attack that POS. ofc you can jump out the POS but you will need to make an effort to keep your stuff safe. this tactic can also be used to force someone to jump out titans out of a specific system to make bridging to another tactic location harder or even impossible. Carpe noctem |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
652
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 13:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
Anya Dyonas wrote: With the suggestion from the devs that 'all things should be destructible', then that surely includes stations built by players in Sov space. When those stations blow up, surely everything within them will also be permanently destroyed. It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an invincible and invisible location.
If your really that bothered about it you can always store anything valuable in a carrier or orca or similiar and log it off to (or use it to evac your stuff (station alt) once the station has switched hands and things have quietened down).
Main problem I see with this idea is that it plays right into the hands of whoever has the biggest force(s) and forces smaller entities to play the bigger entities' games.
|
Kristoff Merkas
Urkrathos Corp LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 13:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
This is an awful idea... Supers are already hard to keep; and often die in their excursions.
If you made Supers not be able to log off, random noobs in oracles would kill them in space! That is limiting people who have worked hard. I'll bet that the people supporting this have never even seen a Supercap; let alone consider flying one. They are already balanced ships; and albeit they are incredibly dangerous, to other caps; but they already cannot do many things except fight other caps!
So; before you propose these ideas, please, take a trip outside of Highsec, look at the current Nullsec environment, and by doing this you would notice that ALL small alliance supercaps would get murdered quite rapidly, thus eliminating any sense of defense that one of these alliances could have. Thus; encouraging the stagnation of the nullsec environment.
That's my 2 Cents. -Kristoff Merkas I am Loyal... Like a Dog. Give me a ship; give me food, and I'll stick by your side forever.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM FOREVER!!!! |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 13:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kristoff Merkas wrote:This is an awful idea... Supers are already hard to keep; and often die in their excursions.
we seem to have a different opinion on hard and often
Quote: If you made Supers not be able to log off, random noobs in oracles would kill them in space! That is limiting people who have worked hard. I'll bet that the people supporting this have never even seen a Supercap; let alone consider flying one. They are already balanced ships; and albeit they are incredibly dangerous, to other caps; but they already cannot do many things except fight other caps!
worked hard? you mean had the patience to train all the skills? random noobs would only kill them in space if you let them, or are you saying you can be outplayed by a noob? i have been in 0.0 for long time and seen a lot of supers and titans and i have an ALT that can fly all supers (some better then others) i even have all the capital skills and can use fighter bombers, in time i definitly want one, hell i even have a sitter toon.
[quote[ So; before you propose these ideas, please, take a trip outside of Highsec, look at the current Nullsec environment, and by doing this you would notice that ALL small alliance supercaps would get murdered quite rapidly, thus eliminating any sense of defense that one of these alliances could have. Thus; encouraging the stagnation of the nullsec environment.
That's my 2 Cents. -Kristoff Merkas[/quote]
not perse but i see your point. you can OFC hop from a POS in reinforced to another one that is not in reinforced, and no matter what you change the smaller groups have it always harder then the biggest blobs. Carpe noctem |
Axe Coldon
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 13:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations! _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 14:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
Axe Coldon wrote:I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations!
i would like a blowjob from Mila Kunis, but i don`t see either of that happening in the near future Carpe noctem |
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
458
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 15:17:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations! i would like a blowjob from Mila Kunis, but i don`t see either of that happening in the near future
You just are not wishing hard enough.
Perhaps supers will be able to dock when we get destructible stations. That way when you go away from the game for a month, you can lose absolutely EVERYTHING!
OP, your idea is bad because Eve is not real, it is a game. When I leave the game for a few hours or days, I should not have to worry that much about my stuff. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
148
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 15:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations! i would like a blowjob from Mila Kunis, but i don`t see either of that happening in the near future You just are not wishing hard enough. Perhaps supers will be able to dock when we get destructible stations. That way when you go away from the game for a month, you can lose absolutely EVERYTHING! OP, your idea is bad because Eve is not real, it is a game. When I leave the game for a few hours or days, I should not have to worry that much about my stuff.
The issue is that you're worrying about a small probability of something happening in a game, while you should be living. |
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 15:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
to bring the pos module back into play i would make the simple change that you can't log off in a super you must first park it up in said pos or you can simply leave your holding toon perma logged sitting inside the pos shields
i would also give all player built stations a station upgrade to add up to 4 docking gantry's each allowing 2 supers to dock so a total of 8 supers could dock at a station at any 1 time the supers wouldn't disappear from space but you would see them docked at the gantry |
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd. CODE.
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 16:16:00 -
[24] - Quote
Fayde Sinulf wrote:
Lets not forget thats what the Japanese tried at Pearl Harbour. Deliver a single blow to the US fleet to incapacitate them .
Fortune favours the bold so lets give people a chance to prove it.
And that attack at Pearl Harbour would have been the end of the pacific fleet, and would likely have ended the war against Japan before it even started.
This idea is interesting and has merit. Perhaps not precisely as imagined by the OP but I like the principle of having Supers always vulnerable (even if only a little vulnerable.) I also agree with the comment that there would have to be a way for the owners to be able to secure them from easy theft even while leaving them vulnerable to attack. Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever. SolidX > i'm an alt IRL Guilty conscience? Buy a mining permit today. www.minerbumping.com |
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd. CODE.
108
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 16:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
Emma Muutaras wrote:to bring the pos module back into play i would make the simple change that you can't log off in a super you must first park it up in said pos or you can simply leave your holding toon perma logged sitting inside the pos shields
i would also give all player built stations a station upgrade to add up to 4 docking gantry's each allowing 2 supers to dock so a total of 8 supers could dock at a station at any 1 time the supers wouldn't disappear from space but you would see them docked at the gantry
flying up to a station and seeing all the titans docked at it. My god that would be an awesome sight to behold. Love that idea. Especially once stations are destructible. :D
Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever. SolidX > i'm an alt IRL Guilty conscience? Buy a mining permit today. www.minerbumping.com |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
384
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 16:27:00 -
[26] - Quote
Markdl99 wrote:This is the most Terrible idea ive ever heard.
its like saving up in real life for a Ferrari and once u get 1 u leave it unlocked on a public parking lot.
so i guess once you get your Ferrari you leave it at the dealership surrounded by other Ferrari's and insured so just encase its stolen its covered? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1424
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 20:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
+15 for the idea, +2 for the tears. No exaggerations here.
The easy way to ease players into the new system would be to keep supers invisible until they log in for the first time after the change.
I'd like to see people be able to exit their supercapital ship. One change to make that possible would be to allow supers to be owned by a corporation, and for the ship to always be locked except to those who have authorized access, with corp directors who have the role able to force-eject a ppilot from a corp-owned super.
I think all capital ships should be locked when ejected in space, and should require a successful hacking attempt for an unauthorized pilot to board them. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 20:11:00 -
[28] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:+15 for the idea, +2 for the tears. No exaggerations here.
The easy way to ease players into the new system would be to keep supers invisible until they log in for the first time after the change.
I'd like to see people be able to exit their supercapital ship. One change to make that possible would be to allow supers to be owned by a corporation, and for the ship to always be locked except to those who have authorized access, with corp directors who have the role able to force-eject a ppilot from a corp-owned super.
I think all capital ships should be locked when ejected in space, and should require a successful hacking attempt for an unauthorized pilot to board them.
More stuff that can be stolen via one of the most vulnerable aspects of any technological device - it's physical electronics and software - is always good.
Hackers and Slicers were always one of my favorite roles to play in Tabletop Cyberpunk games. Eve has the potential to slake this void in my gaming soul but always falls short.
Hack the world. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1426
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 20:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Hack the world. Only ships with no pilot in them, of course. But yes, hack the world!! I can't wait for CCP to do a pirate phase in which, over several years, every other expansion focuses on adding more mechanics for theft, hacking, scamming, pirating, ransoming, station-killing, killing players who are in stations or ships, and other excellent things!
Sam Harris wrote:I don't think we've offended these people enough. I propose all supercapitals make a warp beacon wherever they are in space, at all times.
But more supportive of our super pilots, I'd like to see larger towers have longer reinforce timers. I think this should also go along with an increase in fuel costs. Large towers shouldn't be the norm, they should be what you use to have a high level of security. I'd like to see their fuel costs multiplied several times over but also give them a long reinforce timer (like over a week) and their guns should be capable of blapping any subcapital when focusing fire through player control of the starbase turrets. They should also have a tremendous fuel bay with attachable modules for additional fuel storage and automatic loading, allowing them to go without re-fueling for months at a time. And their bubble should be bigger. It should have room for a bunch of supers.
Small towers should be the meat of maintaining sovereignty and performing basic POS functions. They should be cheap and efficient, and have a greater HP and defenses than their share of the cost of maintaining them. And all of them should be capable of holding several months' supply of fuel. The logistics of re-fueling lots of POSes is a nightmare. You might say that big alliances need to make sacrifices for holding sovereignty. I agree--but howabout instead of slowly killing their POS fuelers, they instead put a lot of money in the POS where it can be stolen through blowing up the tower and looting, getting a spy in the owning corp, or hacking it with some mechanic added in a later expansion? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Naglerr
235MeV
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 22:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
+1. This will generate fights and I like that. |
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
380
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 00:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
This change would just make more centralization and give power to big alliances, as long as lowsec has no bubbles you just need a personal pos in system where nobody can bump you out and you can still leave them there 100% safely.
This solves nothing any the only thing could result from this is more power to the null blocs and everyone else has to leave supers in lowsec or have them get rapecaged and killed.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 00:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
This doesn't "solve nothing".
Right now a super fleet can jump into any non-cynojammed system of their choice, log off, and wait for the perfect time to log back in. The OPs idea would have them forced to setup POS and such in that system in order to pull off the same tactic.
It's a great idea. However, what happens if I'm about to warp to a POS and my internet cuts out? Does the game really leave me out in space for the next 35 minutes until I'm tackled and killed?
I still like the idea but kinks like that would need to be worked out. It's just more financially viable for me. |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
168
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 00:43:00 -
[33] - Quote
Captain Finklestein wrote:This doesn't "solve nothing".
Right now a super fleet can jump into any non-cynojammed system of their choice, log off, and wait for the perfect time to log back in. The OPs idea would have them forced to setup POS and such in that system in order to pull off the same tactic.
It's a great idea. However, what happens if I'm about to warp to a POS and my internet cuts out? Does the game really leave me out in space for the next 35 minutes until I'm tackled and killed?
I still like the idea but kinks like that would need to be worked out.
What if you were able to tag your own Emergency log off safes as a supercap pilot?
Set a bookmark in the POS, tag it as a log off safe. When the game detects that you've disconnected without logging off safely the supercap will automatically warp to that safe instead of doing the "Warp 1 AU in a random direction and wait for timers to expire" thing ships currently do. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 01:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
+1 for this..
Each super in a POS could also act as an extra amount of strontium to make these POSes invulnerability last a bit longer because of the supers docked there, forcing more time commitment for the attackers and giving more time to the defenders to use their batphones. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
664
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 01:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
+1 for a "Super Capital Log-Off Timer". Keeps you in space just like the existing PVE and PVP log-off timers with the vital difference that it does not run down while you are in a super capital ship. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1430
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 04:13:00 -
[36] - Quote
Captain Finklestein wrote:It's a great idea. However, what happens if I'm about to warp to a POS and my internet cuts out? Does the game really leave me out in space for the next 35 minutes until I'm tackled and killed? In my suggestion, if your super were owned by your corp, the CEO or a director with the right role could boot you from the super and have someone else hop in and fly it to the POS. That is assuming, of course, that your corp is aware you disconnected and they have another pilot available for it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 04:37:00 -
[37] - Quote
While I don't have supers, this does not sound unreasonable. An alliance that can afford a super should be able to afford a place to park it. |
mbass
235MeV
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 21:52:00 -
[38] - Quote
+1 to original post |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3968
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:12:00 -
[39] - Quote
The reason this proposal is so shortsighted:
1.) Supers are NOT Corp / Alliance assets. Pragmatically, whomever is piloting the super is the owner of the super, no matter what effort went into obtaining it. Everything in a POS is a corp asset, as the items within are ALWAYS accessible by various members of a corp. Your proposal would force individuals whom own a super to suddenly share an extremely large-value asset with their corp members. Forcing players to give their high-value personal assets to a corp will cause a LOT of problems!
2.) The only means to "secure" these vessels would then involve creating 1-man corps (or corps with only a few select trusted members). This would have major gameplay "fun" issues centering dealing with POS fueling, corp management, and other wonky and/or tedious tasks.
3.) This would have a very brutal impact on "smaller" alliances/coalitions in Nullsec. When you cannot despawn a super, then you cannot store it in nullsec unless you can confidently defend it. For example, if my corp ever obtained a titan, we could NEVER keep it in nullsec (where we live). This is because any larger group could bubble wrap and RF our POS, trapping the super for the entire RF cycle. Even if we managed to summon a 100 pilot fleet, it would be easily crushed by most large alliances out there. As such, we'd have to keep the supers in lowsec, which is often far from our base of operations. This poses additional constraints and difficulties.
4.) Why? Why make owning a supercarrier or titan more difficult? Supers are GREAT at destroying structures and capital ships. They usually suck at killing subcaps, and are vulnerable to a subcap fleet. The biggest advantage supers provide involves removing enemy capitals from the field and rapidly grinding structures. This makes them very important to the Sov game, but if we instead revamp the Sov system away from the insane clockwork structure shoot, a corp that can wield 5000 supers isn't that much better than a corp that can't wield 1. I don't see the need for this ****-all-super-pilots change, as it doesn't actually fix ANYTHING that is broken in this game. |
Aversun
Systems Federation Coalition of Galactic Unity
27
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:27:00 -
[40] - Quote
Maybe to help rebalance, all ships left in space should be left spawned, so its still fair for everyone |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3971
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:32:00 -
[41] - Quote
Aversun wrote:Maybe to help rebalance, all ships left in space should be left spawned, so its still fair for everyone
Not quite extreme enough... We should get rid of person station hangars, too. All your ships will be in a corp hangar. All you items in a corp hangar. All your iskies in a corp wallet. We can have one big communal game.
Look at the bright side, this would eliminate players staying in NPC corps! |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1632
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Not quite extreme enough... We should get rid of person station hangars, too. All your ships will be in a corp hangar. All you items in a corp hangar. All your iskies in a corp wallet. We can have one big communal game.
Look at the bright side, this would eliminate players staying in NPC corps! Sure. Every player would have 1 Corp that they put all their alts in and let no one else into.
Would turn Corps from a social environment into the default personal wallet and hanger.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
. -á<- Argue this, not this ->-á( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3971
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 23:43:00 -
[43] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Not quite extreme enough... We should get rid of person station hangars, too. All your ships will be in a corp hangar. All you items in a corp hangar. All your iskies in a corp wallet. We can have one big communal game.
Look at the bright side, this would eliminate players staying in NPC corps! Sure. Every player would have 1 Corp that they put all their alts in and let no one else into. Would turn Corps from a social environment into the default personal wallet and hanger.
Can you imagine the corp bills you'd have to pay in Mission and Trade hubs? Since you don't have a corp hangar until you rent an office, the limits on offices and the scaling rental fees would be insane!
|
Malcolm Malicious
Malware Detected Brave Collective
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 00:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Just delete supers and titans from the game, problem solved. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1452
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 03:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Everything in a POS is a corp asset, as the items within are ALWAYS accessible by various members of a corp.
The only means to "secure" these vessels would then involve creating 1-man corps (or corps with only a few select trusted members). This would have major gameplay "fun" issues centering dealing with POS fueling, corp management, and other wonky and/or tedious tasks. Currently everything in a POS is accessible to the running corp, but there is no coding in the game that says that has to be true. If titans were left in space when the player logged out, the player would still be in that titan, and nobody else could enter it.
I don't see how this suggestion would force supers to become corp assets. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Arronicus
X-Prot Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
995
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 04:38:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations! i would like a blowjob from Mila Kunis, but i don`t see either of that happening in the near future
Mine came in the mail just the other day. It wasn't that bad really, for a magazine with a hole cut in it.
As for the OP's ideas on supers and titans.... toplel. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3971
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 05:19:00 -
[47] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Everything in a POS is a corp asset, as the items within are ALWAYS accessible by various members of a corp.
The only means to "secure" these vessels would then involve creating 1-man corps (or corps with only a few select trusted members). This would have major gameplay "fun" issues centering dealing with POS fueling, corp management, and other wonky and/or tedious tasks. Currently everything in a POS is accessible to the running corp, but there is no coding in the game that says that has to be true. If titans were left in space when the player logged out, the player would still be in that titan, and nobody else could enter it. I don't see how this suggestion would force supers to become corp assets.
You are correct that you don't have to store the super in a CSMA. If you keep your character in it 100% of the time, you will retain ownership of the super. But, where do you store the "logged off but not despawned" super?
Even the most tanky super is less than 50m EHP, which can be easily destroyed within a single siege cycle by a coordinated drop of 20 dreads. The ONLY way to keep the ship safe, is to prevent it from being attacked. How do you prevent it from being attacked?
The only "in space" location that is impervious to attack is behind a POS FF. However, anyone that gets inside the FF can easily bump it out of the POS FF unless its in a CSMA. Anyone with the critical corp roles can steal it from a CSMA. And in either situation, anyone with access to POS critical roles can simply offline the POS so it can be attacked. As such, while you can retain "ownership" by leaving your character in it, you still need to entrust your corp with its existence, as any corp mate with the critical roles can set up its destruction. The net result is that the number of people responsible for keeping your super safe increases from one (you as the pilot) to all your corp mates with critical roles. I'd argue that pragmatically makes it a corp asset, even if you keep prevent them utilizing it by having a pilot in the super 24/7.
I'm very much in a "death to all supers" mindframe, I just want them to die in combat, and not while the owner is logged off unable to defend it.
|
Thercon Jair
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 06:47:00 -
[48] - Quote
Brilliant. So every player needs to be able to log in within a reinforcement timer or runs the risk of losing their supercapital without the ability to do anything about it. It's still a game and it ceases to be one when you can't take a couple days off for your real life.
Also, an alliance that can field more pilots around the clock than another alliance would totally and utterly destroy the whole supercapital power of the smaller entity. "I better go and apply to goons" then seems to be the best solution if you want to fly a super. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
433
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 07:32:00 -
[49] - Quote
Thercon Jair wrote:Brilliant. So every player needs to be able to log in within a reinforcement timer or runs the risk of losing their supercapital without the ability to do anything about it. It's still a game and it ceases to be one when you can't take a couple days off for your real life.
That be my issue with this idea. I actually have a life and take vacations...and since I have a kid they usually involve theme parks at some point.
Sorry son...can't go to disney today my pos is dying so have to move the mommie out when not camped hard. Maybe we can go tomorrow. Yep...this is why I paid lots of money to stay at a disney resort, to play eve.
Cool these neck beards take a laptop wherever they go (if they actually leave the house that is). Me...the laptop often stays at home. iPad does me fine for most everything on vacation
|
Foxstar Damaskeenus
Biohazard. WINMATAR.
141
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 08:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
All supers must die. |
|
wopolusa
The Southern Legion Final Resolution.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
While I like the intention it just won't work. It makes bigger alliances have yet another massive advantage over smaller ones. Worse still, players would just warp to a safe spot, cloak, and leave their client running DT to DT if they are in any real danger of loss (i.e during a POS reinforcement timer)
The only way I could see this working is with a 'hibernation' mode that did what logging off does now. But the ship couldn't do anything for 24h once turned off or something (To prevent people using it like logging off is used now). This would give players who sit in a POS the benefit of immediate use when needed, and encourage a little activity/putting yourself at risk for benefit, and allow holiday-goers safety. But it still doesn't solve cloaking or large alliance benefits. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:05:00 -
[52] - Quote
What if I want to stop playing the game for a while? Can't fuel a POS nor protect it if I want to take a vacation. So I would lose my super unless I kept playing the game indefinitely, or would need to sell it? This on top of all the other drawbacks supers already have? No thanks. This would literally make me quit the game. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1454
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 19:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The only "in space" location that is impervious to attack is behind a POS FF. However, anyone that gets inside the FF can easily bump it out of the POS FF unless its in a CSMA. The obvious answer is to allow supers to be anchored. I don't see how this small point negates the original post. If you think allowing them to be anchored is bad, then lets discuss that. Lets brainstorm options, not assume the OP is bad because it doesn't work exactly as described on the tin. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:54:00 -
[54] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:What if I want to stop playing the game for a while? Can't fuel a POS nor protect it if I want to take a vacation. So I would lose my super unless I kept playing the game indefinitely, or would need to sell it? This on top of all the other drawbacks supers already have? No thanks. This would literally make me quit the game.
No but really, if you sold it for plex and held the plex during your Hiatus to buy a new super, you'd probably make a profit. Freyya:
Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?! |
Trin Javidan
Caymen Labs
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 21:55:00 -
[55] - Quote
so only the big power blocs can have supers rite? And ofc juicy killmails form others...
Why not nerf small sov holding corps rite away |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:05:00 -
[56] - Quote
Guys... Supers were never supposed to be the responsibility of one player, they were always meant to require the support of people you trust. corp/alliance members or otherwise. If you're worried about blues stealing or destroying your super, your issue is that you still have them labeled blue, not that they'll steal or destroy your super.
Think this goes against everything Eve teaches? I think it is right in line with everything Eve teaches. Why should your corpmates help you maintain your super when you're on vacation? Because someday they'll be on vacation, and if they **** you over they set a precedent for the guy they trust with their super when they need assistance. Yes there will be times when the irresponsible players go ahead and **** you over regardless of the consequences, but that's part of the risk that was always intended to exist within any corporation, otherwise all corporate assets would be 100% secure. Not hard to put those mechanics in the game.
Oh, isn't it funny how supers are some of the most valuable assets an Alliance can own, yet are pretty much the only thing that can be kept 100% safe by doing what is literally the equivalent of nothing? Freyya:
Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?! |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Money Makin Mitch wrote:What if I want to stop playing the game for a while? Can't fuel a POS nor protect it if I want to take a vacation. So I would lose my super unless I kept playing the game indefinitely, or would need to sell it? This on top of all the other drawbacks supers already have? No thanks. This would literally make me quit the game. No but really, if you sold it for plex and held the plex during your Hiatus to buy a new super, you'd probably make a profit. **** that. If I need to go through the hassle of selling my super, then buying one, moving it, fitting it, etc. every time I want to take even just a week or two off, it is not worth owning one at all. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Guys... Supers were never supposed to be the responsibility of one player, they were always meant to require the support of people you trust. corp/alliance members or otherwise. If you're worried about blues stealing or destroying your super, your issue is that you still have them labeled blue, not that they'll steal or destroy your super.
Think this goes against everything Eve teaches? I think it is right in line with everything Eve teaches. Why should your corpmates help you maintain your super when you're on vacation? Because someday they'll be on vacation, and if they **** you over they set a precedent for the guy they trust with their super when they need assistance. Yes there will be times when the irresponsible players go ahead and **** you over regardless of the consequences, but that's part of the risk that was always intended to exist within any corporation, otherwise all corporate assets would be 100% secure. Not hard to put those mechanics in the game.
Oh, isn't it funny how supers are some of the most valuable assets an Alliance can own, yet are pretty much the only thing that can be kept 100% safe by doing what is literally the equivalent of nothing? Meh. If I paid for my super 100% on my own, then it belongs to nobody but me. I'll be damned if I'm going to put it into the hands of other people, anyone at all, whenever I want to log out or go away for a while. Blue or not, I don't just hand over multi-billion isk assets to people... ever. |
Bohneik Itohn
Periphery Bound
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:42:00 -
[59] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:Bohneik Itohn wrote:Guys... Supers were never supposed to be the responsibility of one player, they were always meant to require the support of people you trust. corp/alliance members or otherwise. If you're worried about blues stealing or destroying your super, your issue is that you still have them labeled blue, not that they'll steal or destroy your super.
Think this goes against everything Eve teaches? I think it is right in line with everything Eve teaches. Why should your corpmates help you maintain your super when you're on vacation? Because someday they'll be on vacation, and if they **** you over they set a precedent for the guy they trust with their super when they need assistance. Yes there will be times when the irresponsible players go ahead and **** you over regardless of the consequences, but that's part of the risk that was always intended to exist within any corporation, otherwise all corporate assets would be 100% secure. Not hard to put those mechanics in the game.
Oh, isn't it funny how supers are some of the most valuable assets an Alliance can own, yet are pretty much the only thing that can be kept 100% safe by doing what is literally the equivalent of nothing? Meh. If I paid for my super 100% on my own, then it belongs to nobody but me. I'll be damned if I'm going to put it into the hands of other people, anyone at all, whenever I want to log out or go away for a while. Blue or not, I don't just hand over multi-billion isk assets to people... ever.
And you're welcome to take that responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that supers were intended to be something that required the cooperation of an entire network of people to maintain. People have found ways to work around those mechanics, mostly with alts, but that doesn't mean that was CCP's intention.
There are a lot of purist PvPers out there who swear they are the sole creators of content and anyone who isn't doing exactly as they're doing is failing at Eve. One of CCP's ways of creating content was by putting things in the game that required people to interact with each other either positively or negatively, and give them the choice of which it would be today. Supers are one of those things. I find it impressive you maintain yours without relying on other people, but to me that seems a bit like the carebears who stay in high sec because they don't want people shooting at their Raven. There is minimizing risk and then there is hiding from it entirely. Freyya:
Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?! |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
399
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:12:00 -
[60] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote: And you're welcome to take that responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that supers were intended to be something that required the cooperation of an entire network of people to maintain. People have found ways to work around those mechanics, mostly with alts, but that doesn't mean that was CCP's intention.
There are a lot of purist PvPers out there who swear they are the sole creators of content and anyone who isn't doing exactly as they're doing is failing at Eve. One of CCP's ways of creating content was by putting things in the game that required people to interact with each other either positively or negatively, and give them the choice of which it would be today. Supers are one of those things. I find it impressive you maintain yours without relying on other people, but to me that seems a bit like the carebears who stay in high sec because they don't want people shooting at their Raven. There is minimizing risk and then there is hiding from it entirely.
Taking that responsibility = minimizing risk by fueling my own tower, lighting my own cynos, and only trusting myself as to when or when not to use my super. That is already enough imo. I shouldn't be penalized whenever I want to go on vacation or take a break. I'd like to see you just hand over 30b to your corp every time you need a week off. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1455
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:35:00 -
[61] - Quote
I suggested that along with this change, POSes be given an auto-refueling module that allows them to store extra fuel at the cost of powergrid and of having the fuel in the POS where raiders and corp thieves can take it. But it would give an option for people who don't want to have to refuel the POS for a few weeks or months. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3979
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The only "in space" location that is impervious to attack is behind a POS FF. However, anyone that gets inside the FF can easily bump it out of the POS FF unless its in a CSMA. The obvious answer is to allow supers to be anchored. I don't see how this small point negates the original post. If you think allowing them to be anchored is bad, then lets discuss that. Lets brainstorm options, not assume the OP is bad because it doesn't work exactly as described on the tin.
Anchoring supers still leaves them vulnerable to the corp mates that can "unanchor" them, as well as the pilots that may offline the POS.
The proposal is still shortsighted in how brutally it impacts smaller nullsec organizations with supers.
and finally, this proposal does nothing to explain what it is fixing! WHY IMPLEMENT IT? Seriously, what is the problem being fixed by making owning a super more tedious and difficult? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1455
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The proposal is still shortsighted in how brutally it impacts smaller nullsec organizations with supers. They won't have as much need for supers when the big alliances and coalitions don't have as many anymore. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3980
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 23:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The proposal is still shortsighted in how brutally it impacts smaller nullsec organizations with supers. They won't have as much need for supers when the big alliances and coalitions don't have as many anymore.
Please elaborate your amazingly deep and insightful post. I'm afraid us plebeians cannot follow your ingenious jumps in logic. Furthermore, please present your forthcoming explanation in a manner that addresses the concern I proposed. Until you do, everyone that reads your amazing response has extreme difficulty in distinguishing it from utter bullshit.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3981
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 00:04:00 -
[65] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Money Makin Mitch wrote:Bohneik Itohn wrote:Guys... Supers were never supposed to be the responsibility of one player, they were always meant to require the support of people you trust. corp/alliance members or otherwise. If you're worried about blues stealing or destroying your super, your issue is that you still have them labeled blue, not that they'll steal or destroy your super.
Think this goes against everything Eve teaches? I think it is right in line with everything Eve teaches. Why should your corpmates help you maintain your super when you're on vacation? Because someday they'll be on vacation, and if they **** you over they set a precedent for the guy they trust with their super when they need assistance. Yes there will be times when the irresponsible players go ahead and **** you over regardless of the consequences, but that's part of the risk that was always intended to exist within any corporation, otherwise all corporate assets would be 100% secure. Not hard to put those mechanics in the game.
Oh, isn't it funny how supers are some of the most valuable assets an Alliance can own, yet are pretty much the only thing that can be kept 100% safe by doing what is literally the equivalent of nothing? Meh. If I paid for my super 100% on my own, then it belongs to nobody but me. I'll be damned if I'm going to put it into the hands of other people, anyone at all, whenever I want to log out or go away for a while. Blue or not, I don't just hand over multi-billion isk assets to people... ever. And you're welcome to take that responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that supers were intended to be something that required the cooperation of an entire network of people to maintain. People have found ways to work around those mechanics, mostly with alts, but that doesn't mean that was CCP's intention. There are a lot of purist PvPers out there who swear they are the sole creators of content and anyone who isn't doing exactly as they're doing is failing at Eve. One of CCP's ways of creating content was by putting things in the game that required people to interact with each other either positively or negatively, and give them the choice of which it would be today. Supers are one of those things. I find it impressive you maintain yours without relying on other people, but to me that seems a bit like the carebears who stay in high sec because they don't want people shooting at their Raven. There is minimizing risk and then there is hiding from it entirely.
Oh great and insightful Oz. Please give some supporting documentation to your claims. I've always heard that supers were intended to be something that required the cooperation and resources of an entire alliance to OBTAIN. They were thought to be sooo expensive, and require sooo much effort to build, that only a handful would ever exist. I want you to take a step back and ask yourself, what is the difference between the words obtaining and MAINTAINING. I've NEVER heard CCP state that supers were meant to require 24/7 defense in order to maintain them. Things that I've heard is that they need cyno pilots to move from system to system (or remote DD an entire enemy fleet in their original implementation). I've heard they need logisticians to bring them fuel to operating their DD and jump drives. But I have NEVER heard that CCP inteded alliances to defend them 24/7.
And again, I challenge yall: What problem and/or issue is this idea solving? What are you fixing by making supers so "tedious" to maintain?
|
Rendiff
Funk Soul Brothers Northern Associates.
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 00:36:00 -
[66] - Quote
I like it +1
Let the world burn. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
402
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 00:51:00 -
[67] - Quote
I get the feeling the people asking for or supporting this ridiculous idea don't even own a super or titan. They're already tedious enough to own and operate, this doesn't really do much except make pilots even more hesitant to train and invest into supercaps. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
436
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 01:38:00 -
[68] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:I get the feeling the people asking for or supporting this ridiculous idea don't even own a super or titan. They're already tedious enough to own and operate, this doesn't really do much except make pilots even more hesitant to train and invest into supercaps.
that and I don't think they have normal real lives. I have gone weeks not playing eve for fun and not so fun reasons. Did not miss it. Its a game....not a job. And hell, even even jobs give you a vacation and weekends off. I am on vaca...I am on vaca. See the pretty out of office reply saying I won't be back for 3 Mondays at 0730....I will see your mail that monday I return sometime after 0730.
Now am I super lover? Nah. Dead super, best super. But....lets have them die under a fair scheme. Not because in a worst case someone gets the call a family member has died and while heading back home and while dealing with way more important things going on than their pos getting popped. Was here myself in recent recent years (not a super owner, I just had the matters of flying out ASAP from Japan to the US to handle family matters). Eve gets real low on lists of stuff to care about in this situation. Hopefully many will not know how low is all I can say.
We've had supers dies early and often this past year. Is it as easy as baiting a noob to attack you first on a low sec gate to get the gun assist for your gank? No. But even 1 man taught PL dynamite fishing on a ping with only 1 person's intel is bad. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 01:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ok question...when the pilot is logged off and the ship stays in space, is it empty? Can someone with the skills jump into it like it is an abandoned ship, or does a "this ship is currently occupied. You may not do that" alert come up? |
Rialen
Gravit Negotii Northern Associates.
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 02:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
bad idea as this would mean you couldn't really quit the game temporarily.
Here is a scenario:
-You are a super/Titan pilot and you own said super/titan -Because of the newly proposed logoff mechanism for super/titan, it is always in space or stored in pos structure. -You cannot continue playing due to RL reason and will deactivate your account for several months or maybe years. -If it is in a pos, it can be stolen. If it is in space, it can be blown up. You are virtually losing your asset because you cannot play eve for a while and will come back to a super/titan loss mail.
because of this, it is a terrible idea. |
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4239
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 03:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
Forget how they are actually used, for a moment.
Consider, instead, how they were intended. Why does that POS module exist, if alts are the true best solution for storing them.
I believe these were intended to be corp and alliance assets.
Sure, personal ownership of these monsters is a reality. Does that make it good for the game?
Are we in a position where these cannot be fixed to meet the intended role, since an unintended one has emerged?
I would not be quick to assume this change would be bad for the game. It might just make the dynamic better than ever. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3983
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 03:37:00 -
[72] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Forget how they are actually used, for a moment.
Consider, instead, how they were intended. Why does that POS module exist, if alts are the true best solution for storing them.
You build the Ship in a CSAA. However, you cannot unpackage and launch it from the CSAA. You launch the ship from the CSMA. This is why the "module exists", not just as a means to "store your supercap". Furthermore, since you are unaware, you couldn't even Anchor a CSMA without sov until changes to the CSMA last summer.
Nikk Narrel wrote: I believe these were intended to be corp and alliance assets.
Sure, personal ownership of these monsters is a reality. Does that make it good for the game?
Are we in a position where these cannot be fixed to meet the intended role, since an unintended one has emerged?
I would not be quick to assume this change would be bad for the game. It might just make the dynamic better than ever.
The above selection you make major assumptions while already demonstrating you are unfamiliar with the specific area of game play. Your assumption about their intended role is completely unfounded.
Person ownership of Supercaps is completely acceptable. I would even argue it is intensional, as that allows super pilots to abscond with their supers to other corps / alliances or even venture out solo. Realize, some of the first supercarriers in the game were well known pirates, unassociated with sov, that smartbombed gates in lowsec.
I post the same question, yet again: What is the problem and/or dilemma with personal ownership of supercaps? What would this change solve or do for the game? |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
438
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 03:40:00 -
[73] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: It might just make the dynamic better than ever.
Would this be before or after the major power blocks wehn bored hit pos's like fiends?
Small alliance planning hit and run tactics on goon super pos holding systems....snow balls in hell are laughing at the chance of this.
Goons or other major block saying lets go hit some pos' because wtf we gonna for the next 3 days, chances are real high.
Real dynamic...about as dynamic as when a major block gets a hair up their ass to steam roll provi for lols...again. Yay...blob leaves and provi tries to raise the hippy commune again. technically dynamic, I guess I will grant that.
Power block on power block....jsut ties into sov really. Something else to shoot...yawn. And I'd see major super keeping systems being locked down by cyno jams when no ops planned atm. This has a small alliance completely out of the picture. If lacking the fleets to kill supers on the field...I am highly doubting the numbers are there to bum rush blops and bombers to do this well. Somehow I'd see major super pos' being jsut a bit shy of deathstar. Even shield tanked...I am not getting warm fuzzies about taking my widow on even a half assed deathstar. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4239
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 13:50:00 -
[74] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: I believe these were intended to be corp and alliance assets.
Sure, personal ownership of these monsters is a reality. Does that make it good for the game?
Are we in a position where these cannot be fixed to meet the intended role, since an unintended one has emerged?
I would not be quick to assume this change would be bad for the game. It might just make the dynamic better than ever.
The above selection you make major assumptions while already demonstrating you are unfamiliar with the specific area of game play. Your assumption about their intended role is completely unfounded. Person ownership of Supercaps is completely acceptable. I would even argue it is intensional, as that allows super pilots to abscond with their supers to other corps / alliances or even venture out solo. Realize, some of the first supercarriers in the game were well known pirates, unassociated with sov, that smartbombed gates in lowsec. I post the same question, yet again: What is the problem and/or dilemma with personal ownership of supercaps? What would this change solve or do for the game? For starters, my view is founded on only personal views, and is framed exactly that way. I have ZERO proof, or I would not be stating this as simply a belief.
That being said, the current state of affairs is hardly a ringing endorsement that supers and titans benefit the game this way, more than they would otherwise.
Would removing the means to unplug these huge targets from the game change the dynamics? Yes. I think it obviously would.
Does this mean it will cause insane leverage, towards the larger power blocks benefit? Noone can know that, since strategies to handle this can only be guessed at until it happens.
It MIGHT just destabilize the blocks entirely.
Imagine EVE, where that hot dropping titan stays vulnerable, one way or another, and can be hunted down? Using it then relocating it, not the casual affair by comparison to simply logging out the pilot.
I am asking the questions, not assuming I know the answers. But, considering the circumstances involve unforeseeable player adaptation, who could honestly claim to predict that?
The devs themselves already admitted that titans, in current numbers and use, were NOT what they had expected. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 14:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
Rialen wrote:bad idea as this would mean you couldn't really quit the game temporarily.
Here is a scenario:
-You are a super/Titan pilot and you own said super/titan -Because of the newly proposed logoff mechanism for super/titan, it is always in space or stored in pos structure. -You cannot continue playing due to RL reason and will deactivate your account for several months or maybe years. -If it is in a pos, it can be stolen. If it is in space, it can be blown up. You are virtually losing your asset because you cannot play eve for a while and will come back to a super/titan loss mail.
because of this, it is a terrible idea.
There's a few ways to address this, and the other mechanics raised. I've just some across this thread and I have a few thoughts in reaction...
First, a chance to POS mechanics, generally, may be required. Obviously they are not going to make it that someone can just take(steal) your titan, within reason...
First off, addressing the log-offs mechanics generally. Someone already suggested that super be enabled to have a designated log-off location. I think this is a fantastic idea, e.g., you enter system and designate a bookmark as your logoff location. Could be a pos, or just the middle of no where. Now, with your ship staying in system, it might be best for all ships to set the same location so that the spot can be protected and avoid a lone super flying off in the middle of a fight. Placing a POS in the system in advance would just give you a safe haven for this.
Second, with respect to POSs. The idea was proposed that some buff to POSs is needed, along with the ability to anchor supers at the pos. I think this is a good idea. They should not be able to be bumped out of the POS if you go though the trouble of anchoring them at some type of new Module that enables this. I also suggest the following roles for this new module.
i) it would buff the defense ability of the POS, either though a longer reinforce time or some other various method of defense (maybe some SOV bonus, etc.) I'll leave it to the more savvy POS-people here to decide on what that could be.
ii) With respect to piloting supers and their ability to be stolen. A new mechanic can be introduced that enables you to set SHIP-SPECIFIC roles for entering/unanchoring the super while it is anchored. That is, once anchored, only a pilot on a pre-set list of characters can unanchor the super. Gotta put some trust in SOMEONE if you want to leave this super at a POS. It doesn't completely solve the issues with 'personal vs. corp' ownership of a POS, but maybe there's more to this idea that I'm not seeing yet. And, if the tower is offline, then I suppose the ship if vulnerable, but maybe there's no way to prevent that.
Third, there exits, always, the problem of what happens if you leave the game for a long period of time. And this MUST be addressed and I believe it is also where the core of your idea must have a limit. And I believe a SAFE-LOG OFF mechanic must exist, but you won't have it everywhere. So, this proposed super-pos-docking module I discussed above, could, with SOV 5 or something like this, enable you to anchor a super specifically for the purpose of a safe-log-off. This would start a timer on the super (which, should be, I think, LONGER than the reinforced timer, by a small amount), after which running down would cause the ship to disappear from space until the player logs back in. Oh, and it the POS is destroyed while your ship is away, maybe it would warp back in off-grid? I dunno, just not fair to be able to put down an enemy pos which prevents you from logging back in without warping to an enemy POS.
Thoughts? I don't own a super, so maybe this is all crazy-talk. But maybe it's the best idea ever? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3983
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 14:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: I believe these were intended to be corp and alliance assets.
Sure, personal ownership of these monsters is a reality. Does that make it good for the game?
Are we in a position where these cannot be fixed to meet the intended role, since an unintended one has emerged?
I would not be quick to assume this change would be bad for the game. It might just make the dynamic better than ever.
The above selection you make major assumptions while already demonstrating you are unfamiliar with the specific area of game play. Your assumption about their intended role is completely unfounded. Person ownership of Supercaps is completely acceptable. I would even argue it is intensional, as that allows super pilots to abscond with their supers to other corps / alliances or even venture out solo. Realize, some of the first supercarriers in the game were well known pirates, unassociated with sov, that smartbombed gates in lowsec. I post the same question, yet again: What is the problem and/or dilemma with personal ownership of supercaps? What would this change solve or do for the game? For starters, my view is founded on only personal views, and is framed exactly that way. I have ZERO proof, or I would not be stating this as simply a belief. That being said, the current state of affairs is hardly a ringing endorsement that supers and titans benefit the game this way, more than they would otherwise. Would removing the means to unplug these huge targets from the game change the dynamics? Yes. I think it obviously would. Does this mean it will cause insane leverage, towards the larger power blocks benefit? Noone can know that, since strategies to handle this can only be guessed at until it happens. It MIGHT just destabilize the blocks entirely. Imagine EVE, where that hot dropping titan stays vulnerable, one way or another, and can be hunted down? Using it then relocating it, not the casual affair by comparison to simply logging out the pilot. I am asking the questions, not assuming I know the answers. But, considering the circumstances involve unforeseeable player adaptation, who could honestly claim to predict that? The devs themselves already admitted that titans, in current numbers and use, were NOT what they had expected.
Gee... if you owned a 100b isk asset that no longer despawned in space and needed 24/7 protection. What direction do you think you'll move in game?
Option A: To a large alliance that has many such assets and is well suited to protect these assets wtih cyno jammed systems, spy detection services, supercap reimbursement funds, rapid response pings, and more.
Option B: Somewhere else?
Player behavior is not that hard to predict.
If you want to address hotdrop mechanics... then address that specific mechanic. If you want to address consolidation of power blocks... then address the Sov Systems. If you want to address the (ab)use of supers... then address the issue that makes them scale so well: Remote Repair.
This idea has as much merit as solving world hunger by feeding people their own children.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3983
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
IceAero wrote: Third, there exits, always, the problem of what happens if you leave the game for a long period of time. And this MUST be addressed and I believe it is also where the core of your idea must have a limit. And I believe a SAFE-LOG OFF mechanic must exist, but you won't have it everywhere. So, this proposed super-pos-docking module I discussed above, could, with SOV 5 or something like this, enable you to anchor a super specifically for the purpose of a safe-log-off. This would start a timer on the super (which, should be, I think, LONGER than the reinforced timer, by a small amount), after which running down would cause the ship to disappear from space until the player logs back in. Oh, and if the POS is destroyed while your ship is away, maybe it would warp back in off-grid? I dunno, just not fair to be able to put down an enemy POS which prevents you from logging back in without warping to an enemy POS.
Thoughts? I don't own a super, so maybe this is all crazy-talk. But maybe it's the best idea ever?
Are you serious?
Now, not only do the large, well established alliances offer better protections for supers. They now get to provide their supers with a despawning mechanic to permanently make their ships safe.
On the other hand, any other entity that doesn't have Sov 5 must keep their supers in space 100% of the time because the "safe log off" mechanic isn't even available to them?
Do you not understand how ridiculously biased your mechanic is? |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IceAero wrote: Third, there exits, always, the problem of what happens if you leave the game for a long period of time. And this MUST be addressed and I believe it is also where the core of your idea must have a limit. And I believe a SAFE-LOG OFF mechanic must exist, but you won't have it everywhere. So, this proposed super-pos-docking module I discussed above, could, with SOV 5 or something like this, enable you to anchor a super specifically for the purpose of a safe-log-off. This would start a timer on the super (which, should be, I think, LONGER than the reinforced timer, by a small amount), after which running down would cause the ship to disappear from space until the player logs back in. Oh, and if the POS is destroyed while your ship is away, maybe it would warp back in off-grid? I dunno, just not fair to be able to put down an enemy POS which prevents you from logging back in without warping to an enemy POS.
Thoughts? I don't own a super, so maybe this is all crazy-talk. But maybe it's the best idea ever?
Are you serious? Now, not only do the large, well established alliances offer better protections for supers. They now get to provide their supers with a despawning mechanic to permanently make their ships safe. On the other hand, any other entity that doesn't have Sov 5 must keep their supers in space 100% of the time because the "safe log off" mechanic isn't even available to them? Do you not understand how ridiculously biased your mechanic is?
No no, you're totally correct!
The mechanic should be available to just about everyone, but maybe not in low sec? So, don't make it based on SOV level, but the POS might still need to be designated as a log-off pos. I was just getting at the point that the safe-log-off mechanic shouldn't be available at any POS...or maybe it should? (Provided it had the correct module).
|
Mattpat139 Sukarala
Brave Privateers
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
+1 It shouldn't be that easy to hide a ship the size off manhatten with a big enough weapon to klll a planet... yes google it! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3984
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:22:00 -
[80] - Quote
IceAero wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IceAero wrote: Third, there exits, always, the problem of what happens if you leave the game for a long period of time. And this MUST be addressed and I believe it is also where the core of your idea must have a limit. And I believe a SAFE-LOG OFF mechanic must exist, but you won't have it everywhere. So, this proposed super-pos-docking module I discussed above, could, with SOV 5 or something like this, enable you to anchor a super specifically for the purpose of a safe-log-off. This would start a timer on the super (which, should be, I think, LONGER than the reinforced timer, by a small amount), after which running down would cause the ship to disappear from space until the player logs back in. Oh, and if the POS is destroyed while your ship is away, maybe it would warp back in off-grid? I dunno, just not fair to be able to put down an enemy POS which prevents you from logging back in without warping to an enemy POS.
Thoughts? I don't own a super, so maybe this is all crazy-talk. But maybe it's the best idea ever?
Are you serious? Now, not only do the large, well established alliances offer better protections for supers. They now get to provide their supers with a despawning mechanic to permanently make their ships safe. On the other hand, any other entity that doesn't have Sov 5 must keep their supers in space 100% of the time because the "safe log off" mechanic isn't even available to them? Do you not understand how ridiculously biased your mechanic is? No no, you're totally correct! The mechanic should be available to just about everyone, but maybe not in low sec? So, don't make it based on SOV level, but the POS might still need to be designated as a log-off pos. I was just getting at the point that the safe-log-off mechanic shouldn't be available at any POS...or maybe it should? (Provided it had the correct module).
Why should it not be available in Lowsec? You do know that PL spent a large portion of their history while a supercap superpower living in lowsec and not bothering with "holding sov"?
Also, the proposed changes make any smaller entity owning a super in nullsec extremely dangerous. Any of the superpowers could RF its POS, bubble wrap it (so the owner can't cyno/warp away), and hell camp it during the entire RF cycle. Hell camps have been performed on even the largest entities in nullsec, so what chance would a small entity have of protecting their supers from such an onslaught?
Also, why do we want to kill "logged off supers"? I don't understand that mentality at all.
|
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4240
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Gee... if you owned a 100b isk asset that no longer despawned in space and needed 24/7 protection. What direction do you think you'll move in game?
Option A: To a large alliance that has many such assets and is well suited to protect these assets wtih cyno jammed systems, spy detection services, supercap reimbursement funds, rapid response pings, and more.
Option B: Somewhere else?
Player behavior is not that hard to predict.
If you want to address hotdrop mechanics... then address that specific mechanic. If you want to address consolidation of power blocks... then address the Sov Systems. If you want to address the (ab)use of supers... then address the issue that makes them scale so well: Remote Repair.
This idea has as much merit as solving world hunger by feeding people their own children.
Option A: Why are you assuming that bigger is always better? If you want to address blob warfare, and leverage amassed by player groups going beyond the scope of balance, then address power bloc regulations.
Option B: Why not? The assumption this change would happen in a vacuum assumes a lot. The concept that such ships should require at minimum sov holding with POS presence, does not seem unreasonable. The expectation that only larger alliances could offer this seems unfounded.
Player behavior is a contradiction for prediction, unless you adhere to the concept: Expect the unexpected.
As for that last comparison, it seems as much impassioned as irrelevant, being the straw man that it is. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4240
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:41:00 -
[82] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Also, why do we want to kill "logged off supers"? I don't understand that mentality at all.
To address this, I would respond: Are they intended for unsupported operation?
If they are parked in a POS, how is it they will be killed, unless the POS is first defeated?
Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
These are questions, for which I feel you have implied answers exist. I wish to scrutinize these answers for a solid foundation, rather than far reaching assumptions. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3984
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Here's another question for those you like this proposal:
When aspects of supers do we dislike:
1.) Hotdrop mechanics to move an unscoutable fleet instantly and directly onto a target is pretty annoying. I'd claim this mechanic could use a balancing pass.
2.) When a fleet of supers are amassed into a single fleet, their combined firepower, together with EWAR immunity and insane tanks is pretty devastating. Supcap fleets are often very ineffective in against such adversaries, and it really imbalances Sov engagements that focus on destroying enormous EHP structures.
In my personal experience, lone supers, especially when belonging to smaller organizations, are GREAT targets. Why would we want to discourage this demographic of supers?
|
test tube bunny
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:44:00 -
[84] - Quote
+1 for this idea
You want to get rid of supers from the game...This will do it!
That or every titan/super pilot in the game will have their very own corp. hmm which will happen first? mass die off or mass corp production...
Also can we add another idea to this.... Supers should be able to jump while in a POS shield, they should have to leave the POS shield to jump out of a system. This will definitely add another solid spike into the chest of all super pilots! |
BugraT WarheaD
113
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:52:00 -
[85] - Quote
OP i gave you a +1 :D |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:56:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IceAero wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IceAero wrote: Third, there exits, always, the problem of what happens if you leave the game for a long period of time. And this MUST be addressed and I believe it is also where the core of your idea must have a limit. And I believe a SAFE-LOG OFF mechanic must exist, but you won't have it everywhere. So, this proposed super-pos-docking module I discussed above, could, with SOV 5 or something like this, enable you to anchor a super specifically for the purpose of a safe-log-off. This would start a timer on the super (which, should be, I think, LONGER than the reinforced timer, by a small amount), after which running down would cause the ship to disappear from space until the player logs back in. Oh, and if the POS is destroyed while your ship is away, maybe it would warp back in off-grid? I dunno, just not fair to be able to put down an enemy POS which prevents you from logging back in without warping to an enemy POS.
Thoughts? I don't own a super, so maybe this is all crazy-talk. But maybe it's the best idea ever?
Are you serious? Now, not only do the large, well established alliances offer better protections for supers. They now get to provide their supers with a despawning mechanic to permanently make their ships safe. On the other hand, any other entity that doesn't have Sov 5 must keep their supers in space 100% of the time because the "safe log off" mechanic isn't even available to them? Do you not understand how ridiculously biased your mechanic is? No no, you're totally correct! The mechanic should be available to just about everyone, but maybe not in low sec? So, don't make it based on SOV level, but the POS might still need to be designated as a log-off pos. I was just getting at the point that the safe-log-off mechanic shouldn't be available at any POS...or maybe it should? (Provided it had the correct module). Why should it not be available in Lowsec? You do know that PL spent a large portion of their history while a supercap superpower living in lowsec and not bothering with "holding sov"? Also, the proposed changes make any smaller entity owning a super in nullsec extremely dangerous. Any of the superpowers could RF its POS, bubble wrap it (so the owner can't cyno/warp away), and hell camp it during the entire RF cycle. Hell camps have been performed on even the largest entities in nullsec, so what chance would a small entity have of protecting their supers from such an onslaught? Also, why do we want to kill "logged off supers"? I don't understand that mentality at all.
I think the OP wants to make supers a less transitory element of the game and restrict the ability of a single player, un-aided, to safely remove them from space (practically) immediately and wherever they want.
And I like this idea. Make them retreat to a specific POS and start a timer if they want to disappear for good.
I could see this being in low-sec as well, because you might be right about needing to maintain safe supers in low sec. I'm not sure. I certainly like the idea for Forcing a corp/alliance to have at least one system to keep their super safe in, but you're also correct in that this makes for a HUGE target that would, again, bias towards the larger blocs. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3984
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 15:58:00 -
[87] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: To address this, I would respond: Are they intended for unsupported operation?
Supers usually require support. Individually, they are very susceptible to subcaps already.
Nikk Narrel wrote: If they are parked in a POS, how is it they will be killed, unless the POS is first defeated?
A POS can be destroyed, easily, within 2 days. Have you ever gone two days without playing this game? Most normal people often have RL engagements that limits their playtime to reasonable hours.
Furthermore, a POS can by bypassed: You can bump a ship out of a POS. There are ALWAYS members of a corp that can offline and/or take things from a POS (CEO, Directors, anyone with config starbase, and those with take roles).
Nikk Narrel wrote: Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
What is wrong with individual control? They are often bought and paid for by an individual and already difficult and dangerous to manage. Why would we want to force them into a role defined by player corporations?
In the end, this is a pretty daft proposition (as is). I've said my part, and we all know that CCP would never implement this terrible idea.
|
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 16:06:00 -
[88] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: To address this, I would respond: Are they intended for unsupported operation?
Supers usually require support. Individually, they are very susceptible to subcaps already. Nikk Narrel wrote: If they are parked in a POS, how is it they will be killed, unless the POS is first defeated?
A POS can be destroyed, easily, within 2 days. Have you ever gone two days without playing this game? Most normal people often have RL engagements that limits their playtime to reasonable hours. Furthermore, a POS can by bypassed: You can bump a ship out of a POS. There are ALWAYS members of a corp that can offline and/or take things from a POS (CEO, Directors, anyone with config starbase, and those with take roles). Nikk Narrel wrote: Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
What is wrong with individual control? They are often bought and paid for by an individual and already difficult and dangerous to manage. Why would we want to force them into a role defined by player corporations? In the end, this is a pretty daft proposition (as is). I've said my part, and we all know that CCP would never implement this terrible idea.
|
Anthar Thebess
477
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 16:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
Check ( in signature) idea about increasing jump fuel usage based on the model size. So Super carrier burns more fuel than a carrier, and titan use even more than Super carrier.
Jump Fuel Usage Based on Ship Size Interdiction Siphon Unit |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 16:21:00 -
[90] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:[ Nikk Narrel wrote: Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
What is wrong with individual control? They are often bought and paid for by an individual and already difficult and dangerous to manage. Why would we want to force them into a role defined by player corporations?
Who says this is? It's just forcing an individual to maintain a POS where they can stick their super. If they want to go solo, that's fine, but they gotta have a POS to stay safe. And if they join a corp, then they are going to have the same situation.
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3984
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 16:28:00 -
[91] - Quote
IceAero wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:[ Nikk Narrel wrote: Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
What is wrong with individual control? They are often bought and paid for by an individual and already difficult and dangerous to manage. Why would we want to force them into a role defined by player corporations? Who says this is? It's just forcing an individual to maintain a POS where they can stick their super. If they want to go solo, that's fine, but they gotta have a POS to stay safe. And if they join a corp, then they are going to have the same situation.
Most of the super pilots I know (especially titan pilots), already maintain a POS so they can safely log in and operate their super.
What this suggestion does, is make protecting that POS 100% mandatory or they will lose their super. Furthermore, since the POS RF timer is less than 2 days, protecting that POS is a MAJOR commitment. |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 16:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IceAero wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:[ Nikk Narrel wrote: Doesn't this rather, force them into a role defined by player cooperation, rather than individual control?
What is wrong with individual control? They are often bought and paid for by an individual and already difficult and dangerous to manage. Why would we want to force them into a role defined by player corporations? Who says this is? It's just forcing an individual to maintain a POS where they can stick their super. If they want to go solo, that's fine, but they gotta have a POS to stay safe. And if they join a corp, then they are going to have the same situation. Most of the super pilots I know (especially titan pilots), already maintain a POS so they can safely log in and operate their super. What this suggestion does, is make protecting that POS 100% mandatory or they will lose their super. Furthermore, since the POS RF timer is less than 2 days, protecting that POS is a MAJOR commitment.
You have to protect it now, or else when you log back in the POS won't be there.
With OP's idea (and my introduction of a log-off timer). You get the following:
If you're going to be logging back in with 2 days, then everyone sees your super sitting there, but you're safe so long as you're back before the RF timer is up.
If you're not going to be there for 2+ days, then you start a, for example, 24 hour timer to log-off your titan. Everyone can see that you're doing this, and it invites them to attack the POS. IF they blow it up, you don't lose your titan, you just gotta be careful about logging back in.
Basically, you can't hide your active supers.
Is this really different than how people operate their titans at POSs currently? Under OPs idea you just are no longer safe logging off in space. (and remember you can set your emergency warp location to the POS) |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4242
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 19:02:00 -
[93] - Quote
Wouldn't it be interesting, to keep these mega-boats in the game, but allow them to mount a cloak that remained active after they logged out?
To consider a proposal that the ship must be vulnerable, it should also be considered how to protect it so as to mitigate this risk.
It could be a burdensome thing, with 100% speed reduction, and full denial of off grid sensor use. (Compared to the regular cloak that doesn't remain active offline, but allows active sensor use otherwise)
Maybe even something that fit into a rig slot, and only became active while the ship was 'off-line'.
The idea being, the ship would have a small chance of being located, and captured. Depending on how well it was hidden, the odds of winning some lottery might be higher.
Just a thought. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 10:17:00 -
[94] - Quote
IceAero wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
A POS can be destroyed, easily, within 2 days. Have you ever gone two days without playing this game? Most normal people often have RL engagements that limits their playtime to reasonable hours.
Furthermore, a POS can by bypassed: You can bump a ship out of a POS. There are ALWAYS members of a corp that can offline and/or take things from a POS (CEO, Directors, anyone with config starbase, and those with take roles).
In the end, this is a pretty daft proposition (as is). I've said my part, and we all know that CCP would never implement this terrible idea.
Did my ideas not address both of these points? First, you wouldn't lose the ability to safely log your ship out, just be forced to do it at a specific POS and with a timer. If you're going to forward deploy your supers, then you're taking a risk. You either need to protect the POS where you stuck them, retreat them to POS where they can be safely logged off, or somehow make that POS enable them to safely log off after a timer and invite everyone to attack that POS in the meantime to prevent you from having a protected location to bring them back to. And you don't have problem with bumping if they can be anchored. And you can prevent anyone but yourself from unanchored them AND prevent from POS from being offlined while supers are anchored until after a 24 hour timer to add a layer of protection from rogue actors in the corp. (OR at least SOME mechanism must be possible to prevent someone from simply opening the POS at whim to let all the supers be taken or destroyed) Why? If you have awox in your corp with these kinds of rights, sucks for you. HTFU?
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2680
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 11:18:00 -
[95] - Quote
Anya Dyonas wrote:The basic premise here will center around the idea that Supercarriers and Titans should not disappear when the pilot logs off.
Now, that you are angry and confused, hear me out on this.
Supers and Titans cannot dock, through the theory that 'they are too big to dock'. The intent of the game designers was that this vessel should always be in-play. It is so valuable, and so special, that you should have to work to keep it. However, this mechanic was easily bypassed by the creation of Log-off Alts. And, fair enough. I would do the same as a super capital pilot. Store your vessel in a place that is infinitely safe and secure forever. But, therein lies the problem. This is the complete opposite of the design intent. Rather than being the most vulnerable of vessels, they are the LEAST vulnerable of all vessels. They only EXIST when the pilot is reasonably certain of security and victory. Otherwise, they are hidden in oblivion, safe and secure forever.
The game has a POS module designed specifically for storing supers and titans. This was intended to give the pilots a real place to dump their supers when they are not in use, rather than relying on Log-off Alts. Obviously, this a far less secure way to store the vessel, so it's use has been extremely limited.
With the suggestion from the devs that 'all things should be destructible', then that surely includes stations built by players in Sov space. When those stations blow up, surely everything within them will also be permanently destroyed. It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an invincible and invisible location.
So, the solution is to have all supers and titans forever 'in-play'. That means they never disappear from space. You can store them in the previously mentioned POS module to keep they from prying eyes and in the safety of a POS RF timer, but logging off with them in-space will simply result in the vessel staying right there, in space, idle.
I know most super pilots will scream 'shinanigans' at this suggestion. Heck, you probably would never have trained or bought the vessel if you didn't know you could secure it via Log-off Alt when you don't want to play with it. And, that is a fair reaction. Such a change of game mechanic would definitely be pulling the rug out from under you. However, this should be the price of having a super capital ship. It should be a chore. It should be a burden. It is not a weapon. It is a SUPER weapon. Thus is should come with extra burden and responsibility to own.
Now, hear me out on the applications in alliance wars, and think of the impact it could have. Suddenly, you cannot just invade a region of null and have these giant armies of supers on a whim. You need to work out the logistics for front-line POS structures to house your army of supers. That army of supers is vulnerable AFTER the battle, when you would otherwise just log them off.
Your supers are always vulnerable, but so are your enemy's. That means if an ally back-stabs you, then you can hit them where it hurts later, getting proper revenge.
Having the supers always in-play will change the commitment and investment of attacking with supers, and the logistics of defending space that houses supers. It will raise questions like "Is it worth the burden to involve the supers in this fight/campaign?" It will push the consequences of people's actions in the game to a new level of possibilities, which is exactly the 'sand box environment' eve is based on.
I don't see this proposal demanding that cheap sub-caps / capitals remain in play when their pilots logoffski without engagement timers.
So to hell with RIfters online.Get out.
-1 Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Wedge Rancer
Bookmark Both Sides Exit Strategy..
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 11:19:00 -
[96] - Quote
+1 |
IceAero
Shadow. DARKNESS.
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 13:19:00 -
[97] - Quote
Maybe a slightly more plausible implementation of the general idea, without introducing any new POS mechanics, is to have supers only disappear when logged off inside a force-field? |
Anthar Thebess
478
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 13:34:00 -
[98] - Quote
IceAero wrote:Maybe a slightly more plausible implementation of the general idea, without introducing any new POS mechanics, is to have supers only disappear when logged off inside a force-field?
I think all those recent ideas are because supers are bit abused lately by big power blocks. But current CSM will not allow to change it. Jump Fuel Usage Based on Ship Size Interdiction Siphon Unit |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4244
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 13:35:00 -
[99] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:I don't see this proposal demanding that cheap sub-caps / capitals remain in play when their pilots logoffski without engagement timers.
So to hell with RIfters online.Get out.
-1 I miss seeing you in the forums more often, Miss Asuka.
I agree, there should be a balancing aspect that says not just these supers and titans get locked online, but all ships.
Give those outposts and cloaks some real value, and make searching for sleepers mean more than just the NPCs... Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Juan Thang
Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 13:35:00 -
[100] - Quote
This is a good idea, far more supers are in play than ccp ever intended, they need to be more vulnerable.
Also with stations being destructable there needs to be less supers so you dont get super blobs roaming and blowing up stations left right and centre. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1465
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 20:47:00 -
[101] - Quote
For all you super owners who are worried about the stress of owning one after something like this were implemented: did you think about how much easier it would be once you don't have one anymore?
I think we're just trying to cut you guys some slack. That's all. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Juan Thang
Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 09:43:00 -
[102] - Quote
Also....
Super capitals have a max concuront users of 10, which is there because of what the op suggests but it is never used because you can just log them. So for that intended feature to be used this needs to happen |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4250
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 13:05:00 -
[103] - Quote
Juan Thang wrote:Also....
Super capitals have a max concuront users of 10, which is there because of what the op suggests but it is never used because you can just log them. So for that intended feature to be used this needs to happen Can you clarify this, please?
I was not familiar with this. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1061
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 13:17:00 -
[104] - Quote
Daniella Moonstorm wrote:+1 for the idea, +1 for the flame war. +1 for super owners being unable to go on holiday ever again....... Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
44
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 13:56:00 -
[105] - Quote
Supers should not be player owned period. It should be corporation asset. If you want to have it owned by you, fine, then take care of it. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1473
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 22:03:00 -
[106] - Quote
Walter Hart White wrote:Supers should not be player owned period. It should be corporation asset. If you want to have it owned by you, fine, then take care of it. This exactly. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Llyona
Lazerhawks
46
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 15:00:00 -
[107] - Quote
Juan Thang wrote:This is a good idea, far more supers are in play than ccp ever expected
Fixed that for you.
I wouldn't mind ships always being in space, so long as all ships stayed in space. I would even go so far as to make it so no one can log off in stations. I'm also all for destructible stations in every security level of space as well. EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4254
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 13:27:00 -
[108] - Quote
Llyona wrote:Juan Thang wrote:This is a good idea, far more supers are in play than ccp ever expected Fixed that for you. I wouldn't mind ships always being in space, so long as all ships stayed in space. I would even go so far as to make it so no one can log off in stations. I'm also all for destructible stations in every security level of space as well. No to this aspect.
One of the key points in balancing supers was that they were too big and powerful to enjoy the same protections offered to smaller ships, like docking safely in outposts.
Ships all vanishing from the game itself neutralizes this distinction, and makes it a meaningless detail in many ways.
I think all ships should remain in game, but keep the current options for defense they already have, such as being docked or cloaked.
Dipping out in hostile space should not be safe, simply because you logged before others could react. I feel that devalues POS, Outposts, as well as cloaks, in the game... by simply giving for free the defense they were intended to be valued for.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Tabyll Altol
Caldari Campers
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 14:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
+1 for the idea. |
Naglerr
235MeV Waterboard Comedy Tour
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 23:13:00 -
[110] - Quote
Bump. Still a good idea. |
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2115
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 00:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
Love your thoughts.
*grabs popcorn* ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Angeal MacNova
LankTech Masters of Flying Objects
169
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 03:41:00 -
[112] - Quote
+1 for the suggestion
+1 for all the real EVE carebear complaints. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
148
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 03:53:00 -
[113] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:+15 for the idea, +2 for the tears. No exaggerations here.
The easy way to ease players into the new system would be to keep supers invisible until they log in for the first time after the change.
I'd like to see people be able to exit their supercapital ship. One change to make that possible would be to allow supers to be owned by a corporation, and for the ship to always be locked except to those who have authorized access, with corp directors who have the role able to force-eject a ppilot from a corp-owned super.
I think all capital ships should be locked when ejected in space, and should require a successful hacking attempt for an unauthorized pilot to board them.
Director level spies taken to a new level, grand theft aeon
Is it bad if your friend says "that was a Metaphor" and you say "Meta 4? Get Tech II or faction" ?I love the sound of silent explosions in Space.-á |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2487
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 05:57:00 -
[114] - Quote
Read the first two pages and then skipped to the end.
The solution is that all supercaps should be destroyed and their contents moved to the pilot's hangar in the nearest lowsec station.
Remove all supercap BPOs and BPCs from the game as well.
Death to all supercaps - the true cancer in EVE. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
519
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 12:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
So now all small corps and alliances need to leave their supers in lowsec or they are dead. Good job fixing nullsec.
Edit: went to second page to see if it's the same thread, yep I already posted this.
Whatever.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
234
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 13:42:00 -
[116] - Quote
Create a parking space inside a POS by anchoring cheapest possible mods around it so that no one can bump it through the gaps.
If needed for a bridge, people can go inside the POS and keep at range. If needed in a fight, just jump off and then move a wall about when you need to park it back in.
Instead of making them invulnerable to bumps and attacks via logging off, they're now immune until the POS is destroyed, meaning you'd need to hellcamp the POS until you can destroy it just to get a chance to down a super. Smaller groups cannot do this making supers once again invulnerable to surprise attacks.
Next idea. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
519
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 13:49:00 -
[117] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Create a parking space inside a POS by anchoring cheapest possible mods around it so that no one can bump it through the gaps.
If needed for a bridge, people can go inside the POS and keep at range. If needed in a fight, just jump off and then move a wall about when you need to park it back in.
Instead of making them invulnerable to bumps and attacks via logging off, they're now immune until the POS is destroyed, meaning you'd need to hellcamp the POS until you can destroy it just to get a chance to down a super. Smaller groups cannot do this making supers once again invulnerable to surprise attacks.
Next idea. If that's in null they can still hellcamp it. Not saying you can't just catapult it out by changing PW.
Also Eve is not to be trusted with collisions eventually it too will get a nasty tick and fly out.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
James Nikolas Tesla
The True Patriots of New Eden
158
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 13:54:00 -
[118] - Quote
OP, feel free to fill in the blank on this +1 check. Elite PVP - The use of huge blobs, capital ships, and metagaming to defeat a target you already significantly outnumbered. -masternerdguy |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
104
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 14:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
I can get behind this idea, I'll Bump it to the top/. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Xarh
Ankh Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
+1 |
|
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
393
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:49:00 -
[121] - Quote
So what I read is that the OP thinks the big blocs should be the only ones to have supers.
I'm sure it would be a lot of fun for them as they helicopter **** all the kill-mail pinatas after the change is implemented. Not so much fun for anyone else though. |
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
394
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:49:49 -
[122] - Quote
So what I read is that the OP thinks the big blocs should be the only ones to have supers.
I'm sure it would be a lot of fun for them as they helicopter **** all the kill-mail pinatas after the change is implemented. Not so much fun for anyone else though. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
348
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:50:00 -
[123] - Quote
+1 for no etheral, magical palce where spaceships sleep.
But this suggestion doesn't reach far enough. No spaceship should be save when logged off in space. I know we have emergency warps at timeout, disc etc.. So what if the emergency warp out is kept, but only mainteained for the reasonable amount of 10 minutes giving you enough time to log in from any disconnect, then the ship warps back in, void of a pilot. This means in PvE it is no longer targeted by NPCs and can be salvaged/resuced by friends or picked up by random exploreres - yay a decent explorer profession. In PvP it means it can be blown up or seized by either friend or foe. But basically all the timers in combat will already give you certain death when you disc., so it actually doesn't really change much there.
I know, what about electricity or something else happening ... well, accidents happen, anyway, you know what you got yourself into when you hit 'Undock'.
PS: My FW chars have give up their SS log-out locations too ,) And am gonna hunt for the multiboxing afk miner who just disc 8) Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
424
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:50:07 -
[124] - Quote
+1 for no etheral, magical palce where spaceships sleep.
But this suggestion doesn't reach far enough. No spaceship should be save when logged off in space. I know we have emergency warps at timeout, disc etc.. So what if the emergency warp out is kept, but only mainteained for the reasonable amount of 10 minutes giving you enough time to log in from any disconnect, then the ship warps back in, void of a pilot. This means in PvE it is no longer targeted by NPCs and can be salvaged/resuced by friends or picked up by random exploreres - yay a decent explorer profession. In PvP it means it can be blown up or seized by either friend or foe. But basically all the timers in combat will already give you certain death when you disc., so it actually doesn't really change much there.
I know, what about electricity or something else happening ... well, accidents happen, anyway, you know what you got yourself into when you hit 'Undock'.
PS: My FW chars have give up their SS log-out locations too ,) And am gonna hunt for the multiboxing afk miner who just disc 8)
Join the BIG Lottery (see Bio ingame), _oldest and only _[u]non-profit Lottery in EVE[/u], every second Monday.
Wire ISK to BIG GAMES for tickets !
Join the Channel, have fun, being a lucky winner is optional ,)
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4094
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:11:00 -
[125] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:+1 for no etheral, magical palce where spaceships sleep.
But this suggestion doesn't reach far enough. No spaceship should be save when logged off in space. I know we have emergency warps at timeout, disc etc.. So what if the emergency warp out is kept, but only mainteained for the reasonable amount of 10 minutes giving you enough time to log in from any disconnect, then the ship warps back in, void of a pilot. This means in PvE it is no longer targeted by NPCs and can be salvaged/resuced by friends or picked up by random exploreres - yay a decent explorer profession. In PvP it means it can be blown up or seized by either friend or foe. But basically all the timers in combat will already give you certain death when you disc., so it actually doesn't really change much there.
I know, what about electricity or something else happening ... well, accidents happen, anyway, you know what you got yourself into when you hit 'Undock'.
PS: My FW chars have give up their SS log-out locations too ,) And am gonna hunt for the multiboxing afk miner who just disc 8)
We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4182
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:11:12 -
[126] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:+1 for no etheral, magical palce where spaceships sleep.
But this suggestion doesn't reach far enough. No spaceship should be save when logged off in space. I know we have emergency warps at timeout, disc etc.. So what if the emergency warp out is kept, but only mainteained for the reasonable amount of 10 minutes giving you enough time to log in from any disconnect, then the ship warps back in, void of a pilot. This means in PvE it is no longer targeted by NPCs and can be salvaged/resuced by friends or picked up by random exploreres - yay a decent explorer profession. In PvP it means it can be blown up or seized by either friend or foe. But basically all the timers in combat will already give you certain death when you disc., so it actually doesn't really change much there.
I know, what about electricity or something else happening ... well, accidents happen, anyway, you know what you got yourself into when you hit 'Undock'.
PS: My FW chars have give up their SS log-out locations too ,) And am gonna hunt for the multiboxing afk miner who just disc 8)
We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4371
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:23:00 -
[127] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
Serious question here:
At what point is the player responsible for risking their in-game assets?
You undock in a ship that you can't easily replace, should you be worried if you get disconnected, or on the other hand should players drop connection as a best method to avoid losing ships? I don't feel qualified to second guess intentions, as I suspect both would claim to be victims of disconnect-itis.
Where do we draw the line, so we know it is not abused by either side? That super is an amazing kill mail for one guy, but also a highly valued game-play aspect for another player.
This seems to be one heck of a gray area. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4418
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:23:37 -
[128] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
Serious question here:
At what point is the player responsible for risking their in-game assets?
You undock in a ship that you can't easily replace, should you be worried if you get disconnected, or on the other hand should players drop connection as a best method to avoid losing ships? I don't feel qualified to second guess intentions, as I suspect both would claim to be victims of disconnect-itis.
Where do we draw the line, so we know it is not abused by either side? That super is an amazing kill mail for one guy, but also a highly valued game-play aspect for another player.
This seems to be one heck of a gray area.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12789
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:30:00 -
[129] - Quote
Just let the space coffins dock already. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13955
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:30:01 -
[130] - Quote
Just let the space coffins dock already.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
64
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:55:00 -
[131] - Quote
I had a super warp to a gang I was in on gate once. first time I ever saw an aeon. wasn't that impressed as it was able to save the navy aug that had pinged the super and we couldn't do anything in our frigs against it but it could do anything against us. just sort of sat there trying to kill a handful of frigs with bombers. To bad at the time no one had a bat phone to get someone in a hic to point it and kill it.
These ships cant really do anything alone as it is if you want to take away there ability to be safe than they need to gain something. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:55:19 -
[132] - Quote
I had a super warp to a gang I was in on gate once. first time I ever saw an aeon. wasn't that impressed as it was able to save the navy aug that had pinged the super and we couldn't do anything in our frigs against it but it could do anything against us. just sort of sat there trying to kill a handful of frigs with bombers. To bad at the time no one had a bat phone to get someone in a hic to point it and kill it.
These ships cant really do anything alone as it is if you want to take away there ability to be safe than they need to gain something. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4096
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 00:22:00 -
[133] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
Serious question here: At what point is the player responsible for risking their in-game assets? You undock in a ship that you can't easily replace, should you be worried if you get disconnected, or on the other hand should players drop connection as a best method to avoid losing ships? I don't feel qualified to second guess intentions, as I suspect both would claim to be victims of disconnect-itis. Where do we draw the line, so we know it is not abused by either side? That super is an amazing kill mail for one guy, but also a highly valued game-play aspect for another player. This seems to be one heck of a gray area.
This isn't a grey area. The answer is very simple: You risk your ship when you are flying it.
Undock it and you are flying it. When you log off, you are NOT flying it.
Players used to purposely drop connection to avoid losing ships. A tanked ship often had enough buffer to survive the 60 second despawn timer, and in situations where you were likely to die otherwise players would do everything possible to save their ships. However, when crimewatch 2.0 was implemented, this loophole was completely removed. Now your ship won't despawn until your timers clear, be it a weapon's timers (1 min), NPC timers (5 minutes to despawn when engaging NPCs), or PvP timers (15 minutes from the last time you shot or were shot). These are all timers you get from flying your ship. Furthermore, to make it absolutely clear that they don't want you to log-off as a get-out-of-jail card, you may receive a PvP timer even after logoff, if someone attacks your ship before it despawns. The result is a very balanced system.
The timers make it so if you are being attacked, you can't log off to get safe.
If you are being hunted, logging off is risky but still possible. Even if you have no timers, the default 60s despawn window is long enough a hunter to scan down your ship and attack it and then destroying it.
However, if you are out somewhere in space, away from any threats, you can reliably log off and safely despawn your ship. At that point, you aren't flying your ship anymore, and it would be idiotic for CCP to insist your ship is "still in danger" from some passerby that happens to swing through system several hours later. I don't care if you are flying a noobship or a titan, this system is balanced and fair for both the hunted and the hunters.
The proposal removes this balance for supercaps. It suggests it should be in danger all the time. Inside a POS is not safe, because the POS can always be offlined by members of your corp with the appropriate roles (CEO, Directors, +others). Furthermore, a POS may be destroyed. POSs are regularly bubble wrapped and camped through entire 1day 17 hrs RF cycles; just ask any WH resident. The result of the proposal is that supers have to be in lowsec to have any hope of safety (cause you can't bubble wrap the POS there), and even then it is extremely dangerous and difficult to keep your ship safe from ANY larger entity.
This is moving supers in VERY much the wrong direction. You want supers in the hands of people that can't call 500 people in to get them out of a trap.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4182
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 00:22:27 -
[134] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:We understand it is not realistic for ships to despawn and spawn while in space. However, since most of us have real life responsibilities, real life emergencies, etc, we often suspend realism within the game to provide reasonable accommodations for players.
Disconnects happen: Power goes out from a storm, kids have an accident, Connectivity issues shut out entire regions of the world from the servers, and DDoS attacks force the servers to shut down. I could go on, but creating an environment were the number one reason for losing your ships is because you weren't able to log on an move it to safety would be a terrible game mechanic!
Serious question here: At what point is the player responsible for risking their in-game assets? You undock in a ship that you can't easily replace, should you be worried if you get disconnected, or on the other hand should players drop connection as a best method to avoid losing ships? I don't feel qualified to second guess intentions, as I suspect both would claim to be victims of disconnect-itis. Where do we draw the line, so we know it is not abused by either side? That super is an amazing kill mail for one guy, but also a highly valued game-play aspect for another player. This seems to be one heck of a gray area.
This isn't a grey area. The answer is very simple: You risk your ship when you are flying it.
Undock it and you are flying it. When you log off, you are NOT flying it.
Players used to purposely drop connection to avoid losing ships. A tanked ship often had enough buffer to survive the 60 second despawn timer, and in situations where you were likely to die otherwise players would do everything possible to save their ships. However, when crimewatch 2.0 was implemented, this loophole was completely removed. Now your ship won't despawn until your timers clear, be it a weapon's timers (1 min), NPC timers (5 minutes to despawn when engaging NPCs), or PvP timers (15 minutes from the last time you shot or were shot). These are all timers you get from flying your ship. Furthermore, to make it absolutely clear that they don't want you to log-off as a get-out-of-jail card, you may receive a PvP timer even after logoff, if someone attacks your ship before it despawns. The result is a very balanced system.
The timers make it so if you are being attacked, you can't log off to get safe.
If you are being hunted, logging off is risky but still possible. Even if you have no timers, the default 60s despawn window is long enough a hunter to scan down your ship and attack it and then destroying it.
However, if you are out somewhere in space, away from any threats, you can reliably log off and safely despawn your ship. At that point, you aren't flying your ship anymore, and it would be idiotic for CCP to insist your ship is "still in danger" from some passerby that happens to swing through system several hours later. I don't care if you are flying a noobship or a titan, this system is balanced and fair for both the hunted and the hunters.
The proposal removes this balance for supercaps. It suggests it should be in danger all the time. Inside a POS is not safe, because the POS can always be offlined by members of your corp with the appropriate roles (CEO, Directors, +others). Furthermore, a POS may be destroyed. POSs are regularly bubble wrapped and camped through entire 1day 17 hrs RF cycles; just ask any WH resident. The result of the proposal is that supers have to be in lowsec to have any hope of safety (cause you can't bubble wrap the POS there), and even then it is extremely dangerous and difficult to keep your ship safe from ANY larger entity.
This is moving supers in VERY much the wrong direction. You want supers in the hands of people that can't call 500 people in to get them out of a trap.
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4372
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:14:00 -
[135] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This isn't a grey area. The answer is very simple: You risk your ship when you are flying it.
Undock it and you are flying it. When you log off, you are NOT flying it.
...
This is moving supers in VERY much the wrong direction. You want supers in the hands of people that can't call 500 people in to get them out of a trap.
I gotta say, this makes a very compelling point.
While an ideal system would possibly risk all ships at all times, to varying degrees.... we cannot also ignore the net effects that this is a game, and that such an environment would create a snowball effect in power favoring the larger groups.
We don't want a winner to emerge, (on that scale), or the game effectively has ended.
We like battles, we want to see battles resolved... but the war is something we want to keep going. Because it makes the battles we like. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4418
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 13:14:36 -
[136] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This isn't a grey area. The answer is very simple: You risk your ship when you are flying it.
Undock it and you are flying it. When you log off, you are NOT flying it.
...
This is moving supers in VERY much the wrong direction. You want supers in the hands of people that can't call 500 people in to get them out of a trap.
I gotta say, this makes a very compelling point.
While an ideal system would possibly risk all ships at all times, to varying degrees.... we cannot also ignore the net effects that this is a game, and that such an environment would create a snowball effect in power favoring the larger groups.
We don't want a winner to emerge, (on that scale), or the game effectively has ended.
We like battles, we want to see battles resolved... but the war is something we want to keep going. Because it makes the battles we like.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Poena Loveless
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 05:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
I can't disagree more. It should not depend on your ship type as for the safety of returning to your ship. Many people, including myself, have had RL events transpire that has forced us to leave the game for long, very long periods (think 12-16 months)
You are essentially saying if you need to leave, better give your super cap (many people it is at least 50-75% of their in-gamer worth) to someone else, or loose it to some troll cov. ops and a wet biscuit fleet.
|
Poena Loveless
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 05:41:04 -
[138] - Quote
I can't disagree more. It should not depend on your ship type as for the safety of returning to your ship. Many people, including myself, have had RL events transpire that has forced us to leave the game for long, very long periods (think 12-16 months)
You are essentially saying if you need to leave, better give your super cap (many people it is at least 50-75% of their in-gamer worth) to someone else, or loose it to some troll cov. ops and a wet biscuit fleet.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1911
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 19:56:54 -
[139] - Quote
Howabout this: make supercapitals stay in space for a month and then disappear. It makes them vulnerable all the time pretty much if they are being used, but if the owner has to go away, the ship will eventually fade from space - hopefully before sovereignty changes over in its system.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4418
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:03:54 -
[140] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Howabout this: make supercapitals stay in space for a month and then disappear. It makes them vulnerable all the time pretty much if they are being used, but if the owner has to go away, the ship will eventually fade from space - hopefully before sovereignty changes over in its system. Or, you could have them use an exposed docking mechanic.
The ship is visible on the outside of the station or Outpost, and can be targeted the same as other aspects of said station or outpost.
Yes, this would mean needing a POS or Outpost in order to keep your super or titan relatively secure.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:25:58 -
[141] - Quote
They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around.
Like supercap parking garages. This would also allow super pilots to leave the ship in a safe area but it would not just magically disappear. This also gives alliances with huge supercap fleets more expenses for maintaining that large fleet. Since they would need multiple pos to park their supers. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1911
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:31:44 -
[142] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around. That's all fine and good but there needs to be some protection for when you have to go offline for a month or more. Your corp can't just move the supercap to the new POS after the one its in gets shot down.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4419
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:36:26 -
[143] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around. That's all fine and good but there needs to be some protection for when you have to go offline for a month or more. Your corp can't just move the supercap to the new POS after the one its in gets shot down. Now, maybe I am missing a detail, but I would expect that another pilot would be able to valet the cap to a new location.
Like having an assigned role, alternate pilots could be selected to move otherwise secured supers and titans as needed. (Having the assigned role would be required to release the ship and board it)
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 21:04:12 -
[144] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around. That's all fine and good but there needs to be some protection for when you have to go offline for a month or more. Your corp can't just move the supercap to the new POS after the one its in gets shot down.
Why have a super if you arent gonna fly it for a month? Though i suppose if you unsubbed, only in that case would it disappear. I do like the idea of a valet or temp pilot role better though. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:00:45 -
[145] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around. That's all fine and good but there needs to be some protection for when you have to go offline for a month or more. Your corp can't just move the supercap to the new POS after the one its in gets shot down. Why have a super if you arent gonna fly it for a month? Though i suppose if you unsubbed, only in that case would it disappear. I do like the idea of a valet or temp pilot role better though.
are you saying that once you get a super you are ever allowed to leave the game if you want to keep your super?
If its to not despawn then a large POS needs to have more timers or longer timers 1day to a couple weeks/months. as this would be the only way for a super owner to be able to have a real life. |
Helios Panala
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 13:40:58 -
[146] - Quote
Maybe allow the construction and anchoring of super acceleration gates at a POS.
The Super flies to, selects, gets ejected and the super cap gets flung out into the middle of nowhere (out of the game.) The gate then creates a recall key in its storage and the pilot can use it to have the super cap warp back to that moon. No more supers disappearing out in space, cloaky scouts can watch POS's with gates for traffic and if someone with a super unsubs so long as they made a note of the moon they can go and get the ship even if the POS is gone or replaced with someone elses.
Also potential for many tears if some idiot gets blown apart moving a bunch of super cap keys in a T1 frigate. |
Jur Tissant
The TERRA Guardians of Serenity
325
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 13:45:51 -
[147] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:They should not disappear from space. Instead give POS' a way to let someone park a super (fixed) in a pos. That way its still protected, but highly visible. RL may intervene but i would hope your corp/alliance is smart enough to protects all its POS assests without you around. That's all fine and good but there needs to be some protection for when you have to go offline for a month or more. Your corp can't just move the supercap to the new POS after the one its in gets shot down.
Then that's part of owning a super. If you must offline for a month and nobody in your corp can move it then you should dock it up in the most highly guarded, tough-as-bricks POS setup you can.
I think OP is right, in general. Disappearing supers makes no sense, you should use your POS. |
Havenard
Rubicon Spears Some Say
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 14:31:29 -
[148] - Quote
Anya Dyonas wrote:The basic premise here will center around the idea that Supercarriers and Titans should not disappear when the pilot logs off.
Now, that you are angry and confused, hear me out on this.
Supers and Titans cannot dock, through the theory that 'they are too big to dock'. The intent of the game designers was that this vessel should always be in-play. It is so valuable, and so special, that you should have to work to keep it. However, this mechanic was easily bypassed by the creation of Log-off Alts. And, fair enough. I would do the same as a super capital pilot. Store your vessel in a place that is infinitely safe and secure forever. But, therein lies the problem. This is the complete opposite of the design intent. Rather than being the most vulnerable of vessels, they are the LEAST vulnerable of all vessels. They only EXIST when the pilot is reasonably certain of security and victory. Otherwise, they are hidden in oblivion, safe and secure forever.
The game has a POS module designed specifically for storing supers and titans. This was intended to give the pilots a real place to dump their supers when they are not in use, rather than relying on Log-off Alts. Obviously, this a far less secure way to store the vessel, so it's use has been extremely limited.
With the suggestion from the devs that 'all things should be destructible', then that surely includes stations built by players in Sov space. When those stations blow up, surely everything within them will also be permanently destroyed. It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an invincible and invisible location.
So, the solution is to have all supers and titans forever 'in-play'. That means they never disappear from space. You can store them in the previously mentioned POS module to keep they from prying eyes and in the safety of a POS RF timer, but logging off with them in-space will simply result in the vessel staying right there, in space, idle.
I know most super pilots will scream 'shinanigans' at this suggestion. Heck, you probably would never have trained or bought the vessel if you didn't know you could secure it via Log-off Alt when you don't want to play with it. And, that is a fair reaction. Such a change of game mechanic would definitely be pulling the rug out from under you. However, this should be the price of having a super capital ship. It should be a chore. It should be a burden. It is not a weapon. It is a SUPER weapon. Thus is should come with extra burden and responsibility to own.
Now, hear me out on the applications in alliance wars, and think of the impact it could have. Suddenly, you cannot just invade a region of null and have these giant armies of supers on a whim. You need to work out the logistics for front-line POS structures to house your army of supers. That army of supers is vulnerable AFTER the battle, when you would otherwise just log them off.
Your supers are always vulnerable, but so are your enemy's. That means if an ally back-stabs you, then you can hit them where it hurts later, getting proper revenge.
Having the supers always in-play will change the commitment and investment of attacking with supers, and the logistics of defending space that houses supers. It will raise questions like "Is it worth the burden to involve the supers in this fight/campaign?" It will push the consequences of people's actions in the game to a new level of possibilities, which is exactly the 'sand box environment' eve is based on.
You forget people have real lifes to attend to, they cant be 24/7 in the game preocuppied with what could happen to their multi billionaire ships drifting in space.
The game mechanics must meet this reality, otherwise the ships just won't be used. This would immediately make Supers and Titans targets of fleets that would search space after "idling capitals" and destroy them for fat killmails, and nobody would ever buy those ships again. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs DamnedNation
70
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 14:50:40 -
[149] - Quote
Anya Dyonas wrote:The basic premise here will center around the idea that Supercarriers and Titans should not disappear when the pilot logs off.
Now, that you are angry and confused, hear me out on this.
Supers and Titans cannot dock, through the theory that 'they are too big to dock'. The intent of the game designers was that this vessel should always be in-play. It is so valuable, and so special, that you should have to work to keep it. However, this mechanic was easily bypassed by the creation of Log-off Alts. And, fair enough. I would do the same as a super capital pilot. Store your vessel in a place that is infinitely safe and secure forever. But, therein lies the problem. This is the complete opposite of the design intent. Rather than being the most vulnerable of vessels, they are the LEAST vulnerable of all vessels. They only EXIST when the pilot is reasonably certain of security and victory. Otherwise, they are hidden in oblivion, safe and secure forever.
The game has a POS module designed specifically for storing supers and titans. This was intended to give the pilots a real place to dump their supers when they are not in use, rather than relying on Log-off Alts. Obviously, this a far less secure way to store the vessel, so it's use has been extremely limited.
With the suggestion from the devs that 'all things should be destructible', then that surely includes stations built by players in Sov space. When those stations blow up, surely everything within them will also be permanently destroyed. It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an invincible and invisible location.
So, the solution is to have all supers and titans forever 'in-play'. That means they never disappear from space. You can store them in the previously mentioned POS module to keep they from prying eyes and in the safety of a POS RF timer, but logging off with them in-space will simply result in the vessel staying right there, in space, idle.
I know most super pilots will scream 'shinanigans' at this suggestion. Heck, you probably would never have trained or bought the vessel if you didn't know you could secure it via Log-off Alt when you don't want to play with it. And, that is a fair reaction. Such a change of game mechanic would definitely be pulling the rug out from under you. However, this should be the price of having a super capital ship. It should be a chore. It should be a burden. It is not a weapon. It is a SUPER weapon. Thus is should come with extra burden and responsibility to own.
Now, hear me out on the applications in alliance wars, and think of the impact it could have. Suddenly, you cannot just invade a region of null and have these giant armies of supers on a whim. You need to work out the logistics for front-line POS structures to house your army of supers. That army of supers is vulnerable AFTER the battle, when you would otherwise just log them off.
Your supers are always vulnerable, but so are your enemy's. That means if an ally back-stabs you, then you can hit them where it hurts later, getting proper revenge.
Having the supers always in-play will change the commitment and investment of attacking with supers, and the logistics of defending space that houses supers. It will raise questions like "Is it worth the burden to involve the supers in this fight/campaign?" It will push the consequences of people's actions in the game to a new level of possibilities, which is exactly the 'sand box environment' eve is based on. You take this idea and you keep it alive.
No matter how many threads it takes, you keep this going.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eaUaJUhTZfw#t=148s
An excellent example of why pod killmails are the best feature to be implemented in EVE Online since warping at zero.
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4419
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 15:09:08 -
[150] - Quote
Havenard wrote:You forget people have real lifes to attend to, they cant be 24/7 in the game preocuppied with what could happen to their multi billionaire ships drifting in space.
The game mechanics must meet this reality, otherwise the ships just won't be used. This would immediately make Supers and Titans targets of fleets that would search space after "afk capitals" and destroy them for fat killmails, and nobody would ever buy those ships again. It's a sandbox.
You can choose to play any way you would like.
That said, why should CCP incentivize fleet oriented ships, designed to require multi account support for best use, around individual players?
They have not committed to making these ships exclusively fleet centric, which is why so many are out there. They became a status symbol of wealth instead of group play.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 17:22:58 -
[151] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Havenard wrote:You forget people have real lifes to attend to, they cant be 24/7 in the game preocuppied with what could happen to their multi billionaire ships drifting in space.
The game mechanics must meet this reality, otherwise the ships just won't be used. This would immediately make Supers and Titans targets of fleets that would search space after "afk capitals" and destroy them for fat killmails, and nobody would ever buy those ships again. It's a sandbox. You can choose to play any way you would like. That said, why should CCP incentivize fleet oriented ships, designed to require multi account support for best use, around individual players? They have not committed to making these ships exclusively fleet centric, which is why so many are out there. They became a status symbol of wealth instead of group play.
It was eve's attempt at an end game. Were a pilot would go to spend the rest of there life in a super.
It requires multi account support for best use it shouldn't require that when not doing any thing. Also its only one toon ever flying the ship can they could solo if they chose until eve has ships that require multiple pilots to be in it to fly it then they are ships for individuals that hold strategic value for there corp/alliance. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4419
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 17:52:45 -
[152] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:It was eve's attempt at an end game. Were a pilot would go to spend the rest of there life in a super.
It requires multi account support for best use it shouldn't require that when not doing any thing. Also its only one toon ever flying the ship can they could solo if they chose until eve has ships that require multiple pilots to be in it to fly it then they are ships for individuals that hold strategic value for there corp/alliance. Players have bypassed that by plexing alt pilots to sit in the super offline. This simple tactic frees the original pilot character to do other things.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am asking why should CCP continue using these as wealth status symbols, as they have been?
It has been implied, particularly when they pointed out that they never expected so many titans to be in the game, that CCP never intended supers to be present in relatively large numbers.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
88
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 18:29:08 -
[153] - Quote
Supers are not really so "super" we all know they have **** load of drawbacks the bigest is the space coffin.
And throwing them under the bus will help nothing, will make super pilots only more sad.
what if you have Titan and go on vacation and don't log in for few weeks? YOU ARE Fucke* coz you don't log every day?
yyy ... this is silly and bad idea. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4420
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 19:20:08 -
[154] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Supers are not really so "super" we all know they have **** load of drawbacks the bigest is the space coffin.
And throwing them under the bus will help nothing, will make super pilots only more sad.
what if you have Titan and go on vacation and don't log in for few weeks? YOU ARE Fucke* coz you don't log every day?
yyy ... this is silly and bad idea. Why should pilots able and willing to work together, not have a benefit for doing this?
More specifically, to the idea I suggested about external docking of supers and titans, your corp would be able to babysit your prized vessel for you, protecting it alongside the POS or Outpost already being defended.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Sgt Soulless
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 20:05:15 -
[155] - Quote
I'm all for this change. The universe needs fewer super caps, and capitals in general really need to be completely rethought. They're much much too common, and were never intended to exist in the quantities that they do now. Personally I think super cap construction should just be disabled so they'll slowly be phased out of existence. They were kind of a stupid idea to begin with. They really don't bring anything of significant value to the game that couldn't be implemented in better ways. They're mostly just about "look at my eve peen. It's HUUUUGE!". |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 20:26:21 -
[156] - Quote
Sgt Soulless wrote:I'm all for this change. The universe needs fewer super caps, and capitals in general really need to be completely rethought. They're much much too common, and were never intended to exist in the quantities that they do now. Personally I think super cap construction should just be disabled so they'll slowly be phased out of existence. They were kind of a stupid idea to begin with. They really don't bring anything of significant value to the game that couldn't be implemented in better ways. They're mostly just about "look at my eve peen. It's HUUUUGE!".
I would be too, if it would actually reduce the number of supercaps, but it won't. A few people might lose them to POS security before they learn that they can't tell anyone their password. Other than that, it's just an inconvenience for super pilots, and considering how insanely powerful and un-counterable supers and titans are, it's not going to dissuade people from using them.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 20:42:05 -
[157] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Lady Rift wrote:It was eve's attempt at an end game. Were a pilot would go to spend the rest of there life in a super.
It requires multi account support for best use it shouldn't require that when not doing any thing. Also its only one toon ever flying the ship can they could solo if they chose until eve has ships that require multiple pilots to be in it to fly it then they are ships for individuals that hold strategic value for there corp/alliance. Players have bypassed that by plexing alt pilots to sit in the super offline. This simple tactic frees the original pilot character to do other things. I am not saying you are wrong. I am asking why should CCP continue using these as wealth status symbols, as they have been? It has been implied, particularly when they pointed out that they never expected so many titans to be in the game, that CCP never intended supers to be present in relatively large numbers.
They also said no one should live in wh's or there intention wasn't people living in them all the time.
I dont get what you are getting at. If they where just wealth status symbols noone would care. its the fact they are very strong powerful ships that take a lot to kill has a a group of people looking for easy ways to kill supers. which is all this idea is, make it to much hassle and inconvenience to keep one. This is a game that should always take 2nd rung to real life. If the game forces you to always be on at least once every other day it is a bad game.
As everything can take gates now they should be able to dock like every other ship in eve. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 20:56:29 -
[158] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:They also said no one should live in wh's or there intention wasn't people living in them all the time.
I dont get what you are getting at. If they where just wealth status symbols noone would care. its the fact they are very strong powerful ships that take a lot to kill has a a group of people looking for easy ways to kill supers. which is all this idea is, make it to much hassle and inconvenience to keep one. This is a game that should always take 2nd rung to real life. If the game forces you to always be on at least once every other day it is a bad game.
As everything can take gates now they should be able to dock like every other ship in eve. Being a status symbol of wealth is not mutually exclusive to being powerful. Right now, however, wealth is the only real barrier to owning one.
Why should these powerful ships be easy to keep?
You pointed out these ships take a lot to kill. This IS a game, where the highest ideal in theory is good gameplay. Why would we want individual ownership of ships powerful enough to be a consideration, when thinking about real life priorities? Bob can't go on vacation, his EVE character owns a super....
Wouldn't we want such a burden shared across a corporation instead? Let the super pilots go free, and the players released from obligation to work their lives around the well being of a pretend space ship.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 21:11:57 -
[159] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Lady Rift wrote:They also said no one should live in wh's or there intention wasn't people living in them all the time.
I dont get what you are getting at. If they where just wealth status symbols noone would care. its the fact they are very strong powerful ships that take a lot to kill has a a group of people looking for easy ways to kill supers. which is all this idea is, make it to much hassle and inconvenience to keep one. This is a game that should always take 2nd rung to real life. If the game forces you to always be on at least once every other day it is a bad game.
As everything can take gates now they should be able to dock like every other ship in eve. Being a status symbol of wealth is not mutually exclusive to being powerful. Right now, however, wealth is the only real barrier to owning one. Why should these powerful ships be easy to keep? You pointed out these ships take a lot to kill. This IS a game, where the highest ideal in theory is good gameplay. Why would we want individual ownership of ships powerful enough to be a consideration, when thinking about real life priorities? Bob can't go on vacation, his EVE character owns a super.... Wouldn't we want such a burden shared across a corporation instead? Let the super pilots go free, and the players released from obligation to work their lives around the well being of a pretend space ship.
Thats the system in place now. Bob can go on vacation and not have to worry about his game, currently they aren't a consideration when thinking of real life. This entire thread wants to make them be. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 21:39:22 -
[160] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Being a status symbol of wealth is not mutually exclusive to being powerful. Right now, however, wealth is the only real barrier to owning one.
Why should these powerful ships be easy to keep?
You pointed out these ships take a lot to kill. This IS a game, where the highest ideal in theory is good gameplay. Why would we want individual ownership of ships powerful enough to be a consideration, when thinking about real life priorities? Bob can't go on vacation, his EVE character owns a super....
Wouldn't we want such a burden shared across a corporation instead? Let the super pilots go free, and the players released from obligation to work their lives around the well being of a pretend space ship. Thats the system in place now. Bob can go on vacation and not have to worry about his game, currently they aren't a consideration when thinking of real life. This entire thread wants to make them be. Not the part I suggested, where in exchange for the super remaining in the game, it could also be attached to a POS or Outpost.
Those items are persistent in the game, and have well defined defenses a corporation can be expected to handle as a group.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
|
Goochan derp
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 22:29:49 -
[161] - Quote
doubt it will happen but im very interested to hear what a dev has to say on the subject +1 op |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 23:43:42 -
[162] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Being a status symbol of wealth is not mutually exclusive to being powerful. Right now, however, wealth is the only real barrier to owning one.
Why should these powerful ships be easy to keep?
You pointed out these ships take a lot to kill. This IS a game, where the highest ideal in theory is good gameplay. Why would we want individual ownership of ships powerful enough to be a consideration, when thinking about real life priorities? Bob can't go on vacation, his EVE character owns a super....
Wouldn't we want such a burden shared across a corporation instead? Let the super pilots go free, and the players released from obligation to work their lives around the well being of a pretend space ship. Thats the system in place now. Bob can go on vacation and not have to worry about his game, currently they aren't a consideration when thinking of real life. This entire thread wants to make them be. Not the part I suggested, where in exchange for the super remaining in the game, it could also be attached to a POS or Outpost. Those items are persistent in the game, and have well defined defenses a corporation can be expected to handle as a group.
Lets fix corp management and POS's before we go making super forced to dock there. And I'm all for when they dock at an outpost you can see it but not shoot it (which is different than you suggest) |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
462
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 00:47:01 -
[163] - Quote
Goochan derp wrote:doubt it will happen but im very interested to hear what a dev has to say on the subject +1 op
I can tell you right now what they are about to say:
nada!
signature
|
Dustpuppy
Rox Inc
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 08:30:46 -
[164] - Quote
I am in, +1 from me
Aaand thx for this nice flame war thread, too. |
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 09:58:15 -
[165] - Quote
It will never happen anyway, some people have a life outside of eve. Reserve capital ships to large entity covering all timezone is a very bad idea .. |
The Hamilton
Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude
86
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 10:29:38 -
[166] - Quote
After a MASSIVE Pos revamp, bring this idea back up. |
Major Trant
287 Marine Regiment
1261
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 10:46:41 -
[167] - Quote
I am not a cap pilot so would not be personally hurt by this suggestion. However, anyone who gives this the slightest thought should realize it is a ridiculous idea.
This idea would cement the 'Blue doughnut' effects, encourage NIPS, NAPS, destroy the smaller corps ability to compete. Short term it might result in some juicy kills, but long term this would be the exact opposite of a conflict driver.
Imagine a small corp in low sec with a single Titan. The likes of PL would hunt it down with a vengeance. Smash down the POSs of the corp, follow the titan using locator agents and keep destroying each base it relocated to. Relentlessly they would bear down on the independent pilot until eventually he either gave up and died or joined one of the big boys.
Ultimately every Titan and Super in game would end up in the two big coalitions and they would be NAPed up with each other.
Meanwhile everyone else? They would be mad to even consider building a Titan/Super. Thus there would never be a rising new power with ambitions on a corner of null sec. Maybe that is already the case, but the whole point of the Jump drives changes was to make that sort of thing possible again. Maybe more changes are needed to make that happen, but they need to be conflict drivers, not NAP drivers. Something to encourage the big coalitions to break up, not glue them together. |
Jane Shapperd
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
87
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 11:18:47 -
[168] - Quote
keep ur sitter cloaked in a safe spot
GG!! u just made the number of people online on eve servers higher causing more lags and crashes |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 14:16:18 -
[169] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:I am not a cap pilot so would not be personally hurt by this suggestion. However, anyone who gives this the slightest thought should realize it is a ridiculous idea.
This idea would cement the 'Blue doughnut' effects, encourage NIPS, NAPS, destroy the smaller corps ability to compete. Short term it might result in some juicy kills, but long term this would be the exact opposite of a conflict driver.
Imagine a small corp in low sec with a single Titan. The likes of PL would hunt it down with a vengeance. Smash down the POSs of the corp, follow the titan using locator agents and keep destroying each base it relocated to. Relentlessly they would bear down on the independent pilot until eventually he either gave up and died or joined one of the big boys.
Ultimately every Titan and Super in game would end up in the two big coalitions and they would be NAPed up with each other.
Meanwhile everyone else? They would be mad to even consider building a Titan/Super. Thus there would never be a rising new power with ambitions on a corner of null sec. Maybe that is already the case, but the whole point of the Jump drives changes was to make that sort of thing possible again. Maybe more changes are needed to make that happen, but they need to be conflict drivers, not NAP drivers. Something to encourage the big coalitions to break up, not glue them together. You skated past the obvious flaw in your argument.
If the small corp in lowsec was a target, then the possession of a titan is not going to be a big deal to the likes of PL. They are going to plow through the space of this small corp, and if the titan happens to get caught along the way, someone in PL get's a thank-you card.
In the end, the small corp is smashed to pieces. Still having the Titan at that point, is like having a big screen TV with no home to keep it in. Where would they even be able to use it, with any expectation of safety? You already had PL smash their holdings, they are on the run now.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 14:45:05 -
[170] - Quote
This will never happen.
1: I you own a super you can never go away from eve longer than 1-3 days at a time. This is impossible and totally unreasonable. CCP has said already destructible stations are not a thing because itGÇÖs unfair for someone to loose there stuff if they happen to go on Holiday or takes a break or something. Same thing happens here.
2: POSGÇÖs are terrible.
3: POS/CORP Roles are terrible
3: Super storage mods are not a solution. (see 1-2-3)
4: There is no way to pin a ship in place inside a pos shield and just some random person warping to the pos could bump your whole super fleet out when every ones in bed
5: You have to have a system so you can move away and deal with real life.
6: Small alliances would never ever ever have supers and this would help the big and super organized alliances more than anything.
|
|
onefineday
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 15:06:15 -
[171] - Quote
i think person ho created this tread has no idea how eve works and should just stay in high sec for remainder of his days whit a community |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 15:35:30 -
[172] - Quote
Tappits wrote:This will never happen.
1: I you own a super you can never go away from eve longer than 1-3 days at a time. This is impossible and totally unreasonable. CCP has said already destructible stations are not a thing because itGÇÖs unfair for someone to loose there stuff if they happen to go on Holiday or takes a break or something. Same thing happens here.
2: POSGÇÖs are terrible.
3: POS/CORP Roles are terrible
3: Super storage mods are not a solution. (see 1-2-3)
4: There is no way to pin a ship in place inside a pos shield and just some random person warping to the pos could bump your whole super fleet out when every ones in bed
5: You have to have a system so you can move away and deal with real life.
6: Small alliances would never ever ever have supers and this would help the big and super organized alliances more than anything.
That idea you are bashing? It sounds awful to me too.
The idea of having a super floating loose inside a shield bubble, able to be bumped out by some random person.... no way I would suggest that.
That's why I suggested an exposed docking system, where the super or titan was securely docked in place, but was exposed in the same manner as the other modules for a POS, or station systems for an Outpost. In other words, they would need to be able to target the POS or Outpost directly, not just it's shields, before being able to hit the super.
And let's not force the poor pilot to stay on call either. Assign a roll to being able to valet the supers around, and relocate them in the event of an emergency.
2 & 3 on your list need attention regardless of this, as we should have no reason for complaints in an ideal game.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 16:58:16 -
[173] - Quote
I was on about the idea in the OP as I did not bother to read the rest of this tread as itGÇÖs a troll topic.
Nikk Narrel wrote: That idea you are bashing? It sounds awful to me too.
The idea of having a super floating loose inside a shield bubble, able to be bumped out by some random person.... no way I would suggest that.
That's why I suggested an exposed docking system, where the super or titan was securely docked in place, but was exposed in the same manner as the other modules for a POS, or station systems for an Outpost. In other words, they would need to be able to target the POS or Outpost directly, not just it's shields, before being able to hit the super.
And let's not force the poor pilot to stay on call either. Assign a roll to being able to valet the supers around, and relocate them in the event of an emergency.
Any systems were supers are stuck visible in a POS and count on reinforcement timers as there only defence is not a good game mechanic. It does not take into account peoples real lives. 1 day 17h (non sov) and 2 days 17h (with sov) is your only defence is not an acceptable level of time. You cannot even go away on a long weekend. And lol at the role idea for people to move them to safety in the event of an emergency. Roles and not been able to trust anyone are the main resign people donGÇÖt use the POS mods we have already.
And will people stop going on about GÇ£LOG OFF ALTSGÇ¥ They are the aids and no respecting alliance allow/donGÇÖt moan about you doing dumb things like thatGǪ only scrubs have holding alts.
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:17:24 -
[174] - Quote
Tappits wrote:I was on about the idea in the OP as I did not bother to read the rest of this tread as itGÇÖs a troll topic.
Any systems were supers are stuck visible in a POS and count on reinforcement timers as there only defence is not a good game mechanic. It does not take into account peoples real lives. 1 day 17h (non sov) and 2 days 17h (with sov) is your only defence is not an acceptable level of time. You cannot even go away on a long weekend. And lol at the role idea for people to move them to safety in the event of an emergency. Roles and not been able to trust anyone are the main resign people donGÇÖt use the POS mods we have already.
And will people stop going on about GÇ£LOG OFF ALTSGÇ¥ They are the aids and no respecting alliance allow/donGÇÖt moan about you doing dumb things like thatGǪ only scrubs have holding alts. So, in your opinion:
1. A POS is unreliable for security, as the response time is too short for players to be completely away from the game for periods greater than a day or two.
2. The idea of trusting your corp mates is unacceptable, as assigning roles requires this, it inherits the unacceptable nature as well.
3. Log off alts are bad, reasons for opinion not mentioned here.
The Outpost version, where the Super becomes targetable in the same manner as station services, you did not refer to.
I am not sure what the exact trust issue you have is, just the people in your corp, or EVE players in general. But I think you described being unable to trust others as the keystone of the idea being bad.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
184
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:21:08 -
[175] - Quote
I agree with this principle because I am against unintuitive mechanics that are inconsistent with the lore.
For example, I am against awoxing, not because I want to protect care bears, but it just doesn't make sense to have a CONCORD policed area that will punish aggression unless the aggression is between corp members. It's also absurd that a defended against aggression by a corp mate will be shot by the police if he attacks the aggressor's log accomplice just because the accomplice is NOT in the aggressed individual's corp.
I am also against suicide ganking, not because I want to protect care bears. If ships were piloted only by cloned capsuleers, there might be a case for it, that it is merely a matter of economics of destroyed ships vs. potential bounty. However, these ships actually have crews. Fleets of suicide gankers commit mass murder of their own crews every time they suicide themselves. And for some reason they don't have problems finding crews willing to sign up to pilot themselves to oblivion.
I don't like gameplay that is a result of flying through holes in the mechanics. If we want a good method of pirating the ship lanes, CCP should make an actual piracy mechanic. If they want an exciting form of corp spying to make CEOs be on their toes, they should make an actual mechanic that enables ways for infiltators to damage corps.
The super thing is basically a way the player base has adapted the rule mechanics to keep their supers safe. It is unintuitive. Gigantic ships don't just disappear forever with their pilots inside them.
I am not simply recommending that we fix this with a simple mechanic making the supers stay online though, leaving the only option to be storing them in an x-large array. I am an independent player. I do not have a billion Goons behind me to protect my super in a tower. There is a body of fictional lore of rogue individuals winding up with massive assets all by themselves. For instance, in the last Star Trek movie the admiral, and later Khan, stole the largest and most powerful ship in the Federation's inventory and piloted it all by himself. So I like the idea of a lone player or a small group of players being able to wind up with a super carrier or titan.
So I completely support the removal of an unintended consequence of the log off mechanics being used keep supers safe. I think it requires super pilots to purchase or train a holder alt. Completely unintuitive. Better would be to make it so that the ships don't just l unrealistically disappear in space. However, I support the idea of making a super capital cloaking device that is extremely expensive and requires a separate skill to use (or at least cloaking 5, which hardly anybody bothers with, that works like a regular cloaking device except that the ship remains cloaked while un piloted.
This would make things basically as they are now, with a couple of exceptions. First, holder alts would no longer be necessary. But interestingly, if a guy pilots a ship somewhere and leaves it cloaked and forgets to bookmark where the ship is at, you may occasionally run into a player who accidentally cannot find his super.
So that's my input. The supercar logoff method is basically a rules loophole. It is unintuitive. It should be fixed. However, I am not necessarily advocating that an x-large ship bay be the only method for supers. It would take them out of the hands of a lot of players. Including me! So yes, fix it, but think about it and come up with an actually cool way that protects supers to players' satisfaction but does include Eve's element of risk v. reward and punishes the stupid. (Sorry you can't find your super, dude. Should have bookmarked it.) |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
353
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:27:51 -
[176] - Quote
Anya Dyonas wrote: It seems unfair that all of the assets of a non-super pilot could be lost forever while super pilots have their most valuable assets stored in an in
Step 1: Purchase yourself a Bowhead when they come out Step 2: Purchase yourself an Orca Step 3: Only log these toons in when you want to reship
Suddenly your assets are all "safe" just like a super.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
29
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:46:09 -
[177] - Quote
Instead of arguing for this, you should argue to let supers dock so they can be blown up with the stations. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
108
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:53:19 -
[178] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Instead of arguing for this, you should argue to let supers dock so they can be blown up with the stations.
that would work. A station should take 15-30 day to blow up though after timers and everything. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:55:57 -
[179] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Instead of arguing for this, you should argue to let supers dock so they can be blown up with the stations. I believe the actual point, is that supers are not intended to enjoy the same safety and security as the smaller classes of ship.
If outposts became destructible, that would by necessity create additional vulnerability to the smaller classes. At least, the ones who were online during the event.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 18:23:04 -
[180] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Instead of arguing for this, you should argue to let supers dock so they can be blown up with the stations. I believe the actual point, is that supers are not intended to enjoy the same safety and security as the smaller classes of ship. If outposts became destructible, that would by necessity create additional vulnerability to the smaller classes. At least, the ones who were online during the event.
We already have a system where there is less safety for supers vs every other ship in the game. You can log off in safe spots, which can be probed down and you can kill the super when they log back on. (This already happens) You can log off in POSGÇÖs which can be killed and you put your own pos up and wait for the super to log back on and kill it. (This already happens) What you want is a system where you can kill Supers that donGÇÖt have an active person there at their PC logged into eve, In fact you want a system where you can kill some ones super who is @ work or on Holiday or maybe just taking a break from eve. This change would mean any ship not in a station or in some sort of docking thing in a POS is 100% of the time kill-able at any time.
I just need to move from point A to point B, your moving in any type of shipGǪ someone knocks on your doorGǪ itGÇÖs your friend and he just come round to have a chat. Your letGÇÖs say 10-20mins away from anywhere you can dock and safe up. Or you need to nip to the shop, have a ****, phone rings, wife/GF would like you to put a shelf up badly. There are so many problems involved with these ideas that CCP would never let it happen as it would seriously affect their income.
Or are you going to say GÇ£o no non supers can still log off and be safe in space at any timeGÇ¥ If you change it you change it all and that just kills the game.
You have to be a troll because i refuse to accept there are people that are this dumb that play eve. |
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 18:36:20 -
[181] - Quote
Tappits wrote:We already have a system where there is less safety for supers vs every other ship in the game. You can log off in safe spots, which can be probed down and you can kill the super when they log back on. (This already happens) You can log off in POSGÇÖs which can be killed and you put your own pos up and wait for the super to log back on and kill it. (This already happens) What you want is a system where you can kill Supers that donGÇÖt have an active person there at their PC logged into eve, In fact you want a system where you can kill some ones super who is @ work or on Holiday or maybe just taking a break from eve. This change would mean any ship not in a station or in some sort of docking thing in a POS is 100% of the time kill-able at any time.
I just need to move from point A to point B, your moving in any type of shipGǪ someone knocks on your doorGǪ itGÇÖs your friend and he just come round to have a chat. Your letGÇÖs say 10-20mins away from anywhere you can dock and safe up. Or you need to nip to the shop, have a ****, phone rings, wife/GF would like you to put a shelf up badly. There are so many problems involved with these ideas that CCP would never let it happen as it would seriously affect their income.
Or are you going to say GÇ£o no non supers can still log off and be safe in space at any timeGÇ¥ If you change it you change it all and that just kills the game.
You have to be a troll because i refuse to accept there are people that are this dumb that play eve. Why shouldn't supers and titans be treated as corporate assets, rather than personal ones?
Your entire argument is based around not being able to either trust other players, or experiencing personal risk in a greater context than smaller ship classes.
You need a corp to anchor a POS. Why should you not need a corp to maintain and support a super?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 18:48:41 -
[182] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: Why shouldn't supers and titans be treated as corporate assets, rather than personal ones?
Your entire argument is based around not being able to either trust other players, or experiencing personal risk in a greater context than smaller ship classes.
You need a corp to anchor a POS. Why should you not need a corp to maintain and support a super?
Because thereGÇÖs no such thing as a Corporate Eve Account That Directors or CEOGÇÖs or whatever can log into and control. And account shearing is against the EULA |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 19:13:04 -
[183] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Why shouldn't supers and titans be treated as corporate assets, rather than personal ones?
Your entire argument is based around not being able to either trust other players, or experiencing personal risk in a greater context than smaller ship classes.
You need a corp to anchor a POS. Why should you not need a corp to maintain and support a super?
Because thereGÇÖs no such thing as a Corporate Eve Account That Directors or CEOGÇÖs or whatever can log into and control. And account shearing is against the EULA Ok, I can see that was misunderstood.
I am referring to changing the nature of a super, into something no single account can own or control. The CEO would assign one or more pilots to the super, and if your role was revoked, you would log back in with your pod after the next down-time. (The ship being transferred to another pilot, probably needing to be present in the same system to occur) I truly believe that individual pilots were given control of these originally, as a means of forcing the other corp members into trusting them. The expectation being, that they would not have been able to get into a super without explicit assistance from the corp.
I think this was to encourage risk, as a super pilot could defect WITH the ship to another corp, and the original corp would view the ship's loss as something stolen on a corporate level.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Helios Panala
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 19:39:22 -
[184] - Quote
Supers as Corp assets instead of personal assets is an idea worth exploring. |
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 20:04:11 -
[185] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Tappits wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Why shouldn't supers and titans be treated as corporate assets, rather than personal ones?
Your entire argument is based around not being able to either trust other players, or experiencing personal risk in a greater context than smaller ship classes.
You need a corp to anchor a POS. Why should you not need a corp to maintain and support a super?
Because thereGÇÖs no such thing as a Corporate Eve Account That Directors or CEOGÇÖs or whatever can log into and control. And account shearing is against the EULA Ok, I can see that was misunderstood. I am referring to changing the nature of a super, into something no single account can own or control. The CEO would assign one or more pilots to the super, and if your role was revoked, you would log back in with your pod after the next down-time. (The ship being transferred to another pilot, probably needing to be present in the same system to occur) I truly believe that individual pilots were given control of these originally, as a means of forcing the other corp members into trusting them. The expectation being, that they would not have been able to get into a super without explicit assistance from the corp. I think this was to encourage risk, as a super pilot could defect WITH the ship to another corp, and the original corp would view the ship's loss as something stolen on a corporate level.
From reading this i don't think you even play the MMO EvE Online. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4421
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 20:45:23 -
[186] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Ok, I can see that was misunderstood.
I am referring to changing the nature of a super, into something no single account can own or control. The CEO would assign one or more pilots to the super, and if your role was revoked, you would log back in with your pod after the next down-time. (The ship being transferred to another pilot, probably needing to be present in the same system to occur) I truly believe that individual pilots were given control of these originally, as a means of forcing the other corp members into trusting them. The expectation being, that they would not have been able to get into a super without explicit assistance from the corp.
I think this was to encourage risk, as a super pilot could defect WITH the ship to another corp, and the original corp would view the ship's loss as something stolen on a corporate level.
From reading this i don't think you even play the MMO EvE Online. Really? The best response you have is an ad hominem attack, suggesting I lack familiarity with the game itself?
You create the impression that you consider the status quo a sacred pattern, and that deviating from it like this is automatically bad. You seem to have no regard for any consideration that it might improve gameplay, which is an undeniable possibility.
Change does not equal bad. Fear of change, is the first step towards failing to adapt, however.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
159
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 21:16:56 -
[187] - Quote
Its more likely people would have alts way off grid holding the cyno logged off. |
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:23:01 -
[188] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: The best response you have is an ad hominem attack, suggesting I lack familiarity with the game itself?
You create the impression that you consider the status quo a sacred pattern, and that deviating from it like this is automatically bad. You seem to have no regard for any consideration that it might improve gameplay, which is an undeniable possibility.
Change does not equal bad. Fear of change, is the first step towards failing to adapt, however.
I donGÇÖt mind change, if the change is well thought through and has had peer review and makes the game better in some way, but your ideaGÇÖs are not like this at all. And all it does is make the alliances and coalitions that protect their assets already even more powerful than before and the small guys will not be able to.
Like for example. CFC sees your super POS. they siege it and all they have to do is stay there for 1d 17h and all your supers are dead. ItGÇÖs pretty easy for large coalitions to form and camp a static location from a smaller entity for 1d 17h when the end result is the total destruction of all your supers. Same goes for N3 and co..
The current counter to this is your invisible for an indefinite amount of time. You can still be fished and killed but itGÇÖs much harder than just form a large fleet for less than 2 days. (PL fished a logged off titan for about a year and killed him when he logged back in)
The system the OP and you are proposing has so many things wrong with it that are bad for the game as a hole, That it would kill any fun involved with been more than 2-4mins away from a dock able station for non-supers and would totally kill the use of carriers dreads and supers to take someoneGÇÖs space or anyoneGÇÖs fun in the game were there FORCED to all ways be active. And swapping to a system were the corp has to own the supers also has its own problems, my god thereGÇÖs so many problems with that I no way would CCP be smart enough to come up with a system that actually works or effect there amount of subscribers. It would be much simpler for ccp to let them dock and 100% refine them and remove the ability to undock and build them anymore and just remove the whole lot than do what you put.
Also how is saying you donGÇÖt play eve an ad hominem attack? And by saying that I know you are only a troll. Your corp and every corp you ever been in were pathetic and you are the most useless pod pilot in all of new eden. ThatGÇÖs an ad hominem attack.
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
772
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:26:40 -
[189] - Quote
How about just letting supers/titans dock and then balance them accordingly? They loose some power in some way or another, and the owners aren't punished for owning them. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4422
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:29:56 -
[190] - Quote
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:How about just letting supers/titans dock and then balance them accordingly? They loose some power in some way or another, and the owners aren't punished for owning them. Part of their implied balance is the denial of the safety and security of the ability to dock.
These may be currently treated as status symbols for the wealthy, but they were denied docking ability for a reason.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
772
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:43:37 -
[191] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Part of their implied balance is the denial of the safety and security of the ability to dock.
These may be currently treated as status symbols for the wealthy, but they were denied docking ability for a reason. And alts have completely negated this check on their power. In fact, those same alts help them somewhat mitigate the recent changes to jump mechanics.
Supers are still just as powerful as they have always been. They just can't day trip across the map any more. I feel that adjustments to the ships themselves are needed. As part of that, why not let them dock, and balance their power accordingly. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4422
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:49:32 -
[192] - Quote
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Part of their implied balance is the denial of the safety and security of the ability to dock.
These may be currently treated as status symbols for the wealthy, but they were denied docking ability for a reason. And alts have completely negated this check on their power. In fact, those same alts help them somewhat mitigate the recent changes to jump mechanics. Supers are still just as powerful as they have always been. They just can't day trip across the map any more. I feel that adjustments to the ships themselves are needed. As part of that, why not let them dock, and balance their power accordingly. How much of a penalty do you think is appropriate, in exchange for their losing that risk aspect of denied docking?
You may say the risk has been negated already, but this convenience / risk change is still going to be significant.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 22:58:24 -
[193] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: How much of a penalty do you think is appropriate, in exchange for their losing that risk aspect of denied docking?
You may say the risk has been negated already, but this convenience / risk change is still going to be significant.
How much of a penalty do you think they have now? Compared to a carrier for instance? |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4422
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 23:43:15 -
[194] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: How much of a penalty do you think is appropriate, in exchange for their losing that risk aspect of denied docking?
You may say the risk has been negated already, but this convenience / risk change is still going to be significant.
How much of a penalty do you think they have now? Compared to a carrier for instance?
I believe you made a point about how you feel concerning alts who hold supers offline, so the regular character can do other things while the super is securely untouchable.
Quoting for reference:
Tappits wrote:And will people stop going on about GÇ£LOG OFF ALTSGÇ¥ They are the aids and no respecting alliance allow/donGÇÖt moan about you doing dumb things like thatGǪ only scrubs have holding alts.
I figure that holding alts are an emergent gameplay aspect, rather than one the devs deliberately planned. How well it works, and whether it creates more risk or less for player's supers and titans, I won't debate here.
That said, they clearly exist, and many do use them.
Antillie Sa'Kan believes these alts have effectively negated the risk impact of denied docking rights.
He may be right, I would expect the individual circumstances determine how safe it is.
The number one aspect penalty is, in my opinion, convenience. I see this is manifested in two ways:
1. Can't be used at an outpost for freight movement, or readily available loading of assembled ships to it's hangar. As an additional detail, market purchases always require a second ship to move to the super. 2. Security is less certain, since you are either behind POS shields or not, and bumping happens for various reasons. That, to me, means you can't ignore the client as long as it is online with the ship. Too big of a risk.
Being able to use a super that can dock in an Outpost? A clever pilot can load a lot into that fleet hangar, and SMB, this could rival a freighter under the correct circumstances. Maybe you wouldn't use a super to move things, but it would be possible.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
79
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 23:49:44 -
[195] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Axe Coldon wrote:I would like to see the reverse. Supers should be able to dock in stations! i would like a blowjob from Mila Kunis, but i don`t see either of that happening in the near future You just are not wishing hard enough. Perhaps supers will be able to dock when we get destructible stations. That way when you go away from the game for a month, you can lose absolutely EVERYTHING! OP, your idea is bad because Eve is not real, it is a game. When I leave the game for a few hours or days, I should not have to worry that much about my stuff.
Thats the problem (in my opinion) with supers. They have become a personalized asset, rather than a corp/alliance asset. Im pretty sure CCP's overall idea with them is that they should belong to the alliance (as it should take an alliance-wide effort to produce one). Nowadays, it seems like almost every Titan/Super is a play toy for those that were able get one for themselves.
If the OP's idea comes to pass, it would truly mean that the Titan/Super becomes a corp/alliance asset, as you'd have different people manning it throughout the day, or at least different people in charge of keeping it safe throughout the day.
+1
Cedric
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
79
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 23:56:14 -
[196] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The reason this proposal is so shortsighted:
1.) Supers are NOT Corp / Alliance assets. Pragmatically, whomever is piloting the super is the owner of the super, no matter what effort went into obtaining it. Everything in a POS is a corp asset, as the items within are ALWAYS accessible by various members of a corp. Your proposal would force individuals whom own a super to suddenly share an extremely large-value asset with their corp members. Forcing players to give their high-value personal assets to a corp will cause a LOT of problems!
2.) Other stuff...
I've highlighted what the real problem is. Supers/Titans SHOULD be corp assets. It is a bad thing that individuals own them.
Cedric
|
Tappits
north eastern swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 01:09:01 -
[197] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:
I've highlighted what the real problem is. Supers/Titans SHOULD be corp assets. It is a bad thing that individuals own them.
There are corps in Eve that the corps themselves funded supers, BDCI in PL for instance has quite a few Titans and supers that were paid for by corp, But you still need personal EvE accounts to fly them.
Old Titans were alot of the time paid for by corps or alliances but as time has gone on single people have been able to accumulate enough isk to buy/ build them solo.
There are people in the game who have more isk than allot of corps. does that mean they should be excluded from a part of the game?
If you really what supers and titans to be less safe but in a change that's actually possible with the current game mechanics would be to force the use of POS passwords on every POS in the game even if its a corp pos, to get in you have to have the password. And you could even make it so to change the password you have to know the password (this makes pos's secure for single people inside corps) and the only way to change the password without knowing the original would be to destroy the pos and put another up.
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
773
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 01:25:46 -
[198] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Being able to use a super that can dock in an Outpost? A clever pilot can load a lot into that fleet hangar, and SMB, this could rival a freighter under the correct circumstances. Maybe you wouldn't use a super to move things, but it would be possible. Given the massive bonus to jump fatigue that all freighters have, I don't think this will be an issues as freighters will still be better in this role due to the speed at which they can cross long distances. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |