| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Master OlavPancrazio
   |
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:10:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 26/07/2006 18:21:56
This idea would remove the need to take away instas, yet still force PVP at gates:
A mandatory waiting period before one can warp after one comes out of warp would be created, I will call this with my incredible naming skills: "The warp charger". The actual amount of time can be based on individual skills, ship size, modules, etc. Being cloaked (except with cov op ships) should not lower this timer. This would stop people from instaing to a gate and just cloaking on the other side for the warp charger.
For example, ship A instas to gate B. The ship would either have to sit either side of the gate for x seconds for his warp to charge.
The warp charger is reset back to the full amount of time _only_ if one comes out of warp, that way if you are scrambled while getting to warp velocity, or you cancel warp, you don't have to wait another charge up time.
The idea of this is mostly to encourage more forced pvp in general which is think EvE is lacking.
This idea is easy to implement -- really simple, and it seems pretty realistic that powerful warp drives should take some preparation time before they could be used. Most of all people will be forced to fight at gates instead of just instaing from gate to gate like they do now.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:20:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/07/2006 18:22:01
How long? That's critical. In general, you have to be VERY wary of making ships sit there..snipers will take advantage, and sitting a few ships to make you go into their camp without being able to recharge is an obvious way to use it.
Plus it only addresses a few of the insta-issues.
Also, Eve LACKING in forced PvP? As a serious question, how many MMO's have you played?
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:24:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 26/07/2006 18:30:29
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 26/07/2006 18:25:31
I wish I could answer the time issue, but when I suggest ideas I prefer to get the general _idea_ accross. Specifics like what you are asking in general require much more thought... stuff that the eve balance team would have to decide.
Just for forethought, mabye a BS has to wait 45 seconds before it can warp again. Whereas an inty would only have to wait 15.
"Also, Eve LACKING in forced PvP? As a serious question, how many MMO's have you played?"
My opinion is based on pvping for my entire eve career. It's very easy for anyone to not fight an enemy who's trying to fight. I want to limit this as I think it would be more fun of a game.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/07/2006 18:31:28
Specifics are what makes the idea. You can't really propose this sort of idea without discussing them.
And those timers are, bluntly, ludicrous. I cannot see how I could FAIL to catch a BS, ever. Am interceptor MIGHT last 15 seconds, but it remains suicide to ever to go a gate with any hostiles on it. you must warp within scan range, scan THEN proceed. Allways. THis adds a considerable time to any sort of travel.
The timers slow even highsec travel with no hostiles to an unacceptable degree as well, failing one of the two key tests. It's going to be slower than normal travel in 95% of cases.
And no, not your experience in Eve, your experience with OTHER MMO's.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:35:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio
...
My opinion is based on pvping for my entire eve career. It's very easy for anyone to not fight an enemy who's trying to fight. I want to limit this as I think it would be more fun of a game...
If someone avoids PvP with you, then PvP is not fun for them at that place and time. If it were fun for them, they would stay and fight you.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 18:50:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 26/07/2006 18:52:55
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/07/2006 18:31:28
Specifics are what makes the idea. You can't really propose this sort of idea without discussing them.
And those timers are, bluntly, ludicrous. I cannot see how I could FAIL to catch a BS, ever. Am interceptor MIGHT last 15 seconds, but it remains suicide to ever to go a gate with any hostiles on it. you must warp within scan range, scan THEN proceed. Allways. THis adds a considerable time to any sort of travel.
The timers slow even highsec travel with no hostiles to an unacceptable degree as well, failing one of the two key tests. It's going to be slower than normal travel in 95% of cases.
And no, not your experience in Eve, your experience with OTHER MMO's.
What if I was to say "I think caldari ravens should be able to dance". Who care's how specific I make the idea "caldari ravens should be able to dance", it's in fact stupid before I utter any exacts.
Before any numbers are ever introduced for new ideas, the idea in itself should be at least rational. Extremes can then created to what would be "acceptable" for the idea and "ludicrious" -- ie you thinking BS taking 45 seconds to warp is too long. Am I getting something wrong here?
As for experience for other MMOs, I've played only one really which you can check out at www.sgalaxy.com, which I've played for an incredibly long time. It's a MMO rts-like game where the only thing you can do IS pvp  .
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 19:20:00 -
[7]
Right. The point is that Eve is allready second only to the tiny MMO Shadowbane on the market for forcing PvP.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 19:25:00 -
[8]
It's also radically different then your typical cookiecutter MMORPG. Furthermore, why does that matter? Just because Eve has tried to force pvp on players, doesn't mean the system it uses is perfect.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 19:31:00 -
[9]
Mo, Eve LETS its players engage in meaningful PvP. It provides a sandbox with consequences.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 19:34:00 -
[10]
Forcing pvp is not the good way.
Space is vast, its perfectly logical that someone can easily hide in a system that is few billion km (or something) wide.
Good way is to encourage pvp. Give more resources to fight over in 0.0. Add small 0.0 structures like mining colonies, destroyable by small gang and economically worth keeping and defending. And for empire dwellers - some missions involving pvp (like team vs team lvl 5 missions) and better working bounty system and better motivation for traders and miners to go to lowsec and go with escort. Less good missions, less roid respawning in high sec (profit on mining is so simmilar between 0.7 and 0.4 systems that without highsec belts quickly druing up, there will never be many miners in 0.3-0.4).
Improve and develop fun factor in teritorial, economic and factional wars and You have it - more pvp being fun for both sides, not just one.
|
Vera Nosfyu
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 23:12:00 -
[11]
You should be able to force PVP at points. It's risk vs. reward. If you could never force PVP on non-PVPers, there goes the risk. However, by the same token if someone is doing something with very little reward, e.g. travel, there shouldn't be much risk.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Violence solves all problems, no man, no problem." --Josef Stalin |
Roddic
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 23:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Vera Nosfyu
You should be able to force PVP at points. It's risk vs. reward. If you could never force PVP on non-PVPers, there goes the risk. However, by the same token if someone is doing something with very little reward, e.g. travel, there shouldn't be much risk.
/me grabs vera; and anyone else that thinks PvP is the be all of this game, and forces her/him into a minning barge to see how they like it.
dont force us carebears some of us have teeth.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 02:32:00 -
[13]
This really doens't affect carebears much anyways, as long as you aren't war decced and stay in jita nothing can harm you =p
|
Deja Thoris
Contraband Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 02:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio
This really doens't affect carebears much anyways, as long as you aren't war decced and stay in jita nothing can harm you =p
GEt a clue, theres lowsec and 0.0
If you can't think an idea through then this becomes yet another thread full of drivel with "gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." instead of a well though out and presented idea.
|
Nemain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 02:53:00 -
[15]
This is similar to an idea I had (Just posted then saw this one directly underneath  ), tho mine was to remove WCS, Scramblers and disruptors and replace them with a comabt warp timer. Maybe I should look more carefully at the other idea in this forum before I post 
|
Roddic
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 03:00:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Roddic on 27/07/2006 03:03:05
Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio
This really doens't affect carebears much anyways, as long as you aren't war decced and stay in jita nothing can harm you =p
an example of where it would effect a carebear....
i warp into a belt in my shinny new mining barge... and its full of rats..... due to the warp timer thingy... i pop before i can warp again....
next example, im (gasp) pvp'ing i pop, i return later to see if anything is left(highly unlikely but it happens)... there is, its bait.... by the time the warp timer times out i've poped again......
edit: please criticise and flame my posts as you see fit(even a complement and agreement), unlike most people i actually enjoy reading the comments. besides if you respond i bet you may even have thought about it a bit, and thats all i really ask.... :)
have i got this wrong?
|
Nemain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 03:14:00 -
[17]
Just change it to an aggression warp timer (PVP only) and it would work. No ammount of stabs would work if you fire your guns, instead you would have to tank for however long the timer was before u could warp. So you either commit to a fight or hope you can tank the damage until the timer runs out if you want to run mid battle.
|
Vera Nosfyu
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 06:40:00 -
[18]
Or you could just run away. Thus removing any risk from low sec. I will say it again: RISK VERSUS REWARD.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Violence solves all problems, no man, no problem." --Josef Stalin |
Thelmarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 11:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Forcing pvp is not the good way.
Space is vast, its perfectly logical that someone can easily hide in a system that is few billion km (or something) wide.
Good way is to encourage pvp. Give more resources to fight over in 0.0. Add small 0.0 structures like mining colonies, destroyable by small gang and economically worth keeping and defending. And for empire dwellers - some missions involving pvp (like team vs team lvl 5 missions) and better working bounty system and better motivation for traders and miners to go to lowsec and go with escort. Less good missions, less roid respawning in high sec (profit on mining is so simmilar between 0.7 and 0.4 systems that without highsec belts quickly druing up, there will never be many miners in 0.3-0.4).
Improve and develop fun factor in teritorial, economic and factional wars and You have it - more pvp being fun for both sides, not just one.
So you would "encourage" PvP by reducing ability of highsec dwellers to recoup losses they would take in lowsec. How ingenious... They must be jumping with glee thinking how long they would have to grind (after reduction in profit in highsec) if they were to lose a single cruiser to lowsec blob.
No. Keep your nerfbat out of Empire if you want to have even slight tricle of people coming from highsec to lowsec. There will never be much miners in lowsec because trying to run a relatively safe operation there is so bloody difficult. Escorts can't actually escort very well since attackers can always target whomever they want (for example that miner or hauler) instead of combat ready escorts.
And yes, miners prefer relatively safe operation since single barge with it's goodies is not cheap to replace. If they cannot feel that they have reasonable safety they won't go there.
More resources to fight over in 0.0? Most of the damn place is not even used! If you want to improve PvP in terms of 0.0 reduce ability of alliances to close huge swaths of space they do not use.
Add more entrances or perhaps impose steeply increasing upkeep cost on POS further they are from Alliance HQ or whatnot.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 12:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Thelmarr
So you would "encourage" PvP by reducing ability of highsec dwellers to recoup losses they would take in lowsec.
Exactly :)
People go to lowsec for fun and thrill, they shuld go there for fun and thrill and money. If You can make like 10m per hour on missions with absolutely no risk, competition or anything, or 12m per hour on 0.0 ratting in the same ship, with constant risk and need of involvement in alliance politics, how You expect majority of people to go to 0.0 (numbers are no real calculations, just example).
People who like to make big money but not want to loose ships, shuld try trade and industry and compete with orhers with knowlege, connections, resources, logistic perfection, market research, marketing, planning and so on.
People who want to make big money on COMBAT, shuld be facing certain risks and obstacles of military nature to get to top income levels of profession. I'm not talking about nerfing empire income totally, but about making every high income activity require competition, be it done with blasters or prrice wars, but competition.
Why houndreds of 0.0 alliance members finance their pvp with empire alts, most noticably, freighter traders?
Because risk vs reward is not well balanced. People who loose dozen of battleships daily in defence of their region against stronget foes, shuld also get serious profits from that region to keep them motivated to keep on fighting.
Quote:
There will never be much miners in lowsec because trying to run a relatively safe operation there is so bloody difficult.
This bloody dificulties shuld be well rewarded with much increased profit potential. Now miners in 0.7 and in 0.3 get almost the same isk per hour, so tryng to get that bloody difficult escort is not worth their time. If it was worth it, it wuld be;
-more fun for miners who wuld in any cases really like to do exciting stuff then moving ore to container
-more money for miners who dare
-more fun for pirates
-more fun for small scale mercenaries, bounty hunters and stuff, because peopel will really want protectiona and will be able to afford it.
Quote:
More resources to fight over in 0.0? Most of the damn place is not even used! If you want to improve PvP in terms of 0.0 reduce ability of alliances to close huge swaths of space they do not use.
Why most of those resources are not used? Because they are not really worth risking for. Why go and fight for Your part of universe, if You can run lvl 4 missions for simmilar money? Why sneak there?
People are able to close whole regions only because there is not enough people desparete to open them.
Lets say, alliance X has closed region R but does not really use it. Ir region R had really good profit potential comared to empire, then there wuld be 20k people wanting those resources. Some wuld go there to do ninja mining or ninja ratting and it wuld be still worth risking. Alliance Y, enemy of X, wuld help friendly homeless alliance Z to get enough equipment to take over R. If alliance Y used their region, they wuld be stronger (in industry and finance) then X with their unused region R. Z wuld be desparete and reday to empoy T1 zerging, massive assaults on gate camps, covops infiltration, capital transport, login traps, ninja POS construction and more, to take over the resources.
Now, this all does happen, but only people who enjoy pvp and are reday to channel isk to it, are there. There shuld be more people who follow the smell of ISK and make all the pvp more then a magical way to refine isk into killmails.
Quote:
Add more entrances
Buy more carriers.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 14:47:00 -
[21]
This is a war game. I don't understand why people are for "not forcing pvp". Especially in areas like 0.0 and around gates. Where else can pvp be forced? In someone's mission? In a complex? In all these previous situations a quick scan, or use of local will mean that the person in low sec, 0.0 will ss or dock.
My idea changes none of the already many ways you have to get out of PvP. What it does it make getting past hostile systems much harder if the enemy is proactive about getting you, which is the way it should be.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 17:26:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 27/07/2006 17:30:34
Yes, ability to stop roaming invaders is a good thing.
But I dont think that warping in as a method of preventing warp to insta is a good solution - this wuld be too usable for pirates against haulers and for maneuvering fleets against other fleets maneuvers.
I'm all for long range scanning systems. I wuld love to see ways to follow warp and intercept in mid warp travel. This wuld be much more exciting and dynamic then keeping people in place more firmly.
Wars are not about easy catching prey that is trying to hide, but about fighting for resources and tactical locations.
|
Maya Rkell
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 17:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Yes, ability to stop roaming invaders is a good thing.
i.e. the ability to lock down 0.0 entrance systems.
Thelmarr, most of 0.0 isn't wonderful. There are scattered useful systems. You need to control quite a number of them, and your border needs to be at a series of defensible chokepoints/pipes.
This dictates large claimed space regions.
Every attempt to make 0.0 harder to protect has ended up with larger alliance claims.
OlivePancake,
Your ides removes EVERY way currently used to escape PvP, AND smacks a healthy offering of vulnrability on the top and incidentally makes travel a lot slower.
|
Drizit
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 18:50:00 -
[24]
Master OlavPancrazio:
While you may be a hardcore PVP combat player, I am not. Your idea means no more trips to lowsec for me. I actually get more pleasure form avoiding gate camps, playing hard to get and generally being able to travel from point A to point B without a scratch. I have been ganked a couple of times but I put that down to getting overconfident and/or generally being a numbnut and doing something stupid.
I have hit a gate as a couple of player rats jumped in and onnly by a very quick turnaround have I managed to get away. If the timer you suggest was in place, I would have most likely lost my ship.
I trained in industrial skills with navigation backups to give me speed and agility. I have yet to train more than basic combat skills so I have no chance even in a BS against HAC with T2 ammo and T2 weapons capable of dealing out more damage at a higher rate of fire than I could possibly tank.
My skills make me a mouse in lowsec. I move quickly and quietly and when I am seen, it's not for long before I disappear again. In the same way as a mouse, I have little to allow me to get away and although a mouse can bite, it only serves to get it killed even quicker.
Forced PVP? Not on your life until I have a lot more skills to stay alive in combat.
--
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 19:05:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Yes, ability to stop roaming invaders is a good thing.
i.e. the ability to lock down 0.0 entrance systems.
I really cant understand, how anyone is able to lock down entrance multiple systems. It requires mad people or tons of morale, to make a dozen people sit at gates all day. Its so extremly boring, that effectivity of this tactics is a well earned reward for great sacrifice of campers time.
I was in few camps and after a few hours I was dying of boredom and brely excaped agony by going somewhere else. I think that alliances who use regular 23/24 gate camps must invest a great amount of most important resource - players, because for sure they loose few a week, as they leave game to play Pong after a few camps.
By stop roaming raiders I ment something more exciting, some good ways of chasing, catching, intercepting and then maybe drostroying people who happily travel on Your land.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 19:29:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 27/07/2006 19:35:02
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 27/07/2006 19:32:37
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Yes, ability to stop roaming invaders is a good thing.
i.e. the ability to lock down 0.0 entrance systems.
Thelmarr, most of 0.0 isn't wonderful. There are scattered useful systems. You need to control quite a number of them, and your border needs to be at a series of defensible chokepoints/pipes.
This dictates large claimed space regions.
Every attempt to make 0.0 harder to protect has ended up with larger alliance claims.
OlivePancake,
Your ides removes EVERY way currently used to escape PvP, AND smacks a healthy offering of vulnrability on the top and incidentally makes travel a lot slower.
Try to take some time and think of all the different ways people can escape pvp now, and then tell me again that having to wait 5,10,mabye 15 seconds in total on either side of a gate somehow "removes every possible way to escape pvp". You seem pretty intelligent, but then you start posting general arbitrary statements regarding ideas on how they "will break eve" and so on, which sounds almost like people who take a ship like the hyperion, its two bonuses and say "OMG THAT SHIP IS GONNA SUX".
Oh and Olive Pancake? Did somebody pass the 3rd grade to come up with that 
|
Maya Rkell
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 20:47:00 -
[27]
Ellaine, you can't DO that without rapid movement and local. Remove either and the only possible response is a hardlock on people entering.
Olav, I refuse to type stupidly long names after a while.
"mabye a BS has to wait 45 seconds before it can warp again"
45 | 15. And 15 seconds is still an eternity in PvP terms. It gives even a BS FULL leasure to lock and pound you with absolutely no counter. Frigates can't fail to lock someone down in 15s. They can get you in *3* seconds if you're slow right now!
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:44:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 27/07/2006 21:44:05
Personally I would wish that they slow pvp down to make it less twitchy since eve isn't set up with a good interface for twitchy movements.
With this they could easily lower lock times, etc to balance it. Doesn't ccp themself say that combat is too fast paced?
|
Maya Rkell
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:48:00 -
[29]
Then post a detailed proposal for that...in another thread.
|
Master OlavPancrazio
|
Posted - 2006.07.28 12:57:00 -
[30]
So are you saying with say lower lock times, and such, it would be totally reasonble to create a chargeup timer for warp?
Or are you just trying to make it incredibly difficult to suggest anything on the forum, because not only do you have to suggest the one idea -- you have to create an entire plehtora of changes that interlock with each other which the balaance team CCP pays already should be doing. 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |