| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2163
   |
Posted - 2015.03.25 19:18:09 -
[1] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Hairpins Blueprint wrote:And with, I think i would be cool to REMOVE the watchlist, if you don't approve it.
This free intel is way too powerfull. Some small Ali got theire titan moored; Structure got destoyed. Pilot is watchlisted. He logs in and hunt is on : (
I think this mechanic is bad, kills a lot of suprise; Watchlisting without approvement should be removed. Hunting anyone specific without watchlists or without locators is in practice impossible. It's not free intel, it's necessary intel.
I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2164
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 19:59:15 -
[2] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Rowells wrote:
I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale
There's a very easy counter to that: go afk.
that's not exactly fun gameplay, is it? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2176
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 02:47:49 -
[3] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Styphon the Black wrote:Elenahina wrote:
Honestly, I don't see these as issues.
Supercapitals in particular are supposed to be strategic assets, not personal playthings (the last few years of Eve not withstanding), and as such, some thought should be put into their basing, advance, and withdrawl from the field.
If that was true than it should take an alliance to fly it and train up to do so. Not an individual toon. that's a nice thought, perhaps when someone codes eve so its design is not reliant on on one ship = one human pilot it will be relevant it is absolutely true that supercapitals are strategic assets no matter how hard you try to logic it away in the same way that every ship is a strategic asset, just not as important as the big ones is the only real difference. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2221
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 00:37:45 -
[4] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Soft mooring just sounds like 'POS shield V2' so I'd rather not see any soft mooring.
WH space already has station games/docking games, it's called POS games instead.
Also remember
Current POS's are the same size as proposed Medium
Current Stations are the same size as proposed Large.
Extra Large has no current equivalent. People need a reason to use mooring. Making it another death trap (ie use gates) just means condemning a new feature to uselessness. Think of it this way... most people, probably including yourself, are not to keen into suiciding a t3 cruiser, they are kinda expensive. You are even more cautious using a carrier (it's also pretty expensive). So what about a 30 bil supercarrier, or a 110 bil titan? You guessed right, even MORE cautious. CCP needs to find a nice medium to let super pilot use their ships, and at MINIMUM store it safely while on standby (when logged in). Currently we sit inside a POS (it has advantages and disadvantages). If CCP implements mooring, but the moment you try to moore/unmoore and you get hot dropped and die... well no one will use it and CCP just wasted everyone's time. Or heck... we will use it... with 300 blues next to us in local with lots and lots of triage carriers... yeah not fun everytime we log in... also promotes bigger blobs/alliances... It's also worth noting that Soft Mooring could be more like a sort of undocking timer++, rather than the current POS shield which is entirely and completely dependent on distance and nothing else. There's nothing stopping you from popping out, shooting, and ducking back in to the shield. With Mooring and Docking replacing these mechanics it's possible to limit the availability of docking games, POS games, reindeer games, or any other undesirable shenanigans that might go on. It's certainly likely to be better than the current POS setup. Among other things the current POS shield mechanics encourage an excessive number of bubbles for containing the occupants or blocking off access to the POS, while something like Mooring and undocking could allow a small number of bubbles (possibly combined with your own offensively anchored structure even?) since you can drop them closer to the target or right on the undock point. Personally I'd like to see some kind of variation on the current Weapons Timer with Mooring, so at the very least you can't re-Moor right after firing, but with the option to un-moor and jump, warp, safe-log-off, or otherwise do something before getting attacked as long as no other mechanic actively prevents that (like a bubble stopping you from warping off). I'm thinking mooring spots are going to be perma-bubble by trolldictors that fly with trollceptors... Hopefully CCP doesn't allow bubbles on mooring spots, or else... yupp more bubble games. unless the mechanics changed without my knowledge, isn't this the same thing as rapecaging a POS?
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2233
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 22:02:03 -
[5] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Worrff wrote:A lot of the larger Alliances do not allow sitter alts, as the super / titan will not be battle ready if required immediately.
While both my super pilots are highly trained in other areas (my titan pilot no so much) and would be useful doing other things, over the years I have become resigned to the fact that they do not leave their ship and never will. It no longer bothers me.
There is no way I will ever moor or dock my 2 supers and a titan at any of these structures. They will all safe logoff as they do now or all accounts will be unsubbed. Fair points, but I'm sure someone in the larger alliances will still find a use for the new functionality, and this might entice newer players or smaller groups to get into Super ownership. It's certainly not like there isn't enough free ISK floating around in the wallets of older players who have the skills. As long as these changes don't significantly interfere with existing mechanics then there is no issue? well the plan is to significantly interfere with the current mechanics. currently I log in my supers/titans I land in what is effectively my own docking spot inside pos shields. I can swap skills, mess with fits, set contracts and all that funky stuffs safe in the knowledge that I cant be bumped or shot by randoms (can be bumped and messed with by corp/alliance members though), while I make a choice about what I want to do next. granted unless its pew pew I mostly safe log. but hey my choices. under this new structure program. if I do not moor I will be vulnerable as soon as I land from log in warp, I can be bumped and have dic's drop bubbles on top of me. if I did chose to moor my ship im vulnerable while im not online. just seams to be another in a long line of disincentives to owning scaps that have been released.
If you log in while moored, none of those can happen, and you also remove the potential of being awoxxed or flying out of POS with a bad bump. If compare not mooring to not logging off in a POS shield, it's practically the same situation.
All of the fears of perma-camping structures with dics and hics are not going to be any way unique to the new structures. And if you were to head over to the thread on asset protection and structure destruction, you'll notice CCPs intent to keep things that are inside safe even if the owner is not around, including docked ships. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 19:47:57 -
[6] - Quote
In lieu of having a grad limit to docking supers, there could be a mechanic to increase the time it takes to dock a ship the more that are stored there. Anything under the desired limit would moor exactly as would be expected, but the more you have above that limit the more difficult it becomes to use it quickly. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2252
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 00:41:14 -
[7] - Quote
Kate Ragnarok wrote:I don't think anyone trusts there corp or there alliance to leave there ship moored basically floating in a pos that everyone has access to. I could see a lot of corp theft of moored ships. I see most people using personal structures for capitals. I think any ship smaller should be docked. Only capitals should be moored with a structure. In an XL structure carriers, dreads, and freighters can be docked.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember any suggestion to make mooring work like CSMA hangars. It seems to be leaning toward acting more like curre t station hangars. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2300
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 21:54:36 -
[8] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Yes, but SMAs have a fixed capacity while docking has traditionally not been space restricted, thus you can dock all of your assets and capitals in one structure and this removes the "count the SMA's" intel you were talking about. I was wondering about that since it's an interesting bit of gameplay and I'd hate to see something like that lost if there's no replacement for it.
POS's are equivalent to new medium structures, which are unlikely to be able to dock capitals, only moor caps most likely. Docking Caps is going to be the L & XL structures, (If not just XL) that are equivalent to current outposts or larger than current outposts. So assuming they can be deployed anywhere, WH's gain the possibility of larger structures than current. I can imagine that there could be deployment limits on WH's though, 'due to gravitational forces from the close binary' or something like that. Which may mean you only get S & M structures in WH's to match current levels. Dunno.
I believe POSes are the large structures. POCOs fall under medium, if I remember the graphic correctly. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2334
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 02:55:29 -
[9] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:I just have a question. Does it or does it not have the word COFFIN clearly labeled on the wrapper when you guys buy these things??
All this 'ooh ooh I'm trapped in a super' stuff seems like it would only apply to the tool that bought it, hopped in and didn't realize until downtime he was stuck in it. Other than that edge case, it seems like you guys are all complaining about something you full well understood when you bought the silly thing.
What am I missing here?
Supers were supposed to be special and rare, that's what (supposedly) justified heavy power and certain restrictions on them. The rarity is gone and so are some of the primary purposes. It makes sense they'll lose some of the restrictions as well.
Besides, it was a bad mechanic since the beginning really. Imagine tying that restriction to any other ship. It was really a bad option to choose when they were selecting drawbacks to begin with. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2411
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 13:50:49 -
[10] - Quote
FunGu Arsten wrote:Mooring camping, the new station/gate camping thing.
There are so many flaws with mooring capabilities:
- bumping
- WHY? would you moor if you can just cloak/log off as its safer? who in their right mind would risk the shiploss vs logging of in an alt
- bubble 1 spot vs hving the intire pos shield to find an exit?
- limited player use... so groupplay is getting hit in the nuts
and ofcourse:
- no more "ran out of fuel" pos piniatas??
- if you read the OP, you'll realize bumping is not an option while moored
- only difference between log off safety and the so far mentioned mooring safety is where the vulnerability is. Log off or unmoor.
- what makes you say one spot?
- possibly, depending on if it happens or not. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2411
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 17:38:10 -
[11] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:On point three: multiple undock points could be interesting. 
If I'm to make a stretch assumption based on the few graphic representations, I would think you would unmoor from wherever you are moored on the structure. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2718
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 02:55:34 -
[12] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:Maybe put a few XL NPC-owned stations in lowsec. Not very many. Maybe one for every 3 or 4 regions.
Let supers dock in them.
That will bring some action into lowsec, for sure... Why should super capital pilots have a completely safe place to store their supers?
Never liked the idea of safety requiring a alt in a coffin.
Besides, wouldn't having a couple places where people are known to store their big toys in a public station increase the risk? Similar to how a know supercal travel route *cough* aridia *cough* add a separate element of risk in of itself? |
| |
|