Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
302
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 05:25:45 -
[1] - Quote
@ccp, was it your goal to make frigate/dessie pvp unbearable or what is the reason this is in the game in its current form?
If i fly a garmur (or insert random kiting ship) and i stumble upon a t1 fit cruiser in a belt that fighting a clone soldier, do you know what happens if i try to kill the clone soldier? It swaps instantly and applies absurd dps to the ship that has come to help it, making any sort of kill impossible for a smaller then cruiser hull.
If a ishtar or tengu is doing a besieged site and i go to tackle it in any ship, the rats swap instantly to blow the ship coming to help them up.
If you try to tackle a bs or carrier doing a lvl5, guess what blows up the tackle ceptor instantly? The rats.
Hell, in certain plex in lowsec you can even have the rats pvp for you (Hashi Keptzh).
.
Kills like that https://zkillboard.com/kill/46614236/ should never ever happen in that form, i chased him out of a site, then i did the site myself cause i was bored. He came back to kill me in his curse, the rats ate him up in seconds.
Rats aggro changes mean the people that actually come to shoot the rats enemies (the pveers) will be swaped to instantly. This is a ******** mechanic and needs to go. It is especially stupid for frig or dessie pilots. |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
432
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 05:43:25 -
[2] - Quote
Or you know... Maybe dont fight in places where the NPCs will OWNBOAT you?
Since the whole "i am seeing EWAR own all the things" is a well documented part of their AI? |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
302
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 05:53:13 -
[3] - Quote
So never shoot pvers again? And piracy in this game can go to hell or what? |
Aplysia Vejun
The Scope Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 06:20:40 -
[4] - Quote
It gives the pve people a (small) chance against you. Nothilfe wrong with that. |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
432
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 06:57:57 -
[5] - Quote
Shoot PVE-ers all you want but doing it inside a site you arent tanked to handle seems like a sub optimal place to do it is all i am saying |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1036
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:13:16 -
[6] - Quote
I agree that it is absurd. The dynamic of catching someone in a PVE situation has totally changed over the past few years. It used to be that a Pilgrim could catch a ratter, turn off his tank, and let the NPC's do most of the damage. Now, the NPC's happily help kill the Pilgrim because he is using electronic warfare!
If it was me, I would add some 30-day Pirate ship skins that make the NPC's not shoot you, unless you shoot them first or remote repair another player who is shooting them.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1087
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 08:41:44 -
[7] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:Shoot PVE-ers all you want but doing it inside a site you arent tanked to handle seems like a sub optimal place to do it is all i am saying
It's more of a ****** thing that ratting in guristas complexes is about the safest activity in eve on par with staying docked. It's mildly numbing that you warp to a Nexor/Ishtar/Rattle in a site in a ceptor and get jammed by NPCs cause you're totally a high priority target for them... *Got point... sec, got jammed :(*
These curent mechanics do little but promote teaming up on someone as opposed to allowing you to engage pvers on your own as it used to be before theme park AI got introduced and your pve-content started protecting you. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
314
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 13:48:14 -
[8] - Quote
The change to the NPC AI was long overdue. In times past the PvE players would complain about how unfair it was that they would have to tank the rats simply because they warped into the pocket first, while those who come to attack you were left completely untouched. Now you know how they felt about the situation in times past.
In missions / anoms / sites whatever the NPC rats need to be as neutral as possible to eliminate the NPC as a factor in these players versus player encounters. The PvE player has to tank the rats and fight you, it puts the situation on even ground if you have to tank the rats as well. This leaves the outcome of these encounters exactly where it should be in the hands of the players that are involved.
So as they say tank up and join the fun, or suffer the consequences of your choices.
Oh and that EWAR drawing agro thing that is a priority that CCP coded into the AI and as mentioned above it is well documented here and in other forums. And the answer to your question is YES if the PvE players use EWAR it will draw agro onto them, that's probably why most of them are smart enough not to use it so there may be a lesson there for you. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
303
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 13:58:11 -
[9] - Quote
Thats stupid though, the pveer is trying to kill the rats, the priate is trying to safe them.
Also, i know why they changed it (it was due to people using a tanky ship first and using a max gank ship with 0 tank second) but its a bad change. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1121
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:05:52 -
[10] - Quote
rant detected
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
|
Christopher Mabata
The Interstellar Manipulation Consortium
398
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:09:54 -
[11] - Quote
If your going into a site for tackle there are 2 golden rules you must never forget
1. Ewar draws rat aggro very heavily, it always has, which means if you warp in you better be set up to tank the target and the mission/site long enough for support to land or for you to kill them. Ive lost a few ships simply because i couldnt tank the mission, though other times we got the kills like the harbinger navy and startios duo running a L4 in low sec.
This has been this way for years, its working as intended and gives the aggressor something else to account for, you already have more than a few things working in your favor this is just a potential balance factor for the defender instead and it may or may not even work for them.
2. In PVE ships that warp in second sometimes get primaried by the rats as supposed support for the first ship, once again another thing to account for for all the above reasons.
If your having issues doing this, scare someone out of a site and then wait on the ingate to the site and catch them there, wait till they kill the room ( check wrecks on D-scan compared to number of rats spawned via Eve-Survival ).
Piracy can have many layers to it, some tools that you may want to use may not even seem like they need to be used, but the smarter you go about it the more succesfull you will be.
GÖú Theory-Crafter GÖú Free Agent GÖú Immortal Space Pirate GÖú "Better the Devil you Know than the devil you don't" -Observing and dismantling F&I Discussion Threads since 2013Gäó
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2507
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:41:20 -
[12] - Quote
When third parties jump in on my fights, i blap them too.
And which would you shoot first? The ship that can perma-tank you, or the squishy idiot in a blinged ship who cant keep up transversal?
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also, i know why they changed it (it was due to people using a tanky ship first and using a max gank ship with 0 tank second) but its a bad change.
They changed it for a number of reasons, because it was bad for a number of reasons. It was a whole AI overhaul, not just centred around one of the many ways to exploit the simple AI.
- It was too easily manipulated. You could enter a site with a drone boat, get aggro, then go afk whilst your drones ran missions and anoms for you. - Where engagements were already in favour of the PvP aggressor, it forced the PvE player to tank both the NPC aggro and the PvP player.
Now you have to take all ships (NPC and Player) into account when you start a fight, as you should.
TL:DR its better now. Stop rant. Learn to play.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
303
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:08:22 -
[13] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:When third parties jump in on my fights, i blap them too. And which would you shoot first? The ship that can perma-tank you, or the squishy idiot in a blinged ship who cant keep up transversal? W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also, i know why they changed it (it was due to people using a tanky ship first and using a max gank ship with 0 tank second) but its a bad change.
They changed it for a number of reasons, because it was bad for a number of reasons. It was a whole AI overhaul, not just centred around one of the many ways to exploit the simple AI. - It was too easily manipulated. You could enter a site with a drone boat, get aggro, then go afk whilst your drones ran missions and anoms for you. - Where engagements were already in favour of the PvP aggressor, it forced the PvE player to tank both the NPC aggro and the PvP player. Now you have to take all ships (NPC and Player) into account when you start a fight, as you should. TL:DR its better now. Stop rant. Learn to play.
Of course it favoured the pvp agressor, its the point of the whole thing and it only is logical. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and so on.
Most pvp ships easily deal with pve situations (the best pve ship is basicely the 100mn ham pvp tengu for lowsec) but its just gives the stick to frigate and dessie pilots.
It makes no sense that the content you are doing is actually protecting you from outside interference. it should be the other way around, content you are doing is making you an easier prey then usual. It always was that way, and i think ccp forgot about that part when they changed them for numerous reasons, amongst them the ones you listed.
Any serious pvper can tell you that it was a bad change. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
747
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:17:18 -
[14] - Quote
Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly. |
Iain Cariaba
1496
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:39:25 -
[15] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:blah blah blah, bad idea supported by facetious arguments blah blah blah No, the enemy of my enemy is often my enemy as well. This is exceptionally true for pirate groups that live outside the law. If I were a pirate, and I am at times, I would see some random guy coming in and shooting someone attacking me not as a saivor, but as another target for me to kill and loot. Oh, and look, you were even nice enough to bring a ship that's easy for me to kill.
Now, maybe if you had done some missions for said NPC pirate group, and had high standing with them, I could see them not shooting in favor of the other guy. If you're just some guy that came in, you're just another target, and with the power that ewar carries, you're the bigger threat.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
910
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:56:04 -
[16] - Quote
Bit late to be complaining about this to be honest, ccp pulled this crap over 2 years ago during their "turn eve into carebear heaven" phase. We all pointed out how it would kill roaming, solo hunting and even small scale hot drops, but that was thier intention so they didn't care. |
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
910
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 21:09:58 -
[17] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly.
Except it didn't make things even, it made things completely in the pve players favour. The Pve Player only needs to tank the rats or the player. The pvp player needs to tank the rats and the player. The pve player also only needs the rats ewar to hit once to get away, and will have any rat webs/neuts helping them as well. The PvP player already needs to fly a ship able to penetrate hostile space (i.e. fast and therefore light) and use fitting space for a point, while the pve player only needs to tank long enough for the cavalry to arrive. So to have any chance of success the pvper needs to fit lots of damage, lots of mobility and a point, but now they also need to fit lots of tank and counter ewar for the stockholm syndrome rats.
To be fair the rat aggro would be random, or more obviously the rats would take the opportunity to gtfo (in belts at least).
Personally I think some standing related mechanic on the part of the rats would be very cool, have good standing to the rats in question and they wont attack you over the ratter who will likely have terrible standing.
And who else is there to fight exactly? The only time any 0.0 kiddies fly in groups of less than 10 is when they rat.
|
Specia1 K
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 21:45:10 -
[18] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Bit late to be complaining about this to be honest, ccp pulled this crap over 2 years ago during their "turn eve into carebear heaven" phase. We all pointed out how it would kill roaming, solo hunting and even small scale hot drops, but that was thier intention so they didn't care.
If you go into a jungle to fight, everything there will try and kill and eat you too.
Working as expected....
edit. smarter AI is coming into the game, just wait for it. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2507
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 21:56:34 -
[19] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:The enemy of my enemy is my friend and so on.
No its not.
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Any serious pvper can tell you that it was a bad change.
The serious PvP'ers adapted. Those looking for easy kills whined.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2461
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:29:34 -
[20] - Quote
You think the NPC cares who's on field? He hates all capsuleers alike and will everyone he can.
Especially if you have a point, you are a bigger threat to his escape (lol) than someone for for ratting. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
747
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 04:13:50 -
[21] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly. Except it didn't make things even, it made things completely in the pve players favour. The Pve Player only needs to tank the rats or the player. The pvp player needs to tank the rats and the player. The pve player also only needs the rats ewar to hit once to get away, and will have any rat webs/neuts helping them as well. The PvP player already needs to fly a ship able to penetrate hostile space (i.e. fast and therefore light) and use fitting space for a point, while the pve player only needs to tank long enough for the cavalry to arrive. So to have any chance of success the pvper needs to fit lots of damage, lots of mobility and a point, but now they also need to fit lots of tank and counter ewar for the stockholm syndrome rats. To be fair the rat aggro would be random, or more obviously the rats would take the opportunity to gtfo (in belts at least). Personally I think some standing related mechanic on the part of the rats would be very cool, have good standing to the rats in question and they wont attack you over the ratter who will likely have terrible standing. And who else is there to fight exactly? The only time any 0.0 kiddies fly in groups of less than 10 is when they rat.
I don't know who you would fight. Maybe those groups of 10 with some friends? Maybe find some solo hunter like yourself? Mount up and go crash some gate camps.
You aren't looking for a fight, you are looking for a kill. I hear Noctis salvagers are easy to pop in high sec. Well, ok... I got popped in seconds in high sec in my noctis. It will teach me to not store my unused salvage in it. The thing popped like a Christmas pinata for CODE. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
304
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 06:23:51 -
[22] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Doddy wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly. Except it didn't make things even, it made things completely in the pve players favour. The Pve Player only needs to tank the rats or the player. The pvp player needs to tank the rats and the player. The pve player also only needs the rats ewar to hit once to get away, and will have any rat webs/neuts helping them as well. The PvP player already needs to fly a ship able to penetrate hostile space (i.e. fast and therefore light) and use fitting space for a point, while the pve player only needs to tank long enough for the cavalry to arrive. So to have any chance of success the pvper needs to fit lots of damage, lots of mobility and a point, but now they also need to fit lots of tank and counter ewar for the stockholm syndrome rats. To be fair the rat aggro would be random, or more obviously the rats would take the opportunity to gtfo (in belts at least). Personally I think some standing related mechanic on the part of the rats would be very cool, have good standing to the rats in question and they wont attack you over the ratter who will likely have terrible standing. And who else is there to fight exactly? The only time any 0.0 kiddies fly in groups of less than 10 is when they rat. I don't know who you would fight. Maybe those groups of 10 with some friends? Maybe find some solo hunter like yourself? Mount up and go crash some gate camps. You aren't looking for a fight, you are looking for a kill. I hear Noctis salvagers are easy to pop in high sec. Well, ok... I got popped in seconds in high sec in my noctis. It will teach me to not store my unused salvage in it. The thing popped like a Christmas pinata for CODE.
Im actually looking to make it intersting, if i bring in a confessor or svipul vs that plexing ishtar i get a enjoyable fight and a good killmail. However i need to time it so that i land with all rats beeing almost dead for it to work. So in 99% of the cases ill get an orthrus or machariel or 100mn tengu, go in and blap without any sort of difficulty.
|
Iain Cariaba
1499
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 17:03:03 -
[23] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Doddy wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly. Except it didn't make things even, it made things completely in the pve players favour. The Pve Player only needs to tank the rats or the player. The pvp player needs to tank the rats and the player. The pve player also only needs the rats ewar to hit once to get away, and will have any rat webs/neuts helping them as well. The PvP player already needs to fly a ship able to penetrate hostile space (i.e. fast and therefore light) and use fitting space for a point, while the pve player only needs to tank long enough for the cavalry to arrive. So to have any chance of success the pvper needs to fit lots of damage, lots of mobility and a point, but now they also need to fit lots of tank and counter ewar for the stockholm syndrome rats. To be fair the rat aggro would be random, or more obviously the rats would take the opportunity to gtfo (in belts at least). Personally I think some standing related mechanic on the part of the rats would be very cool, have good standing to the rats in question and they wont attack you over the ratter who will likely have terrible standing. And who else is there to fight exactly? The only time any 0.0 kiddies fly in groups of less than 10 is when they rat. I don't know who you would fight. Maybe those groups of 10 with some friends? Maybe find some solo hunter like yourself? Mount up and go crash some gate camps. You aren't looking for a fight, you are looking for a kill. I hear Noctis salvagers are easy to pop in high sec. Well, ok... I got popped in seconds in high sec in my noctis. It will teach me to not store my unused salvage in it. The thing popped like a Christmas pinata for CODE. Im actually looking to make it intersting, if i bring in a confessor or svipul vs that plexing ishtar i get a enjoyable fight and a good killmail. However i need to time it so that i land with all rats beeing almost dead for it to work. So in 99% of the cases ill get an orthrus or machariel or 100mn tengu, go in and blap without any sort of difficulty. Yeah, cause landing a D3 on a ship incapable of fighting back makes for elite PvP. "Oh, they put drones on me!!!" Switch to propulsion mode and simply outrun the drones... yeah, that's an enjoyable fight.
As stated previously, you're not looking for fights, you're looking for easy kills. If you were looking for fights, you wouldn't be targeting ratters. Fighting ratters is like walking onto a playground and pushing a 4 year old girl off the swing set, with just about as much challenge, and pretty much the same result.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
306
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 08:25:17 -
[24] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Doddy wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Or you could go find someone to fight that isn't in a ship you can effortlessly blap with or without the NPC's presentation.
You don't get to be immune to the environment, sorry. You want to hunt people in dangerous places, fit accordingly. Except it didn't make things even, it made things completely in the pve players favour. The Pve Player only needs to tank the rats or the player. The pvp player needs to tank the rats and the player. The pve player also only needs the rats ewar to hit once to get away, and will have any rat webs/neuts helping them as well. The PvP player already needs to fly a ship able to penetrate hostile space (i.e. fast and therefore light) and use fitting space for a point, while the pve player only needs to tank long enough for the cavalry to arrive. So to have any chance of success the pvper needs to fit lots of damage, lots of mobility and a point, but now they also need to fit lots of tank and counter ewar for the stockholm syndrome rats. To be fair the rat aggro would be random, or more obviously the rats would take the opportunity to gtfo (in belts at least). Personally I think some standing related mechanic on the part of the rats would be very cool, have good standing to the rats in question and they wont attack you over the ratter who will likely have terrible standing. And who else is there to fight exactly? The only time any 0.0 kiddies fly in groups of less than 10 is when they rat. I don't know who you would fight. Maybe those groups of 10 with some friends? Maybe find some solo hunter like yourself? Mount up and go crash some gate camps. You aren't looking for a fight, you are looking for a kill. I hear Noctis salvagers are easy to pop in high sec. Well, ok... I got popped in seconds in high sec in my noctis. It will teach me to not store my unused salvage in it. The thing popped like a Christmas pinata for CODE. Im actually looking to make it intersting, if i bring in a confessor or svipul vs that plexing ishtar i get a enjoyable fight and a good killmail. However i need to time it so that i land with all rats beeing almost dead for it to work. So in 99% of the cases ill get an orthrus or machariel or 100mn tengu, go in and blap without any sort of difficulty. Yeah, cause landing a D3 on a ship incapable of fighting back makes for elite PvP. "Oh, they put drones on me!!!" Switch to propulsion mode and simply outrun the drones... yeah, that's an enjoyable fight. As stated previously, you're not looking for fights, you're looking for easy kills. If you were looking for fights, you wouldn't be targeting ratters. Fighting ratters is like walking onto a playground and pushing a 4 year old girl off the swing set, with just about as much challenge, and pretty much the same result.
Thats what piracy is in this game though, the skill is in the hunt and not in the kill. Rat mechanics are stupid and counterintutive. They ought to be adjusted.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
748
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 09:19:19 -
[25] - Quote
The game is a sandbox. Piracy is what you make of it.
Your actions in your hunting reflect on your personal character. It's true that EVE is a great social experiment. Consider what you are saying about yourself when you set about having fun at the expense of others because it's cheap and easy. |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
782
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 10:30:05 -
[26] - Quote
Maybe you should get good and fly something bigger than a frig then (hint: fly a Cruiser)
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2510
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 15:13:13 -
[27] - Quote
i dont mind that you hunt ratters. Despite what mike voidstar says, who you are in this game does not betray some underlying personality. im just laughing at you for saying its too hard and you need NPC help.
You can adapt in multiple ways:- - Get friends. - Upsize your ship. - Find easier targets in weaker sites. - Wait until the sites almost finished.
You could even learn to excel at bumping and learn to tackle targets without a mod. But the bottom line is, rats hate logi and e-war just like players hate logi and e-war.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
306
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 19:37:06 -
[28] - Quote
So i either blob, gank or dont engage?
Killing pvers isnt hard, never was, never will be. Its not about making something easy, its about pve content making quit a few ships totally unsuited for the job due to rat aggro changes that were uncalled for in their current fashion making piracy in general have a stupid entry requirment.
And lol, "learn to tackle by bumping ..." . If one sentence could summarize the laughing stock that is highsec pvp this would be it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
748
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 22:43:40 -
[29] - Quote
It really is about making it easy.
You want to be able to fit a light tank and all gank, and let the rats kill your victim for you. I have seen it done with a ship without guns at all, just a point and some neuts to shut down their tank.
There are other fights to be had. Try hunting the other guys just like yourself. At the very least stop claiming some special skill or any kind of challenge in it. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2462
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 00:54:43 -
[30] - Quote
Consider this, let's change the rats to something else. A cosmic storm, similar to one found in missions. Constantly raining down damage into ships in vicinity.
I particularly remember an old WT that sat in a vargur and when I probed him down in a stealth bomber, the clouds popped me.
What is the point here? It's the environment. Rats are practically as much a part of the environment as the players, and it is a consideration needed to be checked before you dive in. Not every ship will work in every scenario. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2510
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 13:17:46 -
[31] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:So i either blob, gank or dont engage?
Killing pvers isnt hard, never was, never will be. Its not about making something easy, its about pve content making quit a few ships totally unsuited for the job due to rat aggro changes that were uncalled for in their current fashion making piracy in general have a stupid entry requirment.
Right tool for the job bub. Welcome to EVE.
and btw, cruisers arent exactly high entry, nor are friends, nor is waiting till the rat aggro is manageable.
W0lf Crendraven wrote: And lol, "learn to tackle by bumping ..." . If one sentence could summarize the laughing stock that is highsec pvp this would be it.
too much effort for you?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1867
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 13:33:38 -
[32] - Quote
I know how we should fix that, make the NPC always shoot at every capsuler in the site no matter how many of them. That way it's fair. The NPC help and hinder everybody. No free lunch for anyone. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
655
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 16:42:34 -
[33] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Thats stupid though, the pveer is trying to kill the rats, the priate is trying to safe them.
Also, i know why they changed it (it was due to people using a tanky ship first and using a max gank ship with 0 tank second) but its a bad change.
Actually...if pirate NPC's had navies that responded like empire factions you might just find the pirates would attack regardless.
Years of 0.0 ratting and empire mission running has me in an interesting spot. Against any damn near any pirate faction my actions against them would be classified as genocidal at this point.
Blood rats fight new player to the out of empire life. have him 4 months in. They see me....6+ years of mowing them down. I could see all military bearing go out the window and they'd say bring that man down...now.
That and lets be honest, if the rats had thought and feelings...they'd be thinking is the guy going to wipe us next? Good question to ponder. I know some wh'ers this was how they "farmed" wh's. Let some poor ******* or a few of them run the whole site almost to the end.... take them out, kill final sleepers and take the loot. The enemy of their enemy wasn' t their friend. The enemy of their enemy was doing pve the smart way....let the other guy bust his ass then just take the fruits of their labors. |
Ben Ishikela
42
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 13:06:34 -
[34] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5828821#post5828821 maybe solution. --- TLDR -PVE needs to fit points. -if there is a pvp situation its basicly without any npc aggro at all for neither party. -pve will be quicker and harder.
Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to shake any op meta or use totaly different gameplay yourself to make it happen! yay :)
....und Local braucht ganz dringend ein Update!
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1016
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 13:18:01 -
[35] - Quote
drone agression? why just drone? parallel thread for same issue:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=430344
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
313
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 22:15:55 -
[36] - Quote
Mistype, meant basicely pve rats. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 10:04:31 -
[37] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: nor is waiting till the rat aggro is manageable.
lol you've ever been involved in ratter hunting? I mean EVER? Seriously. You need tons of luck to get grab on ratter before he warps out to POS/Station and docks up with neutral in local. Who the heck would wait for rat aggro to diminish? This proposal can only come from a person who doesnt have a slightest idea about the matter. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1474
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 10:37:15 -
[38] - Quote
still not a broken system welcome to sleeper AI 'lite'
droneboat pilots are very familiar with it workings and have adapted their gameplay to accommodate it
you too get the same choices - Adapt - Die
nb the NPCS are not your "friends" they do not like you they want to kill you too
congratulations on making their job easy I look forward to reviewing more of your lossmails |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 10:51:10 -
[39] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:still not a broken system welcome to sleeper AI 'lite'
it is. broken.
Kitty Bear wrote:droneboat pilots are very familiar with it workings and have adapted their gameplay to accommodate it
you too get the same choices - Adapt - Die there is no real way to adapt, except of well, not doing it. I dont know anyone left who still hunts ratters solo, because its waste of time and doesnt work anymore - due to stupid rat aggro change.
Kitty Bear wrote: nb the NPCS are not your "friends" they do not like you they want to kill you too
congratulations on making their job easy
they arent your friend either, so why would they protect you? Doesnt compute.
Kitty Bear wrote:I look forward to reviewing more of your lossmails which lossmails?
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 11:58:52 -
[40] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:they arent your friend either, so why would they protect you? Doesnt compute.
They aren't protecting anyone.
These are not civilians looking for a rescue. Depending on the rats they are supposed to be Slavers, Nihilistic Cultists, Terrorists or a huge conglomerate of crime syndicates---all of whom were engaged in doing nefarious deeds when the ratter showed up and started attacking them. Then another capsuleer showed up and started shooting the ratter with even more dangerous weaponry judging from both the Ewar and the fact that the Ratter is taking rather alarming amounts of damage. So they make the call to kill the guy with the more dangerous weaponry in the hopes that when he is gone the ratter will be damaged enough to either be quickly killed or leave on his own.
That AI also does not keep to the same targets for very long, even in the presence of Ewar, or drone users would have gone back to quietly afk mission running, which they can't do anymore as the NPC's just love to eat drones constantly no matter what Ewar you put on the field. Back before I gave up on drones I tried using scramblers to hold agro, along with reps and all the other ewar options. They switch pretty often, especially to drones. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:05:49 -
[41] - Quote
you need to see the result.
And even if they are not protecting anyone per lore, however, factually they are protecting the farmer gameplay-wise by swapping to second agressor forcing him off field, who engages the farmer and has no business with rats themselves.
Use your common sense. I understand that you dont like this view of things because you take advantage of it but it is how it is. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:22:30 -
[42] - Quote
Use your common sense.
You warp into an area with a whole lot of environmental damage flying around, and want to be immune to it while your target is not.
I understand you don't like that view because it would make your ganking easier if you didn't have to be prepared to survive the space you are in, but that's how it is.
This whole thing is because some 'pirates' want to use cheap ships to kill expensive ships deep in enemy territory. It was a poor mechanic when it worked that way, and it was changed for a reason. The agro won't stay with you, you don't have to tank it forever unless you stay to kill the rats too. The behavior of the AI is well known, it's not like there is a special rule just to catch 'pirates' in particular. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:34:42 -
[43] - Quote
great. we both expressed our view on things. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:38:02 -
[44] - Quote
Of more impact, the Devs expressed their views on it.
All of this was brought up ad nauseum for years when it was the other way around. It hit fever pitch when the change was announced--- few were in favor because it killed PvE drone boats as well.
They did it anyway, and everybody gets to adapt. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:41:47 -
[45] - Quote
do you maybe have a link to devs view on the matter? just out of interest. IIRC they had PvE in focus as they changed the AI. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:45:43 -
[46] - Quote
If the problem really was that a fast and nimble ship with the proper tank is needed to do this, a proposal for a new form of marauder, or possibly an alternate bastion module for current marauders that made them capable of getting around like the ships you once used but still cost similar to your target ships and were capable of surviving in the same space.
I doubt that such a ship would be acceptable to the sorts of people that enjoy the gankbear lifestyle though---the pricetag is far to high and they don't like to risk their personal assets anymore than anyone else. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:48:21 -
[47] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:do you maybe have a link to devs view on the matter? just out of interest. IIRC they had PvE in focus as they changed the AI.
It's fairly self evident, as the change went through.
They did have PvE in mind, both in disrupting the too easy mechanics of bringing a fleet and drones with one guy tanking forever, and in leveling the playing field in PvP engagements.
There were many, many threadnaughts at the time.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:55:15 -
[48] - Quote
I asked you for your dev source. Would you please provide a link to what they said? IIRC it was a pure pve thing with no focus on PvP aspects, as they attempted to fix easy complex completion using tank ships.
"Gankbear playstyle", there is nothing wrong with it. Guerilla warfare was always part of the game since eve existing and is needed for proper risk projection to ISK farmers. You can easy farm ISK, why should it be that hard for the opposite force to disrupt your activity??
Whole PvP playstyle has gone thanks to that change, I cant imagine it was part of CCP's plan when they implemented it.
Mike Voidstar wrote: It's fairly self evident, as the change went through.
evident for what? Devs push through a lot of stupid changes, so doesnt say anything. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:00:32 -
[49] - Quote
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, gameplay wise.
There was something wrong with being able to show up with a couple of neuts and a point in a ship that cost less than some modules and capping out your target while the NPC's did the damage.
Now you can still hunt ratters and such, but you have to bring an appropriate ship.
And no, I don't keep archives of old threads laying around. The fact that the change went through with this very aspect being discussed at exhausting length is sufficient. It's not something that slid in under the radar while they were looking at something else.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:17:27 -
[50] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, gameplay wise.
There was something wrong with being able to show up with a couple of neuts and a point in a ship that cost less than some modules and capping out your target while the NPC's did the damage. why not? The effort and work wasnt in taking down the target but to get a grab on him, against all the massive home, defense and intel advantage he had. It was balanced pretty well.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Now you can still hunt ratters and such, but you have to bring an appropriate ship. theoretically you still can but practically noone longer bothers, because the risk and effort doesnt justify the little success resulting from it anymore. You wouldnt bring a slow, tanked and dps-heavy ship in same time as needed nowadays into deep enemy territory because of virtually non-existant chance of success while taking huge risk of loosing it easily. Thats why its non-existant play style anymore.
Mike Voidstar wrote: And no, I don't keep archives of old threads laying around. The fact that the change went through with this very aspect being discussed at exhausting length is sufficient. It's not something that slid in under the radar while they were looking at something else.
ah good you have no source.
If I remember correctly, not much of pvp complaints were raised during discussion, here and there someone, so I believe it could went pretty much under the radar very well.
The fact that something went through doesnt mean anything and not self evident at all. Stupid changes going through all the time, thats usual business for CCP. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:29:34 -
[51] - Quote
Oh no... there were mountainous threads about the PvP impact, half of it the exact same complaints from Robert Caldera that you are still seeing now.
Home Field advantage is just that, and it's appropriate to have it. Why bother owning space you can't at least nominally control? Hunt all you like, just be prepared to occupy the space your target is in.
People get ganked all the time, every day. It can still be done. The difference is that now there is actual risk in doing so. If your opponent is required to field a billion isk to sit in that space, you should have to bring something at least competitive. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:37:41 -
[52] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Home Field advantage is just that, and it's appropriate to have it. Why bother owning space you can't at least nominally control? Hunt all you like, just be prepared to occupy the space your target is in.
not complaining about home advantage, just saying it wasnt easy at all.
Mike Voidstar wrote: People get ganked all the time, every day. It can still be done. The difference is that now there is actual risk in doing so. If your opponent is required to field a billion isk to sit in that space, you should have to bring something at least competitive.
yes people get ganked all the time, out of question. This thread is however about a certain playstyle which made impossible exactly for the reason you are bringing up here. You need heavy gear which is basically not available or not realistically fiedable in deep enemy terrotory. At least I dont see that sort of kills anymore, now you strictly need an afk cyno cloaker and/or gang of friends nearby for projecting any kind of threat. Solo roams are dead, which is supersad IMO and took out a lot of heat from eve. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1474
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:40:20 -
[53] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:I asked you for your dev source. Would you please provide a link to what they said?
search the dev blogs from about 2-3 years ago search the forums for dev posts from about 2-3 years ago
iirc chribba maintains a dev-post search thingie somewhere |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:41:01 -
[54] - Quote
You now have mobile depot and can refit, cloaks are trivial to fit on anything combat worthy... You can get to where you need to go, strike and get out... you just can't do it trivially in a ship worth less than a dirty diaper. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:42:51 -
[55] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You now have mobile depot and can refit, cloaks are trivial to fit on anything combat worthy... You can get to where you need to go, strike and get out... you just can't do it trivially in a ship worth less than a dirty diaper.
no, otherwise people would do it. I am not aware of that happening in the recent 2 years. You are pretending there is still a practicable method, where is not. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:49:53 -
[56] - Quote
They don't do it because they are as risk adverse, if not more, than the target they are hunting.
It can be done, just not without risking somewhere between half to a third of the resources your target does. Previously it could be done by newbie wages in throw away ships---IE, no actual risk of any note. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:53:57 -
[57] - Quote
fact is its not happening because its too much of hassle, effort and risk vs. little to no reward - thus entire playstyle being dead. In other words, the balance in that is out of whack, what we are complaining about.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:58:37 -
[58] - Quote
What is so special about it that it needs to be effectively subsidized to the point that you can do it for practically free?
It was radically unbalanced before, to the detriment of the game and it's reputation for having one of the most toxic playerbases. Changes that make the game fun for everyone instead of just half are a good thing. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:07:41 -
[59] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:What is so special about it that it needs to be effectively subsidized to the point that you can do it for practically free? it was all but for free, hunting was a very time consuming activity, maybe not that much in isk but in time and work, ships were destroyed on both parties and people had fun and something to do. defenders were on their toes, attackers have been hunted and camped, everyone had fun. Now, its time, risk, huge isk investment for almost no reward, thats why its out of balance and noone bothering anymore. All what left are afk cloaky cynos for black ops drops, dunno if you find that more entertaining.
Mike Voidstar wrote:It was radically unbalanced before, to the detriment of the game and it's reputation for having one of the most toxic playerbases. Changes that make the game fun for everyone instead of just half are a good thing. What reputation are you talking about, idgi? Playerbase is still toxic as before nothing changed, except of the fact that there is less to do. Ratters still do what they used to do, gankers still do what they used to do but a whole branch of profession simply vanished from one day to the other. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:12:44 -
[60] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:do you maybe have a link to devs view on the matter? just out of interest. IIRC they had PvE in focus as they changed the AI. We do not need a link to prove this point, all you have to do is log in and go hunting ratters and the evidence of how CCP(and by default the devs) have decided this situation should work is right there for you to see in your damage indicators.
And the old system was broken in favor of the ganklers, that you are not willing to admit that simply proves your prejudice on this matter. But just in case you are that blind let's review/.
Old AI Rats attack the first person in the pocket, or the person shooting them and never switch aggro. IE they are always shooting the ratter leaving the ganker free to fit his ship however he wants and roam about the pocket doing whatever he wants never having to worry about taking aggro from the rats. The result of this system is that the rats are ALWAYS serving as free DPS and that was not balanced, in fact it gave all of the advantage to the gankers.
Current AI Rats attack according to a well understood set of conditions, well at least they are understood by most of us. Rats can, will and often do change primary depending on the conditions in the site at any given moment. Rats attack any and ALL ships in the pocket based on these changing conditions. Net affect - ALL players and ALL ships that enter the site must take into account the aggro from the rats and fit accordingly, while it may not be the perfect system it is considerably closer to balanced than the old AI.
But the rats primary ships using E-War. Yes they do and that is understood by almost everyone and perhaps there is a lesson in that for you as well. Besides that since the devs at CCP wrote the AI logic dictates that this situation is working as intended.
But that is unfair since we gankers need to fit point so we are always primary. Yes it does move you high on the list of targets to be primary, again since CCP wrote the AI logic dictates that it is working as intended.
I find the irony in all of this particularly hysterical. But I am helping the rats by killing the ratterthey should not attack me. This is just the first of your errors in judgement here. The rats are not your friends and they are not the ratters enemy. The rats hate everyone equally based on a set of conditions programmed by the devs at CCP.
Bottom line here is this. Rat AI was programmed by the devs at CCP. Rat AI hates E-War often making ships using it primary targets. Logic dictates here that this is acting as CCP intended. Logic also dictates that if you want to attack ratters AND minimize your risk of drawing aggro then DO NOT USE E-War. Cannot kill ratter without using E-War then tank up and fly a proper ship for the task at hand.
Here is another wild and crazy thought. Perhaps CCP wrote the AI this way as a means of limiting the kill board cowboys and their easy kills of ratters and mission runners. Perhaps it is an attempt to force you lazy "elitel PvP" players into actually having to fight someone in a ship and fit that is intended to fight PvP battles. Oh and the answer is no, ratters and mission runners cannot fly PvP fits it simply does not work in the higher level ratting sites and missions. Want that to change then lobby CCP for changes to these sites. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:28:14 -
[61] - Quote
not going to comment that drivel, mostly made of stating obvious, "dev is infallible" and reiterating on what's been covered in this and the other thread already - but one thing: If everything what devs do is right, so why had they to change the AI then? I mean back in 2012 old AI must've been right too, since it was made by same devs who are always right and coded everything we had these days on purpose, right? Just to make clear how stupid your post is - under such assumption, you must never question anything they release upon us, players. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
317
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:51:44 -
[62] - Quote
Well, now that sec status is totally irrelevant gameplay wise (it costs 150mil or so to go from -10 to beeing able to travel through all of highsec again), how about if you are beneath -9.5 rats dont ever agress as they see you as a friend you unless you agress them first? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:57:09 -
[63] - Quote
Because you should be immune to the environment why? |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:46:17 -
[64] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Because you should be immune to the environment why?
well because its primarily part of the environment you are interacting with, you farming it, for example? You can think of unlimited amount of lore reasons.
Even with old AI you werent completely "immune" to the environment, a new rat respawn targetted you too, I also died many times to rats in anomalies. But these days rats didnt protect the PvEer. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
317
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:34:25 -
[65] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Because you should be immune to the environment why?
Because you dont have aggro. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. |
Dean Wong
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:47:54 -
[66] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Because you should be immune to the environment why? Because you dont have aggro. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
How true.... while we are at it, can CCP setup a Jabber ping system to ping me everytime someone goes ratting in a belt or anorm or whatever.
One more thing, can CCP setup a hotkey so that my solo PVP ship will orbit, repair itself, switch to the correct ammo type and fire all at the same time.
So let me recap. We want a AI that focus only on ratting ships, a ping system to tell me who and where someone is ratting and a single hotkey that can do everything for me, cause PVP is HARD!!!
Anyone have anything else to add to make PVP easier? |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
317
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:21:25 -
[67] - Quote
The point isnt even that rats no longer give free dps to you, its that they give the ship that is doing the content a huge advantage. It doesnt matter if its pver vs pvper or if its 2 pvpers fighting, what counts is that the person who is fighting the rats when the fight starts has a advantage, and that that advantage scales in terrrible ways. It punishes small stuff and soloers way way more then it punishes big stuff, a bs or similar doesnt really care, a frig is dead instantly.
Rats swapping instantly doesnt make sense logic wise (enemy of my enemy and so on) it doesnt make sense rp wise and it doesnt even make sense from a gameplay perspective.
The thing is that if i roam in a frigate and i see a cruiser doing a site, its not even a 1v1 which i already would be disadvantaged at due to me beeing a frigate fighting a bigger target, its even worse then that, its the frigate vs the cruiser + the site. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:49:19 -
[68] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:The point isnt even that rats no longer give free dps to you, its that they give the ship that is doing the content a huge advantage. It doesnt matter if its pver vs pvper or if its 2 pvpers fighting, what counts is that the person who is fighting the rats when the fight starts has a advantage, and that that advantage scales in terrrible ways. It punishes small stuff and soloers way way more then it punishes big stuff, a bs or similar doesnt really care, a frig is dead instantly.
Rats swapping instantly doesnt make sense logic wise (enemy of my enemy and so on) it doesnt make sense rp wise and it doesnt even make sense from a gameplay perspective.
The thing is that if i roam in a frigate and i see a cruiser doing a site, its not even a 1v1 which i already would be disadvantaged at due to me beeing a frigate fighting a bigger target, its even worse then that, its the frigate vs the cruiser + the site.
but you know, if you want to fight a cruiser in a site, bring a battleship!! And for fighting a raven in a hub, you please need a marauder. all right?
you arent supposed to fight bigger stuff with small ship, its too cheapo!! |
Smelly PirateWhore
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:54:38 -
[69] - Quote
To all those saying things like, the npcs swapping give the pve-er a small chance against you, and those saying things like "just tank up" I would say this: in the circumstances of trying to catch someone running a plex at least, the pvp-er needs to enter system, drop probes, scan the site or ship, warp to the site and then in most cases have to travel between acceleration gates. If the pve-er despite all that time, fails to keep an eye on local, then d-scan first for probes and then for an actual ship and actually allows themselves to get tackled, then they damn well deserve to lose that ship! The small chance that pve-er has against the pvp-er is not small, it's stacked HEAVILY in their favour. Do you not realise how many things need to go right to pull that off? Even the most basically competent player has no reason to ever get tackled in a plex. Any talk of tanking your ship for the plex is equally redundant because courtesy of all those points I just made, the only ship really that has a chance in hell of catching Mr pve, is something small and fast enough to warp and travel from gate to gate such as an interceptor, or in some cases perhaps a recon via cloaking or d-scan immunity. And even that is all for nothing because the sensible player is aligned out and warps the moment they see you on grid. So you can all stop whining about standing a chance against the pvp-er because if you're not ********, they quite literally pose no threat at all and you can warp out and bounce around safes till your aggression timer runs out... |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
817
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:03:44 -
[70] - Quote
Here's a thought, when a second player warps in and engages another player, all NPCs warp out and don't return until there is no player on player aggression in the room. (one minute timer?)
This means the ganker doesn't have to worry about NPC aggression, and the ratter doesn't have to worry about attempting to tank the ganker and rats...
If the environment is the issue in the case of both parties, then remove the environment until the issue is resolved. |
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
738
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:33:07 -
[71] - Quote
Nothing will change, these rants have been around forever, CCP simply won't change this because were from the other side of game. If we were carebears things would be different, but PVP must be harder and must continue to get harder because that is the desired direction of this game.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:07:46 -
[72] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Nothing will change, these rants have been around forever, CCP simply won't change this because were from the other side of game. If we were carebears things would be different, but PVP must be harder and must continue to get harder because that is the desired direction of this game.
lol - said a ratter? :D |
lord xavier
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:32:41 -
[73] - Quote
It got changed because you use to be able to go in with an Arazu. point and damp them out so much they cant lock anything but the frigs orbiting them, bring in whatever you deemed for that roaming day and just melt them. Once they blew up, you cloaked the arazu, looted with the DPS ship and warped out. There was no challenge in this, there was no "serious PVP"ing about this. Now, you have to take into consideration the activity they are doing before you warp in.
This change was a blessing to PVE'ers, it made it just as risky but also gave them a chance to survive if they have no idea how to use dscan. If it was just a solo small neuting/ecm boat trying to get a free kill with no actual effort.
It also changed it so people would stop AFK/Bot ratting in Ishtars/domis. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
318
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 01:40:40 -
[74] - Quote
lord xavier wrote:It got changed because you use to be able to go in with an Arazu. point and damp them out so much they cant lock anything but the frigs orbiting them, bring in whatever you deemed for that roaming day and just melt them. Once they blew up, you cloaked the arazu, looted with the DPS ship and warped out. There was no challenge in this, there was no "serious PVP"ing about this. Now, you have to take into consideration the activity they are doing before you warp in.
This change was a blessing to PVE'ers, it made it just as risky but also gave them a chance to survive if they have no idea how to use dscan. If it was just a solo small neuting/ecm boat trying to get a free kill with no actual effort.
It also changed it so people would stop AFK/Bot ratting in Ishtars/domis.
Well, whille true the same is still in case though, isnt it? If a fleet with a arazu as tackle, when that gets point on the target that is basicely dead in all bad a select few gurista sites. It a fraction less onesided but its still a dead pver in 99.99999% of the cases.
Actually, catching a carebear is retardedly easy at the moment, at least in lowsec where people wont just dock up instantly when local goes up by 1. A lachesis wont show up untill it basicely is in point range (94km with heat and stuff), so you have about 2-3 seconds to spot the 1 target in your overview with a 100 blinking crosses already on it and press warp or you are dead, if you arent aligned (went to loot, went to the next gate, whatever) you have 0 chance of survival. You have regions like black rise where every complex is prescanned and precamped to the point where not combat scanning the pve site you found is a death warrant.
Npc aggro doesnt change that as by that point the 100-200rat dps that is applied means nothing and the whole thing is a whole other problem (like seriously ccp, that change [combat recon dscan change] is by far the most ******** thing you put into the game).
There are very very few sites where the rats actually pose a danger to a dedicated carebear hunting group, certain gurista sites due to jamms and stuff like Hashi Keptzh who puts vindi webs on people and pukes out over 1k dps.
Rat aggro changes have little to no effect there, it is the bomber hunting the belt ratter, the garmur that tackled a bc killing a clone soldier or the t3d trying to 1v1 a ishtar in a besieged site that gets the short end of the stick. To those people who engage in high risk high reward pvp the aggro swaps mean that kind of pvp is getting more and more unviable and are pushing people towards the tackle with recon and then blob or directly cyno on or even the bring 5 logis with your 4 dps ship gangs kind of gameplay.
Which tbh is bad for that game, if you die in a super close fight or you manage to force the pvper off you or you really just die due to rats shooting you it motivates you to do better or to kill them yourselves next time (cause you can, its a 1v1 vs a frigate), if you die without any chance while getting blobbed to hell you can never do anything about it and it just makes you stop trying to play.
Edit: Also it got changed cause you could warp into a lvl 4, shoot the rats once with a gun, drop sentries and go afk and come back 10 minutes later to find the room cleared. Or due to a full passive drake tanking the entire room while a 0 tank all out dps ship would kill all rats. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:43:01 -
[75] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:Or you know... Maybe dont fight in places where the NPCs will OWNBOAT you?
Since the whole "i am seeing EWAR own all the things" is a well documented part of their AI?
If you had half a brain (you don't) then you would realize that this is completely and utterly ********.
CCP ****** up. It's that simple. The pirates would, OBVIOUSLY, help you kill their primary threat. After it was dead, then they would consider shooting you. An intelligent pirate wouldn't, for obvious reasons, but at least they wouldn't be like "OH HERP LETS SHOOT THIS NEW THING DERP."
For Christs sake, how can you argue against this? You literally have to be inept. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:44:17 -
[76] - Quote
Aplysia Vejun wrote:It gives the pve people a (small) chance against you. Nothilfe wrong with that.
Uhm no, it renders you invulnerable to them.
It's completely stupid.
Completely. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:48:06 -
[77] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:Shoot PVE-ers all you want but doing it inside a site you arent tanked to handle seems like a sub optimal place to do it is all i am saying
Because you lack basic intellect. Seriously.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend? At least temporarily?
.....Cmon now. |
Netan MalDoran
xXTheWarhammerXx
111
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 03:03:49 -
[78] - Quote
PvP in FW plexes, the rats are faction so they dont bother with you.
"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
674
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 04:22:28 -
[79] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Edit: Also it got changed cause you could warp into a lvl 4, shoot the rats once with a gun, drop sentries and go afk and come back 10 minutes later to find the room cleared. Or due to a full passive drake tanking the entire room while a 0 tank all out dps ship would kill all rats.
CCP in this change was probably eyeing shutting down other scenarios.
See being nice lets have give you exactly what you want. You tackle or use of any negative external effects (i.e.. e-war) rule number 1 in the rat AI is do not shoot him....the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
I will be nice enough to even make this completely overriding. Sort of like Windows group policy management....One explicit deny can override any amount of yes' you may have elsewhere. Why GPO is so much fun...you have to run tools to see where the hell that one deny is that is messing up your whole flow you are trying for. But enough of this tangent.
Back to your new rule, A pvp'er fit with RR accidentally broadcasts some RR to the carebear. Rats will ignore this..he is after all pointing the enemy so a friend. And we have your tackle ='s no attacking place controlling it all. . Wouldn't want our pvp'er getting the full aggro of a santum for a mere few moments of accidental rr use now would we?
So the basics: run tackle on target, rats ignore you no matter what. This would hurt what ccp was trying to do here for pve control.
Here is how: I bring the many setups I had in the past when rats used to go for the one ship. They weren't passive ratter/afk domi of doom.
Some were min/max glass cannon rat killers of doom and logi backup. Do the logi just right and the runner needs almost no local tank. Those mods become more useful rat killing mods. Faster rat killing, more isk the result. Also at the time nice isk savers....didn't need the 400 mil shiny tanks to start with.
Your idea my logi needs to run only one negative external mod to "attack" the runner and he is ignored. I could be nice to you say I will run point. I control the point so not really like it matters. See local spike, turn off point, gtfo. I could also be a **** and say I would run the weakest totally incorrect racial ecm against my runner. So...I am ignored broadcasting the wrong ecm that will never work. Or I'd td my missile chuckers.
See the trend...the enemy of my enemy based on well they are "attacking" the ratter exception is failing here.....hard. I am attacking...but not to any good effect really.
You even make this setup even easier for me. in the past in the good ole days on new waves there was always the chance my logi (or orca, used them too for refs and salvage while I killed rats to urn candle at both ends) will get the new aggro. Solution to this was new waves ='d backup warp out of alt, runner re-aggro's room, alt warp's back in. Your scheme....I don't even have this step anymore. Thank you for the minute or so saved. And the few less key strokes to change clients. Hell get the logi permarun with tackle/ecm and I don't have to look at the client till its time to change rooms or done the pve event really.
This is why ccp emulated heavily sleeper AI. Hell its probably why ccp never put this in the sleeper AI to begin with. As we all know damn well when only they had it if sleep AI said oh he is tackling so we can ignore the logi....we know WH'ers would have been all over that. As well....its keeping the logi's alive in their site farming that can be the most fun part. Point ='s rat immunity....wh;ers would have used that loophole hard and fast. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
818
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 04:55:53 -
[80] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: Edit: Also it got changed cause you could warp into a lvl 4, shoot the rats once with a gun, drop sentries and go afk and come back 10 minutes later to find the room cleared. Or due to a full passive drake tanking the entire room while a 0 tank all out dps ship would kill all rats.
CCP in this change was probably eyeing shutting down other scenarios. See being nice lets have give you exactly what you want. You tackle or use of any negative external effects (i.e.. e-war) rule number 1 in the rat AI is do not shoot him....the enemy of our enemy is our friend. I will be nice enough to even make this completely overriding. Sort of like Windows group policy management....One explicit deny can override any amount of yes' you may have elsewhere. Why GPO is so much fun...you have to run tools to see where the hell that one deny is that is messing up your whole flow you are trying for. But enough of this tangent. Back to your new rule, A pvp'er fit with RR accidentally broadcasts some RR to the carebear. Rats will ignore this..he is after all pointing the enemy so a friend. And we have your tackle ='s no attacking place controlling it all. . Wouldn't want our pvp'er getting the full aggro of a santum for a mere few moments of accidental rr use now would we? So the basics: run tackle (edit. any negative "attacking" external mod) on target, rats ignore you no matter what. This would hurt what ccp was trying to do here for pve control. Here is how: I bring back the many setups I had in the past when rats used to go for the one ship. They weren't passive ratter/afk domi of doom. Some were min/max glass cannon rat killers of doom and logi backup. Do the logi just right and the runner needs almost no local tank. Those mods become more useful rat killing mods. Faster rat killing, more isk the result. Also at the time nice isk savers....didn't need the 400 mil shiny tanks to start with. Your idea my logi needs to run only one negative external mod to "attack" the runner and he is ignored. I could be nice to you say I will run point. I control the point so not really like it matters. See local spike, turn off point, gtfo. I could also be a **** and say I would run the weakest totally incorrect racial ecm against my runner. So...I am ignored broadcasting the wrong ecm that will never work. Or I'd td my missile chuckers. See the trend...the enemy of my enemy based on well they are "attacking" the ratter exception is failing here.....hard. I am attacking...but not to any good effect really. You even make this setup even easier for me. in the past in the good ole days on new waves there was always the chance my logi (or orca, used them too for refs and salvage while I killed rats to urn candle at both ends) will get the new aggro. Solution to this was new waves ='d backup warp out of alt, runner re-aggro's room, alt warp's back in. Your scheme....I don't even have this step anymore. Thank you for the minute or so saved. And the few less key strokes to change clients. Hell get the logi permarun with tackle/ecm and I don't have to look at the client till its time to change rooms or done the pve event really. This is why ccp emulated heavily sleeper AI. Hell its probably why ccp never put this in the sleeper AI to begin with. As we all know damn well when only they had it if sleep AI said oh he is tackling so we can ignore the logi....we know WH'ers would have been all over that. As well....its keeping the logi's alive in their site farming that can be the most fun part. Point ='s rat immunity....wh;ers would have used that loophole hard and fast.
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take this one guys.
This is a garbled up mess of words, to which I had to quit reading midway through, as it was hurting my brain to try to get what you were writing to sound remotely coherent.
I have no idea what your point is, the topic of your post, nor what mechanics you're trying to explain and/or create...
That comment is exactly why you shouldn't drink and post.... |
|
Kirra Tarren
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 05:39:53 -
[81] - Quote
I'd rather have an official CCP response on this than the circlejerking trolls and meaningless conflict that is happening now. What we have now is 12 pages of people using the same arguments on eachother. |
Mag's
the united
19626
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 07:21:54 -
[82] - Quote
Kirra Tarren wrote:I'd rather have an official CCP response on this than the circlejerking trolls and meaningless conflict that is happening now. What we have now is 12 pages of people using the same arguments on eachother. Why do you CCP to tell you the obvious? They changed it to work exactly like it is now.
So instead of you having it all your way when going after a ratter, you now get some extra damage. It's a know and deliberate mechanic, time to adapt.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
764
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:13:37 -
[83] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Because you should be immune to the environment why? well because its primarily part of the environment you are interacting with, you farming it, for example? Or maybe "it worked for 10 years fine, now it broke pvp". You can think of unlimited amount of lore reasons. Even with old AI you werent completely "immune" to the environment, a new rat respawn targetted you too, I also died many times to rats in anomalies, even as those days rats didnt protect the PvEer.
The environment is something everyone interacts with. You don't get a free pass because you want to blow up a player instead of a rat.
It didn't work fine for 10 years. It was stupidly biased in favor of gankbears. Ganking is easy enough, what with the PvP incapable, yet exponentially more expensive, ships the PvE pilots are required to fly, and aggressors having all the initiative.
You are complaining that you now need a ship worth 10% of your victim, rather than .1%. Your hyperbole about needing a marauder to kill a cruiser is just childish whines. Boo hoo, can't kill for free, now have to survive being in space with hostile rats just like the other guy. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:53:26 -
[84] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: The environment is something everyone interacts with. You don't get a free pass because you want to blow up a player instead of a rat.
nope. the farmer is farming the "environment", not the pvper.
Mike Voidstar wrote: It didn't work fine for 10 years. It was stupidly biased in favor of gankbears. Ganking is easy enough, what with the PvP incapable, yet exponentially more expensive, ships the PvE pilots are required to fly, and aggressors having all the initiative.
it did work fine, the majority of work wasnt in killing the ratter but in finding, probing, dscanning and tackling him. That was fine. If he let him catch after all the defensive and home advantage, he should die. Now its impossible, as I and others explained to people of your kind, you need heavy gear for it you basically cant field in these regions, rendering PvEers completely immune vs. solo roamers. The only way is a big gang or a cyno alt camping your system.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You are complaining that you now need a ship worth 10% of your victim, rather than .1%. Your hyperbole about needing a marauder to kill a cruiser is just childish whines. Boo hoo, can't kill for free, now have to survive being in space with hostile rats just like the other guy.
You missed the memo. I'm basically saying that I need a quality of a ship to gank ratters, that I cant realistically field in that environment. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:57:00 -
[85] - Quote
Kirra Tarren wrote:I'd rather have an official CCP response on this than the circlejerking trolls and meaningless conflict that is happening now. What we have now is 12 pages of people using the same arguments on eachother.
I asked a CSM dude about it, still waiting for response. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1112
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 12:59:57 -
[86] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take this one guys.
This is a garbled up mess of words, to which I had to quit reading midway through, as it was hurting my brain to try to get what you were writing to sound remotely coherent.
I have no idea what your point is, the topic of your post, nor what mechanics you're trying to explain and/or create...
That comment is exactly why you shouldn't drink and post....
You're not alone.
In my opinion, this issue mainly stretches to guristas/serpentis content, with sleepers/angels/drones/bloods not killing yur lock or lockrange, so you can work around that. The killer ECM and weirdly stacking damps by NPCs though are driving me buttmad. If you look at someone in a site -jammed- for a minute and he eventually warps out when returning to his keyboard cause you're still jammed by rats, then it's cringeworthy. Same for serpentis if your *generic pirate cruiser* is damped to 150m lockrange. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 16:22:27 -
[87] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: The environment is something everyone interacts with. You don't get a free pass because you want to blow up a player instead of a rat.
nope. the farmer is farming the "environment", not the pvper.
That is the most inane response ever. Why not petition to have PvP ships immune to return fire from the PvE guy. After all, he's there for the environment, not you. You should not have to worry about anything but getting your kill. Get real. Everyone is affected by the conditions of the environment equally. Fly the appropriate ship for the area you want to hunt in. It's just that simple.
Robert Caldera wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: It didn't work fine for 10 years. It was stupidly biased in favor of gankbears. Ganking is easy enough, what with the PvP incapable, yet exponentially more expensive, ships the PvE pilots are required to fly, and aggressors having all the initiative.
it did work fine, the majority of work wasnt in killing the ratter but in finding, probing, dscanning and tackling him. That was fine. If he let him catch after all the defensive and home advantage, he should die. Now its impossible, as I and others explained to people of your kind, you need heavy gear for it you basically cant field in these regions, rendering PvEers completely immune vs. solo roamers. The only way is a big gang or a cyno alt camping your system. PvE isn't immune to anything. You can't catch them because of the way the game is set up. The changes you should be asking for are improvements to tackle mechanics and PvE content so that allowing another ship on grid isn't an inevitable death sentence and there is something worth risking an encounter for. As it is the encounter you want is free for you, weighted completely in your favor with no win condition and all the assets worth losing on your target. He does not care if you live or die--- killing you isn't a win. There's nothing worth his ship or pod in that fight, why would he stay an instant longer than he has to?
Robert Caldera wrote:You missed the memo. I'm basically saying that I need a quality of a ship to gank ratters, that I cant realistically field in that environment.
You are whining because you can't bring a tinfoil ship into areas that require stronger tanks. You not only want your free, easy kills with the help of the rats, you want to do it in ships that cost practically nothing.
There are fast ships that survive in those areas, they just aren't cheap T1 Frigs. Price is your 'realisitc' break point. You don't like that you have to risk assets to destroy the other guys radically more expensive assets. That gets you no support even from most of your fellow gankers.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 21:33:20 -
[88] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: The environment is something everyone interacts with. You don't get a free pass because you want to blow up a player instead of a rat.
nope. the farmer is farming the "environment", not the pvper. That is the most inane response ever. Why not petition to have PvP ships immune to return fire from the PvE guy. After all, he's there for the environment, not you. You should not have to worry about anything but getting your kill. Get real. Everyone is affected by the conditions of the environment equally. Fly the appropriate ship for the area you want to hunt in. It's just that simple.
Do you have a main you could post this withm would make it seem more then a whiny highsec carebear complaining about pvp. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
818
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 21:59:34 -
[89] - Quote
I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 05:33:49 -
[90] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion.
Other than the hassle of having all the rats go away when I want to shoot them, it seems just as good to me. Especially as I won't be shooting rats in the face of aggression from other players. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 15:31:27 -
[91] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. Other than the hassle of having all the rats go away when I want to shoot them, it seems just as good to me. Especially as I won't be shooting rats in the face of aggression from other players.
That's the point. If Rats are the issue, remove them for the duration. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 19:28:09 -
[92] - Quote
quote=Mike Voidstar] That is the most inane response ever. Why not petition to have PvP ships immune to return fire from the PvE guy. After all, he's there for the environment, not you. /quote]
no, its not insane, its real. You are there for rats, you spawn them, so you should eat most damage from them, all I'm asking for is for rats not preventing PvP encounters inside sites and not protecting the ratter.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You should not have to worry about anything but getting your kill. Get real. Everyone is affected by the conditions of the environment equally. Fly the appropriate ship for the area you want to hunt in. It's just that simple.
its not that much about logics or lore, its about gameplay rules and balance. If the requirement for something is unrealistic to meet, it can be called as "broken". So is the profession of solo roams after ratters.
Mike Voidstar wrote: PvE isn't immune to anything. You can't catch them because of the way the game is set up. The changes you should be asking for are improvements to tackle mechanics and PvE content so that allowing another ship on grid isn't an inevitable death sentence and there is something worth risking an encounter for.
yes and this is why the game is broken. since when is the amoung of risk a valid argument for anything in eve? I can gank a jumpfreighter with a couple of catalysts, virtually not risking anything compared to a value of a JF. You can farm mountains of ISK without risking virtually anything if you do it right (which is not really hard). Hell, you can even do it in a cheap fully insured battleship, risking only 2-3 ratting payout ticks. If the hunter dares to roam your space in a recon ship, he's risking way more than that.
Mike Voidstar wrote: As it is the encounter you want is free for you, weighted completely in your favor with no win condition and all the assets worth losing on your target. He does not care if you live or die--- killing you isn't a win. There's nothing worth his ship or pod in that fight, why would he stay an instant longer than he has to?
Thats exactly why it worked, it simply wasnt worth enough camping you, so you was able to move in hostile area at all. Bring a T3 and they wont allow you to hunt, they will try to camp and bait you constantly for teh lulz of shiny KM. A kill on a cheap ship like recon or bomber simply wasnt rewarding enough for defenders to have much of effort fighting you off. This is primary reason why you could do it at all. Grab a T3 and go hunt in deklein or any other heavily populated ratting region, see what happens.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You are whining because you can't bring a tinfoil ship into areas that require stronger tanks. You not only want your free, easy kills with the help of the rats, you want to do it in ships that cost practically nothing.
no, what I'm asking for are realistic chances, not "you better be roaming in a battleship, trololol".
Mike Voidstar wrote: There are fast ships that survive in those areas, they just aren't cheap T1 Frigs. Price is your 'realisitc' break point. You don't like that you have to risk assets to destroy the other guys radically more expensive assets. That gets you no support even from most of your fellow gankers.
T1 frig is countered by a single sabre. Never head of people doing that in a T1 frigate anyways. If a dude in a T1 frigate would be able to spread any kind of terror on ratters, well, then you are just terrible. Price isnt even that important to me, more drastic is the fact is that a chance of a shiny expensive kill for the foe wont allow you to move realistically safe in hostile areas. First report in intel channel will spawn gatecamps and what not. This is why noone is doing it. this is why the game is unbalanced right now, the required tool for the job is currently not realistic. This is why a huge pvp profession is dead and many people stopped playing or logging in much. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 19:31:48 -
[93] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. Other than the hassle of having all the rats go away when I want to shoot them, it seems just as good to me. Especially as I won't be shooting rats in the face of aggression from other players. That's the point. If Rats are the issue, remove them for the duration.
from me, let them cease fire for the duration of the pvp encounter, but I guess it would be a free get out of jail card for failed PvE attempts, if you cant tank just do some "pvp action xy" on your alt and stop all incoming damage. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 21:04:53 -
[94] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. Other than the hassle of having all the rats go away when I want to shoot them, it seems just as good to me. Especially as I won't be shooting rats in the face of aggression from other players. That's the point. If Rats are the issue, remove them for the duration. from me, let them cease fire for the duration of the pvp encounter, but I guess it would be a free get out of jail card for failed PvE attempts, if you cant tank just do some "pvp action xy" on your alt and stop all incoming damage.
Yeah, but it stops the damage for a short period. It doesn't remove it.
It will come back, and my suggestion is that returning NPCs auto aggro |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5895
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 22:13:19 -
[95] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
674
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 23:12:07 -
[96] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion.
Where would mission rats go? Now you have outstanding missions clogging up the system. Or GM petition rushes after the what, week, they are allowed to stay active. And there would be petitions for resets to actually complete the mission. Unless CCP removes standing for killing a mission but not completing it.
CCP only has 2 pve modes (well 3 I guess with incursions technically)....wh's and the rest. this change would apply to the rest (null, low, empire). empire, low sec level 5's and pirate agent missions I'd predict some petition spamming real fast.
Remember this works for belt rats as when they get bored if you can't kill them fast enough they just warp off to some other belt. I have chased down the banged up BS I could not kill easy when low sp player in 0.0 in the next belt. A mission rat and site as well would be gone forever. What happens when that rat is the trigger? the trigger that is never activated.
Also where is the value of enforcing tackle fits for all ships. Even in pvp not all ships run tackle. Even at the sub BS levels. In the falcon threads for example I will often say run a sniper to kill or scare them off. By the time you are done boosting lock range and range of weapons....often times there is no room for tackle. Well that and tackle at that point is useless anyway since you are operating waaaay the hell out.
Or put another way not everyone brawls in this game. I did not train caldari BS 5 to reach 70 km optimal on AM/CNAM to rush in and tackle targets. I did it to plink away at 70 ish.
Unless also throwing some uber point range bonuses to all ships in game....you in essence would be wiping a play style off the server real fast. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 03:57:21 -
[97] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. Where would mission rats go? Now you have outstanding missions clogging up the system. Or GM petition rushes after the what, week, they are allowed to stay active. And there would be petitions for resets to actually complete the mission. Unless CCP removes standing for killing a mission but not completing it. CCP only has 2 pve modes (well 3 I guess with incursions technically)....wh's and the rest. this change would apply to the rest (null, low, empire). empire, low sec level 5's and pirate agent missions I'd predict some petition spamming real fast. Remember this works for belt rats as when they get bored if you can't kill them fast enough they just warp off to some other belt. I have chased down the banged up BS I could not kill easy when low sp player in 0.0 in the next belt. A mission rat and site as well would be gone forever. What happens when that rat is the trigger? the trigger that is never activated. Also where is the value of enforcing tackle fits for all ships. Even in pvp not all ships run tackle. Even at the sub BS levels. In the falcon threads for example I will often say run a sniper to kill or scare them off. By the time you are done boosting lock range and range of weapons....often times there is no room for tackle. Well that and tackle at that point is useless anyway since you are operating waaaay the hell out. Or put another way not everyone brawls in this game. I did not train caldari BS 5 to reach 70 km optimal on AM/CNAM to rush in and tackle targets. I did it to plink away at 70 ish. Unless also throwing some uber point range bonuses to all ships in game....you in essence would be wiping a play style off the server real fast.
They come back afterwards? But the problem is that that is way to expoitable, missions where you have to kill structures or so you just shoot each other once and rats are gone, or tank is failing, lets pvp for 1 second and get off free and so on and on and on.
It would also screw immersion. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 04:19:00 -
[98] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm still saying, if the NPCs are your issue, then why not ask CCP to have the NPCs warp off when a PVP aggression timer is activated in site. Once the aggression timer ends, the NPCs warp back (takes one minute after aggression stops).
This means neither the ganker, nor the ratter, have to worry about the NPCs.
edit....To be more specific, this would be based off the weapons timer, so there's no confusion. Where would mission rats go? Now you have outstanding missions clogging up the system. Or GM petition rushes after the what, week, they are allowed to stay active. And there would be petitions for resets to actually complete the mission. Unless CCP removes standing for killing a mission but not completing it. CCP only has 2 pve modes (well 3 I guess with incursions technically)....wh's and the rest. this change would apply to the rest (null, low, empire). empire, low sec level 5's and pirate agent missions I'd predict some petition spamming real fast. Remember this works for belt rats as when they get bored if you can't kill them fast enough they just warp off to some other belt. I have chased down the banged up BS I could not kill easy when low sp player in 0.0 in the next belt. A mission rat and site as well would be gone forever. What happens when that rat is the trigger? the trigger that is never activated. Also where is the value of enforcing tackle fits for all ships. Even in pvp not all ships run tackle. Even at the sub BS levels. In the falcon threads for example I will often say run a sniper to kill or scare them off. By the time you are done boosting lock range and range of weapons....often times there is no room for tackle. Well that and tackle at that point is useless anyway since you are operating waaaay the hell out. Or put another way not everyone brawls in this game. I did not train caldari BS 5 to reach 70 km optimal on AM/CNAM to rush in and tackle targets. I did it to plink away at 70 ish. Unless also throwing some uber point range bonuses to all ships in game....you in essence would be wiping a play style off the server real fast. They come back afterwards? But the problem is that that is way to expoitable, missions where you have to kill structures or so you just shoot each other once and rats are gone, or tank is failing, lets pvp for 1 second and get off free and so on and on and on. It would also screw immersion.
Well, you could always consider it like a invulnerability timer for NPCs, much like with a POS. If a PVP weapons timer is seen, NPCs warp out and the structures go invulnerable until the weapons timer runs up. I mean, yeah, it kills immersion, but there are many changes to Eve, for the sake of balance, that have killed immersion in that related field.
One that has always existed is that mission sites suddenly disappear after completion, and you can warp to BMs without having to go back into the mission. Heck, you can warp in, kill the primary target, BM, turn in mission, then warp to BM and suddenly all the other NPCs are gone...
So, immersion isn't as high a priority when it comes to balance.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:51:27 -
[99] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote: no, its not insane, its real. You are there for rats, you spawn them, so you should eat most damage from them, all I'm asking for is for rats not preventing PvP encounters inside sites and not protecting the ratter.
Not insane. Inane.
Full Definition of INANE: empty, insubstantial, lacking significance, meaning, or point.
Completely pointless and stupid to even consider. Rats are part of the environment. If you want to kill things that easily go hunt some rats of your own. The ones in the asteroid belts come in very small and easily killed groups. Have fun. Hell, if you want tears show up and start shooting his rats and 'stealing' his bounties.
Robert Caldera wrote:its not that much about logics or lore, its about gameplay rules and balance. If the requirement for something is unrealistic to meet, it can be called as "broken". So is the profession of solo roams after ratters. I am aware it's not about lore. It's about quick easy kills at no risk to yourself. You are never at risk doing this because you don't want to put any assets in space. Your entire complaint is that you don't want to have to bring a sufficiently strong ship to kill the blingy ships of others.
Robert Caldera wrote:yes and this is why the game is broken. since when is the amoung of risk a valid argument for anything in eve? I can gank a jumpfreighter with a couple of catalysts, virtually not risking anything compared to a value of a JF. You can farm mountains of ISK without risking virtually anything if you do it right (which is not really hard). Hell, you can even do it in a cheap fully insured battleship, risking only 2-3 ratting payout ticks if at all. If the hunter dares to roam hostile space in a recon ship, he's risking way more than that. Eve is supposed to be all about choices and consequences. You can't claim that the people you hunt are in worthless ships while also complaining that you need expensive ones to kill them. Over and over again you fail to make any point and just whine that you can't get cheap kills.
Robert Caldera wrote: Thats exactly why it worked, it simply wasnt worth enough camping you, so you was able to move in hostile area at all. Bring a T3 and they wont allow you to hunt, they will try to camp and bait you constantly for teh lulz of shiny KM. A kill on a cheap ship like recon or bomber simply wasnt rewarding enough for defenders to have much of effort fighting you off. This is primary reason why you could do it at all. Grab a T3 and go hunt in deklein or any other heavily populated ratting region, see what happens.
You are complaining that you would be baited? Really? So on top of wanting free reign to kill expensive assets at will, you want to make sure you aren't hunted in return, because that's what EVE is about? Somehow I think you may have missed an important part of the game.
Welcome to EVE, where you will be hunted by other players. It's actually fairly hilarious that you would openly admit that your problem is that someone might blow you up if you flew a ship worth killing.
You don't need to be in battleships. Strategic Cruisers work, and even work better. There are many ships that can survive in those sites that are not battleships. But if you want to hunt in dangerous space with lots of local DPS, you need to be in a ship that can survive it. The good news for you is that with only a little forethought you know exactly what the damage types will be, and know you will not be facing much in the way of Ewar from your target.
Robert Caldera wrote:T1 frig is countered by a single sabre. Never head of people doing that in a T1 frigate anyways. If a dude in a T1 frigate would be able to spread any kind of terror on ratters, well, then you are just terrible. Price isnt even that important to me, more drastic is the fact is that a chance of a shiny expensive kill for the foe wont allow you to move realistically safe in hostile areas. First report in intel channel will spawn gatecamps and what not. This is why noone is doing it. this is why the game is unbalanced right now, the required tool for the job is currently not realistic. This is why a huge pvp profession is dead and many people stopped playing or logging in much. The ships you want to hunt are all but helpless against a Frigate without backup. It was very simple to fly in, tackle, and neut a boat to death while the NPC's did all the damage. This is what you are asking to be returned and it was cowpattie squishing stupid.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 09:04:45 -
[100] - Quote
[quoe=Mike Voidstar]Rats are part of the environment. [/quote]
yes and I liked them as part of the environment pre-Retribution.
[quoe=Mike Voidstar] I am aware it's not about lore. It's about quick easy kills at no risk to yourself. You are never at risk doing this because you don't want to put any assets in space. Your entire complaint is that you don't want to have to bring a sufficiently strong ship to kill the blingy ships of others.[/quote]
these kills were never quick and easy but required a lot of dedication and were time consuming. stop lying.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Eve is supposed to be all about choices and consequences. You can't claim that the people you hunt are in worthless ships while also complaining that you need expensive ones to kill them. Over and over again you fail to make any point and just whine that you can't get cheap kills.
never said they are in worthless ships, you are lying again. I am complaining not solely about expensive ships I need for the job but also, you should read what I write and stop dropping parts you dont like.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You are complaining that you would be baited? Really? So on top of wanting free reign to kill expensive assets at will, you want to make sure you aren't hunted in return, because that's what EVE is about? Somehow I think you may have missed an important part of the game.
Welcome to EVE, where you will be hunted by other players. It's actually fairly hilarious that you would openly admit that your problem is that someone might blow you up if you flew a ship worth killing.
Just explaining the reasons why the profession is dead and tools required for the job are unrealistic over the top.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You don't need to be in battleships. Strategic Cruisers work, and even work better. There are many ships that can survive in those sites that are not battleships. But if you want to hunt in dangerous space with lots of local DPS, you need to be in a ship that can survive it. The good news for you is that with only a little forethought you know exactly what the damage types will be, and know you will not be facing much in the way of Ewar from your target.
nope, a plated proteus is too slow for catching anything - a totally futile idea. Other T3 wont even get enough DPS. Even in a nano cruiser it's already not an easy task to tackle someone in a site, I see you have no idea what you are talking about and probably never tried to. My target doesnt need to fit any e-war by itself, NPC already doing that. Yes, a ship which can tank all the rats and the ratter in a site is simply too slow and sluggish to even get there and find/catch a target, thats what I'm saying all the time.
Mike Voidstar wrote: The ships you want to hunt are all but helpless against a Frigate without backup. It was very simple to fly in, tackle, and neut a boat to death while the NPC's did all the damage. This is what you are asking to be returned and it was cowpattie squishing stupid.
yes, true. These ships have mostly drones, which would rip a T1 frigate apart within seconds.. so whats your point? Neuting out a boat and getting it finished by rats is viable tactic, why not? Why is that stupid? Neuts are powerful weapon if applied in a proper way. Also a plated pilgrim, you are talking about, is all but fast and agile for the job, so not very survivable in said hostile environment and not very dangerous for an aware ratter. I always tip my hat to people who managed to score a kill with a pilgrim. Like explained lots of times already, the lions share of getting these kills was the time spent on hunting itself vs. x intel tools stacked against you + all hostiles around willing to hunt and camp you. It was hard enough but still worthwhile doing, nowadays the balance is totally skewed and everyone gave up the profession - imbalance is obvious. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 10:02:24 -
[101] - Quote
An imbalance based solely on cost and lack of stupidly overwhelming advantage. You exploited an unbalanced and stupid mechanic for 10 years and are now butt hurt due to a radically inflated sense of entitlement.
You don't get to ignore the environment. If it was balanced for you to use NPC damage to achieve your goals then, then it's just as balanced now that the NPCs switch. It's an exaggeration to say they they stick to the aggressor. They follow rules and change about every 2 minutes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 11:05:17 -
[102] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:An imbalance based solely on cost and lack of stupidly overwhelming advantage. You exploited an unbalanced and stupid mechanic for 10 years and are now butt hurt due to a radically inflated sense of entitlement. no, the advantage wasnt that stupudly overwhelming, you had all intel and all people around you at your disposal. if you were careless enough still to get caught with a pve maxed fit, you deserved a loss. Properly fitted ships against a paper bag ship survived as nbd. The environment which protects you from other players or requires you to field impossible or unviable ships is overwhelmingly stupid and imbalanced, that is.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You don't get to ignore the environment. If it was balanced for you to use NPC damage to achieve your goals then, then it's just as balanced now that the NPCs switch. It's an exaggeration to say they they stick to the aggressor. They follow rules and change about every 2 minutes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm aware about these rules, they are the reason this thread exists, because they are broken and deny or at least render whole profession of solo stealthy hunting and guerilla warfare unviable - in other words its dead. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:40:38 -
[103] - Quote
The ability to run away and hide is in no way a win for the PvE pilot. The PvE pilot's goal is to play PvE content. As soon as you showed up his ability to do that was destroyed until you went away. From his perspective you won before an engagement even began. He had no realistic way of defeating you regardless of what ship you brought, because PvE content depends on tanking fairly hefty levels of sustained DPS for extended periods of time. Most PvE builds involve being cap stable, and most of those fits are so close to the edge of cap stable that a single small neut will break it. This is not a choice the PvE pilot is making, this is simply what it requires to be able to sit in that space and play that content.
The PvE pilot isn't using all that so called advantage to beat you. He is simply taking the lesser loss by avoiding the engagement. He lost the same thing you did reaching that point: Time. Except he didn't choose to lose it, you took it from him. If either of you can call that a win, it's you. Then there is the added bonus of if he wasn't watching things constantly for a hostile, hours on end, and you manage to catch and pop him, and then even better get his Pod too.
What you are asking is unreasonable and unbalanced. It was then, it would be now.
You deserve to be at the same risk as your target. You deserve to be hunted for your shiny hull. You deserve to have your choices constrained by the environment you wish to hunt in. That is balance. The rules are the same on either side, and the risk is still greater for your target because even with all your whining you still are pointing out your target has more valuable assets in space. Not only that, but you still cost him time just by showing up, because a smart PvE pilot isn't depending on the environment to save him, because people still get ganked all the time, they just apparently do it better than you.
You do not deserve to be entertained at your targets expense. You have to earn that right, and part of that is paying out for a ship that can get the job done and putting your own sweet ISK at risk just like your target does when he goes out. Except that your ship will still cost less, you still have all the intel you need on your target because you know what he's fighting and therefore his tank and damage type. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
389
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:49:39 -
[104] - Quote
If a site needs at least X tank to survive, then well bring at least that much tank if you want to go in.
If your dropping on someone with an extra Y of DPS in a site that needs X tank, then you had better have that much extra tank as well. (X+Y)
There is simply no other sensible thing to expect. Rats are finally doing what they should have for the last ten years. And shooting drones. Screw drones.
We do escals, we get dropped and Dreads die. But even in that situation sleeper BS are soo bad that the ppl dropping us must time it to avoid them. An extra 8 sleeper BS is something you must plan for, cus things could go really wrong if you don't. To have it any other way is quite frankly stupid.
If you want to duel without rats, go to jita and duel. Don't expect it in a site in low or null with someone who doesn't even want to fight you.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:28:47 -
[105] - Quote
[quoe=Mike Voidstar]The ability to run away and hide is in no way a win for the PvE pilot. The PvE pilot's goal is to play PvE content. As soon as you showed up his ability to do that was destroyed until you went away. From his perspective you won before an engagement even began. He had no realistic way of defeating you regardless of what ship you brought, because PvE content depends on tanking fairly hefty levels of sustained DPS for extended periods of time. Most PvE builds involve being cap stable, and most of those fits are so close to the edge of cap stable that a single small neut will break it. This is not a choice the PvE pilot is making, this is simply what it requires to be able to sit in that space and play that content.[/quote] I think you run out of arguments, what sort of one is this? Ratter want safety so a broken NPC mechanics protecting them from PvP and a dead PvP profession is OK trade off for it?
[quoe=Mike Voidstar] The PvE pilot isn't using all that so called advantage to beat you. He is simply taking the lesser loss by avoiding the engagement. He lost the same thing you did reaching that point: Time. [/quote] no, he undocks, warps into haven and starts ratting, then docks up or warps to POS once hostile next door gets reported.
[qute=Mike Voidstar] Except he didn't choose to lose it, you took it from him. If either of you can call that a win, it's you. Then there is the added bonus of if he wasn't watching things constantly for a hostile, hours on end, and you manage to catch and pop him, and then even better get his Pod too.[/quote] what? If you take a break, you safe up. I think you are running out of arguments.
Mike Voidstar wrote: What you are asking is unreasonable and unbalanced. It was then, it would be now.
no, its not.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You deserve to be at the same risk as your target. You deserve to be hunted for your shiny hull. You deserve to have your choices constrained by the environment you wish to hunt in. That is balance.
no, he isnt at same risk. He's in a friendly space surrounded by blues. The hunter isnt. Unless you want to get rid of a whole PvP branch threatening your ISK farming habits, you should compensate the risk. The risk compensation was done by old NPC AI, allowing him to field a survivable ship into deep enemy space and still have some rewards. That ins no more, solo hunting is dead.
Mike Voidstar wrote: The rules are the same on either side, and the risk is still greater for your target because even with all your whining you still are pointing out your target has more valuable assets in space. Not only that, but you still cost him time just by showing up, because a smart PvE pilot isn't depending on the environment to save him, because people still get ganked all the time, they just apparently do it better than you.
Yes, people still do it in gangs, yes, which is ofc less frequent because its people who always did it in gangs, they are not that severely affected by NPC changes - it totally screwed solo guys, who cant do it anymore.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You do not deserve to be entertained at your targets expense. You have to earn that right, and part of that is paying out for a ship that can get the job done and putting your own sweet ISK at risk just like your target does when he goes out. Except that your ship will still cost less, you still have all the intel you need on your target because you know what he's fighting and therefore his tank and damage type.
well, this is a MMO and eve, where the only PvP fun comes from targets expense, why is this new for you? You repeat yourself, I already told you why the "proper ship" is not viable and does not fit the requirements for activity in question and the fact that neither you nor any other carebear here can show me someone still hunting using that "proper tool", confirms my claims. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 14:20:24 -
[106] - Quote
Your whole argument is "Nuh Uhh!!! It's not Fair!! Waaaaaaah!" and you are ok with that?
No reasons given, no logic to back you up, just the bonkers idea that it's more balanced when the entire game twists to favor you instead of being neutral? LOL
Being in friendly space does not mean you are risking less than someone else. The assets you put in space are what you risk. As you were able to regularly go in with ships that you cared nothing about losing and blow them up proves the risk was real. Now that you are required to risk more, not as much as your target but more than something so cheap you didn't care if it exploded or not, you want to cry like the whole profession is dead.
It's not. Gankers are still ganking. That alone proves your point as plainly not true. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1030
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 15:04:48 -
[107] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your whole argument is "Nuh Uhh!!! It's not Fair!! Waaaaaaah!" and you are ok with that?
No reasons given, no logic to back you up, just the bonkers idea that it's more balanced when the entire game twists to favor you instead of being neutral? LOL my primary argument always was that solo roams are dead due to broken NPC aggro. I provided you reasons why its dead. Also NPC, which protect the ratter are very far from making sense, so even on that level you are failing at logics, neither does it make sense from the gameplay perspective nor lore.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Being in friendly space does not mean you are risking less than someone else. The assets you put in space are what you risk. As you were able to regularly go in with ships that you cared nothing about losing and blow them up proves the risk was real. Sure it does. Risk is defined as chance of event multiplied by the value of damage. The value of your ship might be somewhat higher, the chance of being blown up in blue space is however far less than the other way around.
Otherwise ratters would've never undocked in all those 10 years, obviously even with all the evil roamers in paperbag ships around, the risk of undocking was still justified and outweighed by rewards in form of ISK payouts - seemed right to me. Ratters had their ISK, solo roamers had their kills. As opposed today when ratters still rat (now even under protection of their environment) while solo hunting is dead.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Now that you are required to risk more, not as much as your target but more than something so cheap you didn't care if it exploded or not, you want to cry like the whole profession is dead. No. I'm not required to risk more, I'm required to field something completely unsuitable for the job. Go back in thread and read why and stop repeating yourself. The profession is dead, I asked you to prove me otherwise but you ignored it, simply because I'm right.
Mike Voidstar wrote:It's not. Gankers are still ganking. That alone proves your point as plainly not true. that does not prove anything assumed you can read and understand. This thread is not about gankers as whole, it's basically only relevant for solo people. A cyno guy doesnt care much, his target is long dead before rats even realize he's there. Also is it irrelevant for bigger gangs when the tackler is interceptor and has nbd surviving a couple of seconds until his buddies arrive on scene. Different story. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 15:16:34 -
[108] - Quote
OOOOOOH K, Robert.
All Gankers travel in packs and no one ever dies to solo pilots except to people who abuse broken mechanics like Rat Aggro and AFK cloaks. You are right, and it took your brilliance to reveal that nugget of wisdom. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
674
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 22:09:26 -
[109] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:OOOOOOH K, Robert.
All Gankers travel in packs and no one ever dies to solo pilots except to people who abuse broken mechanics like Rat Aggro and AFK cloaks. You are right, and it took your brilliance to reveal that nugget of wisdom.
this will go on dude. They miss their km's where they were not damage top damage dealer and collected the km's where they were just a point/scram entry and some dps. Point/scram optional....sometimes in the old days you got lucky and the rats did this for you even. I've had km's like this. I never looked at these with a sense of pride though. Look at me....I got beat out by a pope and a cardinal damage wise....I am so bad I scare even myself lol.
You could even point out wh's ran like this for years before the change and they argue that too. they will argue no local or t3 use.
Insert well no local in 0.0 arguments (which means these people who won't bring the proper tank will also have to kill a high slot for probes, full time).
Or it breaks down to I don't want to fly a t3. It works, DPS and tank to even take sleepers to solve all their problems, for a few more isk. They want to kill expensive ratting boats for cheaper costs. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
765
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 23:51:31 -
[110] - Quote
Right. PvE pilots fly in perfect safety with their super special tactic of run and hide, which justifies billion+ ISK ships being lost to ships that cost less than 50 million on a regular basis.
And it's cool when it's rare. If it becomes an achievement to crash gates into deep enemy territory and cause some ruckus. But its not that hard. The trick should be getting back out alive. They didn't used to bother, basically just suicide in because the hull was a throw away. Now that this requires actual assets to pull off it's suddenly a dead profession.
Honestly if all it took was having to risk a little of their own ISK in being hunted, then the profession deserved to die- which it didn't. |
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1031
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 08:19:48 -
[111] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Right. PvE pilots fly in perfect safety with their super special tactic of run and hide, which justifies billion+ ISK ships being lost to ships that cost less than 50 million on a regular basis. Run&Hide is not just a PvE tactic, its normality for PvP too. If you cant kill it - run. ISK doesnt save you from stupidity, nor should it. If you pimp out PvE boat with officer launchers and what not, exactly knowing your risks - well, then better you not be caught. But kills like that were always rather rare, because those ratters mostly knew very well that ISK spent on PvE wont save them vs. a specialized PvP ship. Occassionally carebears die even in high sec, loosing their 30b ravens to a couple of ganking tornados - stop ranting about this, thats eve.
Mike Voidstar wrote:And it's cool when it's rare. If it becomes an achievement to crash gates into deep enemy territory and cause some ruckus. But its not that hard. The trick should be getting back out alive. They didn't used to bother, basically just suicide in because the hull was a throw away. Now that this requires actual assets to pull off it's suddenly a dead profession. not "actual assets" - a lie wont become true if you tell it over and over again.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Honestly if all it took was having to risk a little of their own ISK in being hunted, then the profession deserved to die- which it didn't. same lie again. Ofc you think the profession deserved to die, it was obvious from your whole trollspeech - I guess because you were on the receiving end of it. It was an important risk factor for your ISK farming machine, now its gone - I cant imagine what CCP was thinking, they tried to limit ISK faucets for years but in same time they also removed risks from farmers, I dont quite get it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
766
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 08:48:29 -
[112] - Quote
It is clear you just don't get it. Painfully, gruesomly, vastly clear that your comprehension is lacking on so very many levels.
They limited it with the very same mechanic you are upset about. One of the most common ways to farm was with drone boats. Those took a huge PvE hit with this, to the point that a great many adapted themselves right out of using drones all together. You are probably sad about that too... Less sleepy ratters because guns require more concentration, and actually using drones can induce insanity now trying to keep them alive.
It course, most of them went to mauraders. I didn't used to fly them because they were not necessary and stupid expensive. Now I fly it for bastion to avoid the Ewar. More blingy targets for you, if only you had the testicular fortitude to adapt yourself.
Over the years they have limited income in other ways as well, adjusting bounties and changing loot.
I also said the profession didn't die. People die all the time, even to solo roamers. Gankers do not all travel in packs or abusing broken mechanics as you claim. Apparently some are just plain better than you.
People making money has never been a problem that needed balancing with grief tactics and ganking. The content they were using was meant to drive conflict between players. EVE prides itself on big battles, not cheap kills. Your 'profession' isn't needed, is counter to the goal of creating a healthy game, and is still alive and well it's just moved into a new price bracket of ship-- one that destroys more minerals and wealth in the game than the space trash you used to fly, and puts the burden of that loss more evenly on both sides of the fight. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1031
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 09:12:09 -
[113] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:It is clear you just don't get it. Painfully, gruesomly, vastly clear that your comprehension is lacking on so very many levels.
They limited it with the very same mechanic you are upset about. One of the most common ways to farm was with drone boats. Those took a huge PvE hit with this, to the point that a great many adapted themselves right out of using drones all together. You are probably sad about that too... Less sleepy ratters because guns require more concentration, and actually using drones can induce insanity now trying to keep them alive. so then they could fix it pretty easily then, to not swap aggro to neutral ships.
Mike Voidstar wrote: It course, most of them went to mauraders. I didn't used to fly them because they were not necessary and stupid expensive. Now I fly it for bastion to avoid the Ewar. More blingy targets for you, if only you had the testicular fortitude to adapt yourself.
people adapted, yes, to using cynos and black ops drops even more. or roaming in gangs. This thread however isnt about. NPC change removed a whole bunch of content for solo guys for no real reason.
Mike Voidstar wrote: I also said the profession didn't die. People die all the time, even to solo roamers. Gankers do not all travel in packs or abusing broken mechanics as you claim. Apparently some are just plain better than you.
the profession of solo roam didnt die? May I ask for a proof again? Show me that guy. But guess what, you'll simply ignore my request once again, because you're wrong.
[quorretgtgrdtte=Mike Voidstar] People making money has never been a problem that needed balancing with grief tactics and ganking. The content they were using was meant to drive conflict between players. EVE prides itself on big battles, not cheap kills.[/quote] you're so wrong, so wrong. cheap kills are the oxygen of eve, just check the killboard and you'll see that like 80% of all kills are like 50 vs. 1.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your 'profession' isn't needed, is counter to the goal of creating a healthy game regardless if you think its needed or not, it was a huge content share for stuff you could to solo in 0.0. There isnt much of it btw, a big one got removed.
Mike Voidstar wrote: , and is still alive and well it's just moved into a new price bracket of ship-- one that destroys more minerals and wealth in the game than the space trash you used to fly, and puts the burden of that loss more evenly on both sides of the fight.
this claim again. post evidence.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
767
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 11:18:57 -
[114] - Quote
Evidence was posted earlier. You discounted it because you didn't like it. Other people more bored than me can search killboards.
What do you consider a neutral ship? Rats are red to everyone, and everyone is red to rats. You are not the Swiss Space Navy.
Here is a clue: stuff in 0.0, especially PvP, isn't meant to be done solo. It's the playground of alliances. Alliances secure that space, and contend for that space. You want to take a piece of trash and break the security of an alliance. That's just silly. To accomplish your goal you need to either up-ship or bring enough friends to get that job done. Or else fly on up to high sec and elite yourself some miners or something there where Concord protects you until the moment you engage.
This is like a PvE guy whining that he can't make 10 million ISK per minute. You are simply trying to do too much with too little and are butt hurt because a broken mechanic used to facillitate it. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 11:29:10 -
[115] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Evidence was posted earlier. You discounted it because you didn't like it. Other people more bored than me can search killboards. no evidence was posted earlier, and I told a reason why I discarded it. But once again, you ignore parts of posting, you dont like - this is your style.
Mike Voidstar wrote: What do you consider a neutral ship? Rats are red to everyone, and everyone is red to rats. You are not the Swiss Space Navy.
a ship which does not project aggro vs. rats, you know the little red timer in upper left edge of the screen, to tell one example.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Here is a clue: stuff in 0.0, especially PvP, isn't meant to be done solo. It's the playground of alliances. Alliances secure that space, and contend for that space.
so then, you shouldnt be able to rat solo, right? Oh noes, ratting ofc is something completely different and should be done solo, am I right? lmao Why didnt you tell from the start on your honest opinion that you shouldnt be able to kill ratter solo? Instead, you wasted your time on tons and pages of words of excuses why you think changed NPC aggro is fair.
Mike Voidstar wrote:You want to take a piece of trash and break the security of an alliance. That's just silly. To accomplish your goal you need to either up-ship or bring enough friends to get that job done. Or else fly on up to high sec and elite yourself some miners or something there where Concord protects you until the moment you engage.
This is like a PvE guy whining that he can't make 10 million ISK per minute. You are simply trying to do too much with too little and are butt hurt because a broken mechanic used to facillitate it. plain trolling. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
767
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:10:27 -
[116] - Quote
Neutral NPC show up as grey. All rats show up red, and are thus mutually hostile with you. Basic game stuff there. You don't get to change the definitions just because you don't like what they mean.
If a ratter is in friendly space then he has the support of people to help him. You know this, which is why you don't want to take a more expensive ship to kill the ratter. You are not afraid the ratter will get you, you are afraid you will get baited or hunted down by the ratters friends. You were fine with this when it cost you less than 50 mill on a cheap ship, but now that you need around half a billion it's " not feasable". I guess it's only feasable when it's the other guy.
Evidence was posted, you discounted it because it was just one example. I would tell you to go search that crap yourself, but you might find the evidence you seek and implode from the paradox of finding the supposedly impossible. I don't care enough about killboards to bother, I know people who have died to solo gankers in all areas of space. You don't want to look, just whine about how unfair life is.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:27:32 -
[117] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Neutral NPC show up as grey. All rats show up red, and are thus mutually hostile with you. Basic game stuff there. You don't get to change the definitions just because you don't like what they mean. red color doesnt mean anything. Seekers are red too, yet they dont agress you. Just to show you how wrong your are. Pre-Retribution rats were red as well, yet they didnt switch aggro. You're wrong again.
Mike Voidstar wrote: If a ratter is in friendly space then he has the support of people to help him. You know this, which is why you don't want to take a more expensive ship to kill the ratter. You are not afraid the ratter will get you, you are afraid you will get baited or hunted down by the ratters friends. You were fine with this when it cost you less than 50 mill on a cheap ship, but now that you need around half a billion it's " not feasable". I guess it's only feasable when it's the other guy.
not strictly the ratter friends, but generally any of the thousands of people living there. Yes. Thats why noone is willing to do it, thats why the profession is dead. You are not just required to take a heavy and easy to catch gear into hostile territory, in same time you also get most of your chances taken to catch anything because your heavy stuff is simply too slow for the job. But we actually covered this same topic "risk" and how its stacked against the hunter on previous page, looks like you forgot again.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Evidence was posted, you discounted it because it was just one example. I would tell you to go search that crap yourself, but you might find the evidence you seek and implode from the paradox of finding the supposedly impossible.
I discounted it because it wasnt just one example, I discouted it because one was with no rat on mail (not in site) and the other was caught in belt. But someone who is actually being able to read would realize it by himself and not bring it up as argument again, after it has been disqualified for very obvious reason. Btw. yeah, 1 wouldnt make a profession anyways, you know why its called "profession" - ist when someone is performing some specific activity for an extended period of time with a certain amount of success. I could link you characters on eve-kill who did it pre-Retribution very well, if you're interested.
Mike Voidstar wrote:I don't care enough about killboards to bother, I know people who have died to solo gankers in all areas of space. You don't want to look, just whine about how unfair life is. ofc you dont care enough about killboards, you sure know a friend of a friend of your cousin, who got ganked once by solo hunter, but are simply too lazy to provide evidence for it, which would finally give a grip to your claims, you trying to argue for 6 pages here - thats something you are not too lazy for.. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:13:11 -
[118] - Quote
Robert Caldera, there are several questions in these pages of hate you spew forth that have remained un-answered.
Since your idea applies to all regions of EvE space how does this affect those who choose to make high sec home? How does it change the game for them and the gankers that would hunt them? Or do you propose that your idea would only apply to nul sec?
If the system as it was years back was so good for the game WHY DID CCP change it? Please spare us the trite crap about whiny care bears, CCP has proven on numerous occasions over the years that they will only change the game just so far to appease them. Besides that I was not aware that whiny care bears even existed among the the exalted elite group of players among us known as nul sec dwellers.
When we look at your arguments and your ideas they are all based on a lie. That lie is that rats should be friendly towards you since you are trying to kill the person that is killing them. So here is the newsflash that you are not able to comprehend.
RATS HATE EVERYONE and RATS HAVE NO FRIENDS.
Rats are a part of the environment of the game we all play, and like all other environmental factors they need to apply equally to ALL players in that area of space. The environmental affects in worm holes affect all players equally as do the affects of an Incursion and so as part of the environment the rats must affect all players in their space equally. I know that a simple concept like this is hard for you "elite PvP" players to grasp since you want all the advantages stacked on your side.
And to me the bottom line is simply this. You are not the first player, you are not the only player and you will not be the last player to have their game play style radically changed or eliminated so adapt to what is or dare I say it quit. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
767
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:24:01 -
[119] - Quote
I'm not arguing for 6 pages.
I'm laughing at your whine for 6 pages.
Your complete lack of a grasp on objectivity is hilarious.
You want what you want, regardless of any other considerations. It's like watching a 4 year old throw a tantrum because he can't have candy.
Yeah, the red crosses in space and the overview means those targets are hostile to you. Grey ones are neutral. That's really, really basic game stuff.
Friends, as in people friendly to you. people in your corp or alliance. Those are the people you fear. The solo ratter isn't really solo. That's how null is intended.
You would discount a signed and sealed document stating you are wrong from the CEO of CCP himself. Your entire argument is sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "YOU HAVE NO PROOF! IT'S NOT FAIR!" at the top of your lungs.
Environment affects all equally. Sorry you don't like that. I suppose when it gets hot outside you complain to god that it's not fair and you should be allowed to be cool while standing in the middle of the desert at high noon while naked. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:44:38 -
[120] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Robert Caldera, there are several questions in these pages of hate you spew forth that have remained un-answered. those are which questions?
Donnachadh wrote:Since your idea applies to all regions of EvE space how does this affect those who choose to make high sec home? How does it change the game for them and the gankers that would hunt them? Or do you propose that your idea would only apply to nul sec? AI change affects all regions apart of WH, the issue theoretically exists in highsec, lowsec and 0.0, if I dont miss something.
Donnachadh wrote: If the system as it was years back was so good for the game WHY DID CCP change it?
it was changed to make "PvE entertaining and challenging" iirc, they changed it to prevent people tanking a plex with a hic and burning through it with a max gank ship. PvP was not in focus in that change. At least how I remember the devblog about it.
Donnachadh wrote: Please spare us the trite crap about whiny care bears, CCP has proven on numerous occasions over the years that they will only change the game just so far to appease them. Besides that I was not aware that whiny care bears even existed among the the exalted elite group of players among us known as nul sec dwellers.
where did I complain about whiny carebears?
Donnachadh wrote: When we look at your arguments and your ideas they are all based on a lie. That lie is that rats should be friendly towards you since you are trying to kill the person that is killing them. So here is the newsflash that you are not able to comprehend.
RATS HATE EVERYONE and RATS HAVE NO FRIENDS.
A lie? A lie is when someone hides the truth by telling a untruth about something. What I stated was my opinion, based on the gameplay balance aspects I presented in this thread. Your opinion is that rats hate everyone. Its your personal opinion without any evidence or backup, I cant name it a lie though, its just your unreasoned opinion.
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:45:38 -
[121] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Rats are a part of the environment of the game we all play, and like all other environmental factors they need to apply equally to ALL players in that area of space. The environmental affects in worm holes affect all players equally as do the affects of an Incursion and so as part of the environment the rats must affect all players in their space equally. I know that a simple concept like this is hard for you "elite PvP" players to grasp since you want all the advantages stacked on your side.
your opinion again, which we already discussed over 6 pages of this thread, why do you bring it up again, all you need is going back in thread and read these 6 pages, that all has already been covered - why current NPC mechanics are bad and how they killed entire playstyle.
Donnachadh wrote: And to me the bottom line is simply this. You are not the first player, you are not the only player and you will not be the last player to have their game play style radically changed or eliminated so adapt to what is or dare I say it quit.
no, I can and will express my attitude about this topic whenever those threads pop up on forums, I think its my right here and its exactly the reason why this forum exists, no? You are doing the same, so why not me? |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:50:20 -
[122] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I'm not arguing for 6 pages.
I'm laughing at your whine for 6 pages.
Your complete lack of a grasp on objectivity is hilarious.
You want what you want, regardless of any other considerations. It's like watching a 4 year old throw a tantrum because he can't have candy.
I reported your post for ranting.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Yeah, the red crosses in space and the overview means those targets are hostile to you. Grey ones are neutral. That's really, really basic game stuff.
and I told you above why the color doesnt mean much. Are you having issues understanding basic english?
Mike Voidstar wrote: Friends, as in people friendly to you. people in your corp or alliance. Those are the people you fear. The solo ratter isn't really solo. That's how null is intended.
what? The ratter is alone in his anomaly, so he's solo. No? Whats your point?
Mike Voidstar wrote: You would discount a signed and sealed document stating you are wrong from the CEO of CCP himself. Your entire argument is sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "YOU HAVE NO PROOF! IT'S NOT FAIR!" at the top of your lungs.
yes, you still failed to provide a simple proof for your claim you are repeating over and over again, although its actually easy to post a link to eve-kill or zkillboard.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Environment affects all equally. Sorry you don't like that. I suppose when it gets hot outside you complain to god that it's not fair and you should be allowed to be cool while standing in the middle of the desert at high noon while naked.
oh well, this is exactly the questionable mechanic this thread is about. Whats your point. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
133
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:00:38 -
[123] - Quote
It's odd i have never really seen it as an issue and have always just planned accordingly depending on the site. If anything i feel it adds more fun to the hunt as most site runners are unlikely to offer any real fight. Regardless of rat aggro any smart PvE player is going to be difficult to catch (sitting off beacon, watching d-scan etc and generally paying attention) and those players require modified tactics, such as combat recons for initial point, log off traps etc. This is just one example where you must adapt to secure a kill, this is engaging and fun game play in which you devise ways to catch them.
I have listed a few cases below that in my opinion show why the current rat mechanics create good content.
Case 1: Me and a friend caught a 4 billion isk paladin in a besieged site not so long ago, him in a Svipul and me in a Deimos. The fight was stressful having to deal with the high dps rats, maintain point (as he went in and out of bastion) and deal with the paladins damage whilst we tag teamed to get more cap boosters. Had the rats entirely focused him it would have been a very boring and simple tank/spank.
Case 2: We caught a Tengu in a C3 who was tanking an absurd amount of our dps. We had not taken the required neuts to kill him and he very cleverly made the decision to trigger the next wave as he was unable to break us. The combined site/Tengu dps quickly became untankable for us and we had to warp out, whilst he continued to tank it just fine. In this situation he outplayed us and rightfully deserved to keep his ship.
Edit: People are out there Solo ganking PvE players as we speak even in deep Null sec. Certainly your engagement profile solo is not the same as what two players can achieve (Two blops BS taking out ratting carriers for instance) but many players adapted, some did not. Such is Eve. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:19:23 -
[124] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:It's odd i have never really seen it as an issue and have always just planned accordingly depending on the site. If anything i feel it adds more fun to the hunt as most site runners are unlikely to offer any real fight. Regardless of rat aggro any smart PvE player is going to be difficult to catch (sitting off beacon, watching d-scan etc and generally paying attention) and those players require modified tactics, such as combat recons for initial point, log off traps etc. you are absolutely right when you say regardless of rat aggro a smart PvE player is difficult to catch, what I see as issue is that on top of all what you said, you have to deal with rats as well, rendering whole thing for solos virtually impossible - basically neutering a whole class of hunters and their gameplay + removing huge chunk of risk from ratters.
This is what the thread is about. There is not much solo content for people seeking for PvP in 0.0. NPC AI change removed one of few huge available parts of it, which filled a lot of time gaps between the next roaming or gatecamps.
Switch Savage wrote: Edit: People are out there Solo ganking PvE players as we speak even in deep Null sec. Certainly your engagement profile solo is not the same as what two players can achieve (Two blops BS taking out ratting carriers for instance) but many players adapted, some did not. Such is Eve.
same question goes out for you - just for interest - link me some of them. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:27:24 -
[125] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Switch Savage wrote:It's odd i have never really seen it as an issue and have always just planned accordingly depending on the site. If anything i feel it adds more fun to the hunt as most site runners are unlikely to offer any real fight. Regardless of rat aggro any smart PvE player is going to be difficult to catch (sitting off beacon, watching d-scan etc and generally paying attention) and those players require modified tactics, such as combat recons for initial point, log off traps etc. you are absolutely right when you say regardless of rat aggro a smart PvE player is difficult to catch, what I see as issue is that on top of all what you said, you have to deal with rats as well, rendering whole thing for solos virtually impossible - basically neutering a whole class of hunters and their gameplay + removing big chunk of risk from ratters.
I see no issue.
There are players out there catching ratters solo in all kinds of ships as we speak. A smart PvE player should have a solid defense if he chooses to make use of it (most do not). A player who wishes to hunt these types of players should be required to have as much of an intimate knowledge of the site as the PvEr himself (triggers/dps levels/site clear requirements). With this information you are able to either chase him out, kill him or finish the site which will make you some nice Isk. You also have the ability to setup a trap to catch him should you so choose.
Edit: Certainly can link some. Zappity (who posts his stories in CnP) has been out in Null sec recently and whilst he never claims to be an expert ratter hunter, he does just fine. https://zkillboard.com/character/92922536/
Some guys in Corp two manned a carrier the other day as well https://zkillboard.com/kill/47417233/ |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:45:08 -
[126] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:Edit: Certainly can link some. Zappity (who posts his stories in CnP) has been out in Null sec recently and whilst he never claims to be an expert ratter hunter, he does just fine. https://zkillboard.com/character/92922536/ this guy managed to down 1 (one) T1 fitted Gila in a site in the period if time I bothered to go back until march. All other type of kills were never questioned here, yes they certainly happen but are not in focus of this discussion. So maybe there is misunderstanding about the exact topic, this thread was raised because its virtually impossible (yes, lucky shots happen rarely) to anyone solo to gank a ratter inside a complex or anomaly - not belt kills, not at gate, not at station - inside a complex, where rats used to protect the ratter since retribution expansion of eve.
same for teams of blops. no doubt, they can kill a lot, however outside of this threads scope. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:51:04 -
[127] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47152961/ Gila https://zkillboard.com/kill/47218770/ Gila https://zkillboard.com/kill/47247764/ Ishtar https://zkillboard.com/kill/47399652/ Ishtar https://zkillboard.com/kill/47400027/ Gila
One? I merely use him as an example of someone who is dabbling in mission runner hunting and doing a fine job of it. I did not have to look past the first page.
At this point you are purposely ignoring the fact that people are out there getting excellent solo ratter kills in null sec and i feel i can prove this to you no further. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1032
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:56:40 -
[128] - Quote
yes, like I said. first gila was WH kill, no idea where the kill happened, I dont know the ammunition on KM and these sites. Know too little about WH to judge this.
Second Gila was the one I mentioned.
Third ishtar with guristas torpedo, in a system known for belt ratting, so probably a belt kill. Forth ishtar, belt kill. Fifth Gila, no NPC on KM at all.
Switch Savage wrote:At this point you are purposely ignoring the fact that people are out there getting excellent solo ratter kills in null sec and i feel i can prove this to you no further. seems like you are purposely ignoring the fact that this discussion is not about belt kills but about kills in anomalies. Why is it that hard to understand, I dont get it. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:01:37 -
[129] - Quote
That was merely one person hunting in null sec who is active on the forums. Agreed not all of them were gated sites so apologies for that. That said it does not invalidate the fact you have many options to hunt such prey in gated plexes of which i have already named some methods that are perfectly valid solo.
Edit: Also i was mainly replying to the original post not the follow up discussion (where i missed the conversation turn to gated plexes.) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1033
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:07:45 -
[130] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:That was merely one person hunting in null sec who is active on the forums. Agreed not all of them were gated sites so apologies for that. That said it does not invalidate the fact you have many options to hunt such prey in gated plexes of which i have already named some methods that are perfectly valid solo. if gated or not, doesnt matter. Primarily its about the amount of rats in there. No idea what you mean with "some methodes that are perfectly valid solo", where did you name them?
Switch Savage wrote:Edit: Also i was mainly replying to the original post not the follow up discussion, which was the main threads scope.
ok yes, me too confused this thread with the other one started by a different guy. Lets agree, belt kills are no big deal since there are only little NPC which can barely harm you, assumed you are in a half decent ship (T3D i.e.) - I never bothered about these, they are still fine. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
768
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:14:55 -
[131] - Quote
That's why I didn't bother to link anything. No matter what is linked it will be discarded as either a fluke or assumed to be not applicable because "reasons".
Your claim that no one can solo hunt PvE pilots in deep null is wrong. People that take the environment into account still hunt just fine. They just don't set themselves up to fail and then wonder what went wrong. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1033
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:22:09 -
[132] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:That's why I didn't bother to link anything. No matter what is linked it will be discarded as either a fluke or assumed to be not applicable because "reasons". you dont understand the reasons? I am argueing about not being able to hunt solo in anomalies, where 95% of all ratters rat, which worked fine pre-Retribution but is now broken.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Your claim that no one can solo hunt PvE pilots in deep null is wrong. People that take the environment into account still hunt just fine. They just don't set themselves up to fail and then wonder what went wrong.
exactly the environment behaves wrong IMO, thats why I'm posting in these threads. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:32:34 -
[133] - Quote
The rats damage i class as a non issue which was the point of this thread but i will explain why.
As a solo hunter you should know the sites you are about to engage within. For example if a besieged site puts out too much damage for you to handle then wait until he has cleared most of the second wave before you engage. This holds true for all non gated sites including wormhole ones. I think we agree on this anyway and its integral knowledge a solo hunter should have, so lets move on to gated.
I agree gates make things more difficult. However an intelligent player utilising knowledge of the mission and D-Scanning for wrecks will be able to ascertain which pocket they are in and roughly how much dps remains on field. Plan accordingly.
This leaves you with the issue that an attentive pver will not be sitting on the beacon and will warp as soon as you enter. Again i see no real issue with this and you are left with a few options.
1) Finish the site yourself if possible and earn some nice isk 2) Setup a trap for him via combat recon, cloaky, log off trap etc
Often if they were right at the end of the site this will get them rather mad. Mad enough sometimes to come and fight or if not you get some nice isk, win, win. Regardless what happens you have won and he has lost Isk and time. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1033
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:43:04 -
[134] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:The rats damage i class as a non issue which was the point of this thread but i will explain why.
As a solo hunter you should know the sites you are about to engage within. For example if a besieged site puts out too much damage for you to handle then wait until he has cleared most of the second wave before you engage. This holds true for all non gated sites including wormhole ones. I think we agree on this anyway and its integral knowledge a solo hunter should have, so lets move on to gated.
As a solo hunter you should know that this is not viable, since they will warp out instantly as they see you in local chat. so waiting out NPC dps is not an option, never was.
Switch Savage wrote: I agree gates make things more difficult. However an intelligent player utilising knowledge of the mission and D-Scanning for wrecks will be able to ascertain which pocket they are in and roughly how much dps remains on field. Plan accordingly.
This leaves you with the issue that an attentive pver will not be sitting on the beacon and will warp as soon as you enter. Again i see no real issue with this and you are left with a few options.
1) Finish the site yourself if possible and earn some nice isk 2) Setup a trap for him via combat recon, cloaky, log off trap etc
Often if they were right at the end of the site this will get them rather mad. Mad enough sometimes to come and fight or if not you get some nice isk, win, win. Regardless what happens you have won and he has lost Isk and time.
1) what if I'm not willing/likely not capable of finishing the site? irrelevant option 2) trap is all right and known approach, but the thread is not about tactics but about NPC spoiling the kill. You should know that login traps dont work in gated plexes, you didnt? You will always land on entry gate, so pretty much you start again where your last attempt to catch him failed.
I dont even know why this discussion derailed that much and is now about tactics, as it was about issue of NPC switching targets originally. Normally, you dont have much of a choice when you decloak and point your target, you're doing it as soon as you can at first chance, waiting and slowboating around "managing the DPS" is a pretty naive idea. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:09:49 -
[135] - Quote
Well if them warping out when they see you in local is your issue, then you have no need to complain about rats switching aggro as you never get that far. If they do not then my points still stand.
If you are unwilling/unable to finish the site then that is your loss and their gain. When i use log off traps i time it so he is warping back to the initial gate when i log back on. You either point him outside with the rats being a non issue or follow him to the first room and tank them and him in a suitable ship. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1033
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:22:59 -
[136] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:Well if them warping out when they see you in local is your issue, then you have no need to complain about rats switching aggro as you never get that far. If they do not then my points still stand. my point is that you have no option of waiting NPC dps to drop, since you usually have to point him at first chance (when NPC become an issue) - otherwise he'll just gtfo. I dont understand your argument.
Switch Savage wrote:If you are unwilling/unable to finish the site then that is your loss and their gain. its not my loss because I'm not interested in finishing the site nor ISK from it, when I'm hunting for kills. His gain, maybe, yes
Switch Savage wrote:When i use log off traps i time it so he is warping back to the initial gate when i log back on. You either point him outside with the rats being a non issue or follow him to the first room and tank them and him in a suitable ship. yet again, login/logoff traps and your chance to grab him that way arent the topic here, why do you keep coming back at that?? If I had the luck of landing together with him at entry gate, good for me and worked as usual - no difference to before AI change. If I'm not that lucky and have to do it in next room full of NPC, the discussed AI issue gets relevant again. |
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:31:20 -
[137] - Quote
If you are hunting these players then ensure you bring a suitable ship for the job and suitable tactics to catch him, that is my point. Them warping out as you enter local and paying attention to D-Scan is a separate issue as mentioned. If they are not paying attention you have time to let the dps drop if you are not in a suitable ship and can plan your attack accordingly. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1033
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:37:12 -
[138] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:If you are hunting these players then ensure you bring a suitable ship for the job "suitable ship" has been discussed here for the last 5-6 pages. The requirements for "suitable ship" have been raised far beyond the point where hunting in sites would be still viable in said regions. Thats why there is a sharp decline of such kills compared to Pre-Retribution levels, basically a dead thing. People dont do it anymore in meaningful extent.
Switch Savage wrote: and suitable tactics to catch him, that is my point. Them warping out as you enter local and paying attention to D-Scan is a separate issue as mentioned. If they are not paying attention you have time to let the dps drop if you are not in a suitable ship and can plan your attack accordingly.
tactics didnt change. You grab them as soon as you can, since you cant know what moment they realize a neutral/hostile in local and warp out. You have to be lucky to see them on grid at all before they warp. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
768
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 18:48:49 -
[139] - Quote
There he goes again. Fingers in ears, yelling about how it's not fair things don't work they way they used to.
See, you can't reason with him on this. No matter how many times you point out to him that he can still hunt ratters in deep null by adjusting his tactics, he will just circle right back around to wanting the AI re-stupefied so that he can get his free kills at no risk to himself.
To him, the discussion begins and ends with he can't do the exact same thing in the exact same way it was done 2 years ago when it was hilariously broken. He isn't here to discuss the situation, he is here to whine about it. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 20:40:54 -
[140] - Quote
Switch, you know those kills mean noting to the inherent problem right? Killing a cruiser in a 10mn t3d or in a stratios is totally besides the point, https://zkillboard.com/kill/46320810/ stuff like that looks nice but it in itself shows the problem, i tried to kill him once and had to warp out in almost 0 hull due to the rats smoking me up, had to just gamble the second tme and landed just right.
If you arent in a ship that can just plain ignore the rats (i.e a 10mn t3d in a regular site or something bigger) the rats give absurd protection to the pver, a advantage that makes no sense for them to have. Who cares about 1 or 2 belt rats but if i try to fight a ship which is fit to a passive buffer tank of over 1k dps tanked to tank a super neut and web heavy site in anything bar a blob i can screw myself.
Or take your earlier example, a pveer that is fairlfit for the content he is doing by totally overtanking beeing able to survive his total and utter fuckup (getting tackled) just by spawning more adds and due to add mechanics those swapping to you instead of their real enemy (him), is that really good gameplay for you?
And if you take it down a bit, a dual rep vengeance doings a 2/10, a enyo tackles it, veng spaws 50 new adds - new adds all shoot the enyo. Good gameplay or not?
If you are doing a site, spawn adds by shooting triggers you should by all means be forced to tank them unless someone else does take aggro by shooting them and not the target they are shooting.
Also, while you may have a point in lowsec (even though i totally disagree that you should have to snipe a pveer just as he finishes a room and enters the next pocket) in many parts of nullsec you cant just wait till he drops the site, he will eventually notice you in local or on dscan and run away. |
|
Switch Savage
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
136
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 00:33:02 -
[141] - Quote
I generally just disagree with the concept that you should get a free ride from the rats for no real reason. I am of the opinion that if you wish to enter the site and receive a kill mail you should have to deal with the same environmental concerns that the pver himself is facing (as has been said by Mike). Mainly I feel that because the kill you are after is often proportional similar to the difficulty of the site you are attempting to gank inside.
Certainly it would be unjust if the entire room aggro switched to you and my understanding of rat aggro mechanics is far from perfect. However from what experience I do have they seem to share the love equally outside of their hatred for ECM. Imagine being able to waltz into capital escalations and just have your way with the site runners with impunity (other than them fighting back).
Regarding the Tengu example I gave there is numerous things we could have done to secure the kill that we neglected. For example had we researched the site he was, noted the triggers and assessed the wave he was on we could have waited for a more opportune time to strike. I appreciate this is something that is not entirely possible in Null sec due to local, but if they are switched on you will not catch them anyway as Robert mentioned.
Look at Low sec DEDs. A competent and aware PvEr is almost impossible to catch there even with combat recons/cloaks and use of more unscrupulous tactics. This is mainly why I choose to finish sites I chase people out of and earn easy ISK as well as deny them the loot. I have had many good kills from people coming back with more capable combat ships as a result. At least in Null sec you have the ability throw up bubbles on warp paths to stations or POS towers (admittedly this is not a solo endeavor) if they get predictable and lax. One could argue that a PvEr with a brain is a far greater threat (at denying you your kill) than the rats themselves could ever be.
Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that if they are dumb enough to be pointed then you deserve the kill. I partially agree with this however i do find it engaging game play when forced to have intimate knowledge of the PvE site i wish stalk my prey in.
Call me a masochist if you will but It adds variety to the hunt. Anyway that is my thoughts on the matter I'm sure i'll catch you on mumble sometime and perhaps we can debate a bit further.
Happy hunting dude o7. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 01:11:44 -
[142] - Quote
My point is that if i point them they should be forced to 1v1 me, and it should not me being forced to 1v1 him and also tank the entire site (cause everything swaps). That isnt as big an issue with stuff like tanky cruisers or bs cause tanking the site isnt that hard usually but for ships whos primary defence isnt paper tank and/or ehp but getting under guns and signature and mobility its almost impossible.
If i see a tengu in a 5/10 i usually dont care one bit about the site (bar a select few ones) cause ill be in a ship perfectly fine of handling the site, its annoying but no real problem.
if i see a rupture doing one of the harder gateless sites you can find without a prober and i tackle it in a dual prop ranis with a nos, i get under his guns and kill his drones, by all means its a kill i deserve - but the rats swap instantly and the ranis instantly explodes because while the 250dps or wouldnt bother a bs or t3 or a faction cruiser they are deadly to frigates who use the aforementioned different means of tank.
Rat mechanics are extremly punishing to frigates and non t3 dessies, even to cheap cruisers because some of the rats dont care about small signature and/or high ab speeds. A ship like the garmur whos entire defence system is its range and speed is without any chance vs a clone soldier as that has perfect application and dps.
A ranis which relies on its ab and its speed, well to bad 90% webbing rats or perfet application doesnt care.
And to bring a killmail from the opening post, if 2 pvpers fight in equal ships, the one that has been killing the rats wins due to the rats switching off instantly resulting in garbage like this: https://zkillboard.com/kill/46614236/ . |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
677
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 02:25:33 -
[143] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:My point is that if i point them they should be forced to 1v1 me, and it should not me being forced to 1v1 him and also tank the entire site (cause everything swaps). That isnt as big an issue with stuff like tanky cruisers or bs cause tanking the site isnt that hard usually but for ships whos primary defence isnt paper tank and/or ehp but getting under guns and signature and mobility its almost impossible.
Problem is there is no way to get this. We had it the one way where ratter just screwed if jumped. Which was abused by many players who ran ships/fits that lets be honest had no way in hell otherwise of killing that ratter any other way. The rat dps required to actually bring the ratter down. That pvp'er not breaking tank in any other way. Eve not a fair place I know but at some point...even this crap rates a wtf seriously?.
So they went the other route which can screw the solo hunter. But even this has outs. they may not like them (run a tanky t3 to hunt the tank t3) but they are options.
Only way I see for some meeting in the middle Is some funky code that goes along the lines of:
if ratter attacked by a 3rd party then stop attacking them, don't attack the pvpe'er, and let them and 3rd party work it out.
Abuse here is if stuck and getting beat down hard I could run an alt to get me a get out of pve jail free card. Who needs e-war immunity, throw away alt (which one could have in 0.0 to scout the bs) give the same effect.
Then the code gets real funky as the if then else's pile up if ratter or even pvp'er shoots rats (I kill ratter in an officer spawn, and then go you know that officer bs is looking pretty tempting and since here anyway......) .
Is rat immunity timer based (for all parties)? Do we have counters? Like say okay you 2 players get 3 tries to accidentally shoot us before we get all sleeper AI mode on your ass? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
768
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 10:11:42 -
[144] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:My point is that if i point them they should be forced to 1v1 me, and it should not me being forced to 1v1 him and also tank the entire site (cause everything swaps). That isnt as big an issue with stuff like tanky cruisers or bs cause tanking the site isnt that hard usually but for ships whos primary defence isnt paper tank and/or ehp but getting under guns and signature and mobility its almost impossible.
Your point is forgetting a few key points of combat.
First, you are the aggressor. You have the initiative to pick if you will attack or not. The choice of ship was yours, the choice of fittings, even the hunting grounds so you knew the damage profile the environment would be throwing your way.
Second, You know the behavior of the environment. Plan appropriately. You get to choose when you attack, so maybe don't do it with a whole bunch of stuff around, or use other means to keep your target from getting away. I know for a fact that the rats won't stay on you because of ewar, they just don't like it. Non-Consensual PvE is an element of every game, so obvious that it never really gets discussed.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 11:07:56 -
[145] - Quote
Switch Savage wrote:I generally just disagree with the concept that you should get a free ride from the rats for no real reason. I am of the opinion that if you wish to enter the site and receive a kill mail you should have to deal with the same environmental concerns that the pver himself is facing has already been discussed here to death. It all boils down to lot less pvp encounters, more security for farmers and entire pvp profession screwed, giant chunk of pvp style removed from the game.
Switch Savage wrote:Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that if they are dumb enough to be pointed then you deserve the kill. I partially agree with this however i do find it engaging game play when forced to have intimate knowledge of the PvE site i wish stalk my prey in. your knowledge of PvE site is totally useless, since regular ratter will gtfo as soon as he sees you in local chat - all you can count on is the speed of your nano ship, your dscan skill, range of your point and finally carelessness of your victim to watch local properly. Thats it.
Switch Savage wrote:Call me a masochist if you will but It adds variety to the hunt. Anyway that is my thoughts on the matter I'm sure i'll catch you on mumble sometime and perhaps we can debate a bit further. no it doesnt add variety, it removes pvp and adds safety for farmers, totally unneeded, they did totally fine those days before Retribution. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 11:10:35 -
[146] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:First, you are the aggressor. You have the initiative to pick if you will attack or not. The choice of ship was yours, the choice of fittings, even the hunting grounds so you knew the damage profile the environment would be throwing your way. doesnt matter, typical carebear view - "you dont have to engage me when I'm ratting, your choice if you wanna get rekt by my rats bros here". Its not how this game worked and evolved for a decade.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Second, You know the behavior of the environment.
broken environment is exactly what we discuss here, dont like and want to get rid off. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
770
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 12:05:57 -
[147] - Quote
Point is, it was broke. It was balanced from that broken state.
Now you don't like having to adapt and actually use tactics that put your own assets at risk.
having a hard time dredging up any kind of sympathy. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 12:11:15 -
[148] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Point is, it was broke. It was balanced from that broken state.
Now you don't like having to adapt and actually use tactics that put your own assets at risk.
having a hard time dredging up any kind of sympathy.
no it wasnt broken, ratters did fine, they undocked and farmed their stuff, they had some risk but it was manageable one, they knew it and they dealt with it absolutely fine. More safety for PvE wasnt needed nor justified, facts prove me right.
Also stop repeating your assets at risk nonsense, your theory has been proven otherwise 2 pages back. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
770
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 12:59:45 -
[149] - Quote
Nuh Uh! isn't really a counter argument. You are either a Robert Alt, or else just another entitiled gankbear too butthurt to adapt to a somewhat more level playing field.
As people continue to die every day to solo hunters it seems the profession isn't dead. Ratters are players, not content to be farmed by PvP players. As such the environment does not need to be twisted to make them easy kills for throw away ships. The point is to fight them, not just kill them.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 13:32:51 -
[150] - Quote
players are all content for each other thats why we play a pvp oriented MMO, farmers have always been content for pvpers, pvpers have always been content for other pvpers. whats your argument actually? |
|
Samuel Wess
Torin Industries Happy Cartel
83
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 13:49:49 -
[151] - Quote
Standings with NPC should apply. Just farm your standings with the NPC in the area where you help them fight their opressors and done, no more agression. This will happen when the NPC will use plex and become a market share.
Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
773
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:08:59 -
[152] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:players are all content for each other thats why we play a pvp oriented MMO, farmers have always been content for pvpers, pvpers have always been content for other pvpers. whats your argument actually? People get farmed all the time, why are PvErs special? Those are actually the worst ones, not contributing anything to the game, inflating the economy with easy isk while even demanding the environment to protect them as we all see at your instance, Mike Voidstar.
and yeah Robert is me too, the toon I used to post with in forums.
You continue to display vast levels of "I don't get it".
If you want to take the view of everyone is content, then suck it up and go be content for the people who can somehow force you into taking bait.
Carebears are the vital engine of the EVE economy. Just as we need destruction to drive the need for production, we need production to fill the needs of destruction. Your shortsighted bleating about carebears inflating the economy show an absolute lack of understanding.
We need the destruction of ships with high mineral worth. Not throw away ships, nor necessarily ships with big price tags, though short of rare mods and ships these factors tend to stay linked due to market forces. In short, the destruction of the very ships you are afraid to put on the field to be destroyed. The PvE pilots have always fielded these sorts of ship. They still lose them all the time, if not in the exact way you would wish.
The acquisition of new rare modules helps make the overall EvE economy healthier too. The more liquid wealth you draw into a few hands, the less there is in the economy at large. So your bear farming high value loot and making himself rich is doing more good than you are by stopping him.
There are many ISK faucets in EVE, but their balance point isn't being disrupted by solo gankbears in throw away ships. The health of the game is in ensuring that the most minerals/raw resources is destroyed per encounter, and in that encounter being enjoyable by as many players as possible so that the most people want to stay subscribed.
So just grief killing bears with no stake of your own in the fight, and no realistic chance of losing the fight is what was bad for the game. If it had been corrected sooner the game would be better off now. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:19:40 -
[153] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Not throw away ships,
you still keep at you lie about "throwaway ships". you've been proven wrong, repeatedely. Why do you still hold onto your strawman?
Mike Voidstar wrote: So just grief killing bears with no stake of your own in the fight, and no realistic chance of losing the fight is what was bad for the game. If it had been corrected sooner the game would be better off now.
again, grasping at your obvious lie. Hunters risk not less than average bear. stop trying to get away with your lie and use it somehow as argument. The effort never was in the kill, yes, but in the hunt. Actually not hard to understand but you keep ignoring it, because it doesnt fit the rest of your weak argumentation. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
773
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 16:55:52 -
[154] - Quote
Your entire argument revolves around not being able anymore to use rat dps to kill larger ships with frigates and destroyers.
I have flown frigates in high dps missions, and know it can be done with Sig tanking. You can even do it up to a point while staying in point range of another ship. Of course some of those bears are packing webs, so your mileage varies.
The activity you hold as so high and holy was bad gameplay, poor game design, and harmful to the game as a whole. It got fixed. You can still hunt whoever you wish, but you will have to apply a little more brain power to it than just flying under guns and using a neut and scram while NPCs do your killing for you. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
323
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:48:39 -
[155] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:My point is that if i point them they should be forced to 1v1 me, and it should not me being forced to 1v1 him and also tank the entire site (cause everything swaps). That isnt as big an issue with stuff like tanky cruisers or bs cause tanking the site isnt that hard usually but for ships whos primary defence isnt paper tank and/or ehp but getting under guns and signature and mobility its almost impossible.
Your point is forgetting a few key points of combat. First, you are the aggressor. You have the initiative to pick if you will attack or not. The choice of ship was yours, the choice of fittings, even the hunting grounds so you knew the damage profile the environment would be throwing your way. Second, You know the behavior of the environment. Plan appropriately. You get to choose when you attack, so maybe don't do it with a whole bunch of stuff around, or use other means to keep your target from getting away. I know for a fact that the rats won't stay on you because of ewar, they just don't like it. Non-Consensual PvE is an element of every game, so obvious that it never really gets discussed.
If you bring other games up, if i gank someone in wow who is pveing, you know who the mobs keep attacking? The players that aggroed them, they will never switch to me unless i draw aggro. Works that way in every single theme park mmo so dont bring that up. Also works that way in pretty much every rpg or similar offline game, hell even works that way in fps.
Also, your enitre point is totally blob him or totally outclass him and leave him no chance at all or dont even try while mine is that if you outclass or blob what the rats shoot doesnt matter and that they prevent the actual gfs. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:18:57 -
[156] - Quote
[qwesdrfggedsgdfghuote=Mike Voidstar]Your entire argument revolves around not being able anymore to use rat dps to kill larger ships with frigates and destroyers. [/quote]
dont tell me what my argument revolves around, everybody can read it up on these 8 pages.
Mike Voidstar wrote: I have flown frigates in high dps missions, and know it can be done with Sig tanking. You can even do it up to a point while staying in point range of another ship. Of course some of those bears are packing webs, so your mileage varies.
stop lying. Thats not working since NPC jam, damp, tracking disrupt and shoot you once you're there.
Mike Voidstar wrote: The activity you hold as so high and holy was bad gameplay, poor game design
half eve is bad game design, point made is that entire PvP profession got screwed for no real reason, while CCP was fixing PvE.
Mike Voidstar wrote:, and harmful to the game as a whole. citation needed
Mike Voidstar wrote:It got fixed. no it got broken even more
Mike Voidstar wrote:You can still hunt whoever you wish, but you will have to apply a little more brain power to it than just flying under guns and using a neut and scram while NPCs do your killing for you. you exactly know thats not true, you again ignoring 8 pages of text. And thats why you defend new broken NPCs, who protect you while you farm them. |
Javeeik
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 21:13:26 -
[157] - Quote
TL:DR
Stop moaning and learn to adapt if the ai was half decent theyd shaft you in your tiny ship regardless.
Post:
Jesus H Christ this is actually an infuriating read. There have been a few valid counter arguments on both sides but largely just blind ingnotance to any point of view.
The rats firat of all are not your buddy no matter who the feck youre shooting you went in their space they sont know you and they will happily shaft you every which way on saturday if you go inside in a ship that cant handle them.
Yes maybe they shouldnt suddenly all swap to you... But its reasonable to expect that a good chunk should and you in ypur interceptor wouldnt survive that either so actually theyre just putting ypu out of your misery a few seconds faster.
The fact is, if you wouldnt go inside that plex in your current ship because it would get smashed up why should you be able to go in it and sash someone else up? Its unreasonable to expect you should be ignored by the rats.
Validating your arguments usin. The mechanics from other games is also just daft just becausenits done like that for other games does not make it right, the ai in wow is downright ******** and the aggro mechanic makes no sense ... But all this is by the by because were not playing frigging wow!
I can see why you say the ai is broken i agree its dumb and broken, but thay doesnt mean they shouldnt shoot you. Youre a squishy easy target the ai should realise this peel off a small splinter force to wreck you and resume with their concerted effort to finish off the harder target, i think rats should use neuts jams scrams and webs more effectively than they do and do it more frequently, but you should absolutely not be able to just waltz into a hostile area and expect to be left alone while they kill someone so ypu can whore on what is essentially their kill and their loot ypu dirty theiving pirate scum ;)
So yea lets fix the AI and make it smart and proper hard and make it scram and point us MORE it might make pve half interesting. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 21:27:02 -
[158] - Quote
AI protecting the PvEer does the smallest sense, really. |
Javeeik
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:04:55 -
[159] - Quote
It isnt protecting him though is it.
you are acting like a toddler seriously did you actually read any of my (granted long and poorly punctuated) post? If so click the edit button and try again. See if you can conjure up something well reasoned that covers what i said. I might disagree with you but ive actually explained why and rationalised it something you consistently fail to do, at least Wolf backs up his statements with half decent rationale. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
679
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 06:11:18 -
[160] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also, your enitre point is totally blob him .
lets focus on the blobbing. As been mentioned as its the only viable way now.
Lets roll back the clock to the good old days. Ratter aggro'd room, they loved him long time.
What exactly is the difference from a solo pvp'er using, and what happened many times needing, the rats to help the kill from say a 10 man hit team to bring the ratter down from a human run "blob"?
You see I am seeing the NPC assistance as still being a blob. Its say 10 NPC rats (have old boy jumped in a fresh wave in a CA) being dps backup to the solo pvp'er. This to me is not solo pvp. Its blob tactics. The blob in this case was just not player controlled.
Its still the earmark of the "blob". N+1 gang tactics. No rule says N has to be human controlled.
It was in no way different from a 10 man roam jumping the target.
What would a 10 man roam "blob" roam do? fast tackle locks down target calls warp to....10 peeps land, target, press f1.
Sounds a lot like the old system. Only difference is player interaction is damn near removed beyond tackle tackling. Put another way...it got a hell of a lot easier as it completely removed the fc herding a bunch of cats aspect player fleets can have. As well....the rats already there and they have pressed their F1 already. Don't have to tell them to shoot the target. They were proactive and have been doing that a while now lol.
This is where I just can't get behind these ideas. YOu all keep saying we have to blob it. Many were blobbing it in the old system. Some number of rats was your DPS backup, e-war as well in the case of some rats. It was still N+1. It was the "blob". |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 07:28:03 -
[161] - Quote
Javeeik wrote:It isnt protecting him though is it.
you are acting like a toddler seriously did you actually read any of my (granted long and poorly punctuated) post? If so click the edit button and try again. See if you can conjure up something well reasoned that covers what i said. I might disagree with you but ive actually explained why and rationalised it something you consistently fail to do, at least Wolf backs up his statements with half decent rationale.
no I honestly didnt completely, it was so bad and unreadable so I stopped at some point in the mid of it.
Zan Shiro wrote: What exactly is the difference from a solo pvp'er using, and what happened many times needing, the rats to help the kill from say a 10 man hit team to bring the ratter down from a human run "blob"?
You see I am seeing the NPC assistance as still being a blob. Its say 10 NPC rats (have old boy jumped in a fresh wave in a CA) being dps backup to the solo pvp'er. This to me is not solo pvp. Its blob tactics. The blob in this case was just not player controlled.
the difference is that he can 1) tank this blob 2) leave anytime he likes (mostly).
Zan Shiro wrote: It was in no way different from a 10 man roam jumping the target.
sure it is. The "blob" the ratter spawned serves him as ISK source, while the other definitely doesnt. Totally the same.. What a ridiculous argument, honestly.
Zan Shiro wrote: Sounds a lot like the old system. Only difference is player interaction is damn near removed beyond tackle tackling. Put another way...it got a hell of a lot easier as it completely removed the fc herding a bunch of cats aspect player fleets can have.
You can not have always a gang of people + FC dedicated to hunting ratters, but you can always be 1 solo guy doing that. Thats why I say NPC changes removed pvp and made ratting insanely safer for no reason, simply because there cant be solo proteuses, machariels or ishtars constantly roaming your space in the place of bomber or recon pilots from pre-Retribution. |
Javeeik
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 11:01:19 -
[162] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Javeeik wrote:It isnt protecting him though is it.
you are acting like a toddler seriously did you actually read any of my (granted long and poorly punctuated) post? If so click the edit button and try again. See if you can conjure up something well reasoned that covers what i said. I might disagree with you but ive actually explained why and rationalised it something you consistently fail to do, at least Wolf backs up his statements with half decent rationale. no I honestly didnt completely, it was so bad and unreadable so I quit at some point in the mid of it, furthermore you didnt raise anything that hasnt been discussed prior.. I provided 8 pages of clearly obvious arguments here, almost my every single posting here had an argument, idk how you could miss them - stop telling blatant lies like this, seriously wtf. here a short summary of all points I provided (please dont start on this again, all of that has been reiterated x times on previous 8 pages): - rat aggro skewed the balance for hunters and raised the requirements beyond viability (evident from killboards) - rat aggro killed all realistic chances for solos to catch prey because required gear is too heavy and slow (you need nano) -> risk of hunting out of scale compared to reward (heavy stuff easy to bait, easy to catch + nice killmail <-> little success) - removed (or as good) whole class of pvp content (solo hunters, see prior reasons) - rat aggro stacks on top of other game changes which made ratting lots safer (MJD, marauders, shift to cruiser meta) - massively decreased risk for farmers resulting from above reasons, totally unneccessary - environment protecting the farmer makes no sense, from gameplay as lore reasons on the contrary there is basically one single argument which isnt even a good one: - rats helping the ganker is unfair, "this allows you to gank me with a throwaway ship"
In Fairness yes you're right that post was awfull on a whole new level! I wrote that on my phone half asleep in bed and marginally irritated by some of the entitled and upset replies. So i'm sorry for the Sh*t post i've edited it so it make some resemblance of coherance!
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
336
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 13:07:41 -
[163] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:AI protecting the PvEer does the smallest sense, really. Thank you for this, In your own words you show us clearly just how little you understand the situation.
Rats hate everyone and everything. Rats are not protecting the ratter, they are protecting their space and you are violating that space by being there. Rats are not your friends, they are your enemy because you are in their space. Rats do not care about who or what you are shooting, you are in their space and therefore must die. Rat hate E-War even more than they hate anything and everything else in their space.
Ganking ratters / mission runners was unbalanced before and by continuing to argue that point you only illustrate yet again how little you understand the situation. Either that or you prove that you do not care about the environmental factors being balanced between you and your chosen target, you want ALL of the environmental factor to favor YOU.
I run missions and go out ratting a lot, the number of times that I get unwanted visitors taken as a percentage of the number of ratting session / mission I run has not changed over the years and there certainly has not been a noticeable change since CCP changed the rat aggro. What has changed is at what point in the mission / rat session they appear. In those dark times past they came in whenever they wanted, now the smart ones wait for you to clear out the majority of the rats before they warp in, or they are tanked for the pocket and do not care. The not so smart ones usually die to the rat aggro, normally as I warp out and it all shifts to those unwanted guests. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 14:11:42 -
[164] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Thank you for this, In your own words you show us clearly just how little you understand the situation.
I include evidence and arguments in my statements, you just your unreasoned opinion, thats the difference between us 2.
Donnachadh wrote: Rats hate everyone and everything. Rats are not protecting the ratter, they are protecting their space and you are violating that space by being there. Rats are not your friends, they are your enemy because you are in their space. Rats do not care about who or what you are shooting, you are in their space and therefore must die. Rat hate E-War even more than they hate anything and everything else in their space.
I answered your same wall of nonense in #118 and #119, why do you blindly repeat it again?
I presented you arguments why current implementation is bad, you respond your personal unfunded opinion again mixed with obvious facts, without any back up. We neither do need facts we already know, nor is your opinion somehow useful for this discussion. I'll just try to make you clear what I mean:
Who said that rats hate everyone? Thats is clearly wrong, you can fly pirate missions, so they obviously dont hate you, you can even work with them together.
They also are effectively protecting the ratter, which can be proven by logic: PvEer Joe is in Branch raping bunch of Guristas in a Haven, another guy Vincent lands in site (who is factually neutral to rats, he didnt agress them, he could even have positive standing to guristas, doesnt matter!!) and engages Joe. At this point Guristas + Vincent are fighting Joe, but now Guristas switch to neutral guy Vincent, forcing Vincent into trouble and 10 seconds later off field. If Guristas wouldnt have switched to Vincent and stayed on Joe, Joe would've ejected with pod but since they switched, Joe isnt in pod but keeps his ship and goes ahead raping Guristas. -> Without Guristas Joe = dead, with helf of Guristas Joe = alive --> Who saved Joe?
You might counter "but its Vincent's fault not to be prepared for Guristas!!1". Yes, you're right, however this doesnt anyhow change the result and logical conclusion we draw from the scenario above.
So, should I rip your other untrue statements apart or do you finally apprehend the stupidity of your unfunded statements in this thread?
"you are in their space and therefore must die" No, I can even dock in their stations!!
Donnachadh wrote: Ganking ratters / mission runners was unbalanced before and by continuing to argue that point you only illustrate yet again how little you understand the situation.
yet another unfunded statement. This has been covered already and I wont do the work of explaining it to you one more time, like for a 1st grader.
Donnachadh wrote: I run missions and go out ratting a lot, the number of times that I get unwanted visitors taken as a percentage of the number of ratting session / mission I run has not changed over the years and there certainly has not been a noticeable change since CCP changed the rat aggro.
I'll link you hundreds of kills a month, pre-Retribution, then you'll link me similar kills post-change? Do we have a deal? |
Iain Cariaba
1550
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:47:42 -
[165] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:*singing "la la la la la la la la" with fingers stuck in ears* I will put this as simply as I can, hopefully using words small enough for you to understand.
1. CCP changed rat aggro for a very good reason, a reason that has more to do with the ratters than those trying to gank ratters. 2. CCP does NOT have a track record of undoing changes made. 3. Using above, figure your odds of this whine thread actually making a difference. 4. If you haven't adapted to the new aggro mechanics after (how many years/ has it been?), then you really shouldn't be hunting ratters. 5. Regardless of how you think you're coming across, this thread really is nothing more than whining that you can't get easy ratter ganks in an interceptor.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:47:59 -
[166] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: I will put this as simply as I can, hopefully using words small enough for you to understand.
1. CCP changed rat aggro for a very good reason, a reason that has more to do with the ratters than those trying to gank ratters. 2. CCP does NOT have a track record of undoing changes made. 3. Using above, figure your odds of this whine thread actually making a difference. 4. If you haven't adapted to the new aggro mechanics after (how many years/ has it been?), then you really shouldn't be hunting ratters. 5. Regardless of how you think you're coming across, this thread really is nothing more than whining that you can't get easy ratter ganks in an interceptor.
how does your post contribute to the discussion here about nerfed pvp and increased PvE safety? Noone should want that in a PvP MMO. |
Iain Cariaba
1551
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:59:12 -
[167] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: I will put this as simply as I can, hopefully using words small enough for you to understand.
1. CCP changed rat aggro for a very good reason, a reason that has more to do with the ratters than those trying to gank ratters. 2. CCP does NOT have a track record of undoing changes made. 3. Using above, figure your odds of this whine thread actually making a difference. 4. If you haven't adapted to the new aggro mechanics after (how many years/ has it been?), then you really shouldn't be hunting ratters. 5. Regardless of how you think you're coming across, this thread really is nothing more than whining that you can't get easy ratter ganks in an interceptor.
how does your post contribute to the discussion here about nerfed pvp and increased PvE safety? Noone should want that in a PvP MMO. It contributes no less than your repeated finger pointing at others for using the same arguments over and over, all while doing the exact same thing yourself.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 21:57:11 -
[168] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:AI protecting the PvEer does the smallest sense, really. Thank you for this, In your own words you show us clearly just how little you understand the situation. Rats hate everyone and everything. Rats are not protecting the ratter, they are protecting their space and you are violating that space by being there. Rats are not your friends, they are your enemy because you are in their space. Rats do not care about who or what you are shooting, you are in their space and therefore must die. Rat hate E-War even more than they hate anything and everything else in their space.
Yes, they do hate those things. But that makes no sense at all, not gameplay wise, not lore wise, not logic wise. Rats shouldnt stop shooting their agressor and start shooting the untill now neutral entity. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
774
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 07:55:00 -
[169] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:here a short summary of all points I provided (please dont start on this again, all of that has been reiterated x times on previous 8 pages):
- rat aggro skewed the balance for hunters and raised the requirements beyond viability (evident from killboards) - rat aggro killed all realistic chances for solos to catch prey because required gear is too heavy and slow (you need nano) -> risk of hunting out of scale compared to reward (heavy stuff easy to bait, easy to catch + nice killmail <-> little success) - removed (or as good) whole class of pvp content (solo hunters, see prior reasons) - rat aggro stacks on top of other game changes which made ratting lots safer (MJD, marauders, shift to cruiser meta) - massively decreased risk for farmers resulting from above reasons, totally unneccessary - environment protecting the farmer makes no sense, from gameplay as lore reasons
Stating something does not establish it as fact. You have a lot of self serving dreck up there, but few if any facts.
1. Changed balance, not skewed. Rest is false and unsubstantiated. 2. Unsubstantiated, and repeat of false half of one. The reiteration didn't make it any more true. 3. Unsubstantiated, and mostly pure opinion. 4 Proven false by posted kill mails. 5. Unrelated to topic. Ratter safety not an issue, ratter hunting is. Ratters still hunted, no problem detected. 6. Restate of parts of above false arguments. More iteration does not make it more true or less false. 7. False premise. Neither party protected, both aggressed based on actions.
The issue with your rant is you make a statement of opinion and insist it must be true. Any statement or point that seeks to discuss a point of view counter to your own is discarded as false- as if your opinion was undisputed fact. That's not how discussion works.
I can state that all frigates should be ground vehicles. Saying it does not make it true, and people pointing out that they fly and are treated as spaceships for a reason does not mean they are wrong. That is your argument in a nutshell. You claim rat aggro should only affect people who are not you, as if that was as obvious as a sunrise and indisputably true. Everyone else pointing out how silly that was and would be must be wrong by pure virtue of not agreeing. Every other argument you make hinges on that first statement being fact. Problem is you can't stand on a disputed opinion to build further arguments, you first have to actually establish as a fact that you should personally and uniquely of all people in space be immune to rat aggro.
There are conditions where I would agree with you. If you did have positive rat faction I think it should matter. It should be as difficult and time consuming to keep your factions balanced as it is for mission runners, but that effort should pay off.
But the simple statement that hunters should just be immune to environmental factors even when performing actions that are known to specially draw fire is laughable. You think they didn't do it intentionally? Why even include screams and disruptors in the factors that draw aggro? It's not like most of them try to flee, nor do most forms of ewar affect rats at all anyway. That feature was deliberate, and aimed at people abusing rat engagement rules.
See, that's what supporting statements not linked to your original statement of fact look like.
Statement: Rat Ewar aggro rules were deliberate and aimed at people abusing rat aggro mechanics. support- rats unaffected by most ewar support- impossible to gain advantage over rat swarm with ewar that does work support- aggro rules concerning ewar make no sense if aimed at preventing trivializing rat content. Conclusion: current mechanics working in a state of intended balance. Opinion: that balance was aimed at those who were abusing the aggro mechanics.
You don't have any sort of logic chain based on objective and factual evidence. You have a premise considered false by most, and a lot of ever more ridiculous ranting based on the original premise being unquestionable.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 09:08:34 -
[170] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:here a short summary of all points I provided (please dont start on this again, all of that has been reiterated x times on previous 8 pages):
- rat aggro skewed the balance for hunters and raised the requirements beyond viability (evident from killboards) - rat aggro killed all realistic chances for solos to catch prey because required gear is too heavy and slow (you need nano) -> risk of hunting out of scale compared to reward (heavy stuff easy to bait, easy to catch + nice killmail <-> little success) - removed (or as good) whole class of pvp content (solo hunters, see prior reasons) - rat aggro stacks on top of other game changes which made ratting lots safer (MJD, marauders, shift to cruiser meta) - massively decreased risk for farmers resulting from above reasons, totally unneccessary - environment protecting the farmer makes no sense, from gameplay as lore reasons Stating something does not establish it as fact. You have a lot of self serving dreck up there, but few if any facts. 1. Changed balance, not skewed. Rest is false and unsubstantiated. 2. Unsubstantiated, and repeat of false half of one. The reiteration didn't make it any more true. 3. Unsubstantiated, and mostly pure opinion. 4 Proven false by posted kill mails. 5. Unrelated to topic. Ratter safety not an issue, ratter hunting is. Ratters still hunted, no problem detected. 6. Restate of parts of above false arguments. More iteration does not make it more true or less false. 7. False premise. Neither party protected, both aggressed based on actions.
1. skewed, and I explained why. 2. same 3. yes its my opinion, based and concluded from the first 2 4. random, single killmails dont prove anything, linked killmails have been discussed 5. related very well to topic, game isnt balanced around separated tiny parts because this or that is cool but are always part of a bigger picture. For example Ishtar is cool and all but its getting nerfed because everyone flies ishtars. Obviously, this basic rule isnt clear for you 6. logical conclusion from above factors 7. protected, I showed even for idiots why and how
Mike Voidstar wrote:The issue with your rant is you make a statement of opinion and insist it must be true. Any statement or point that seeks to discuss a point of view counter to your own is discarded as false- as if your opinion was undisputed fact. That's not how discussion works. no, I dont solely post my opinion, I back it usually up, in contrast to you.
Mike Voidstar wrote: I can state that all frigates should be ground vehicles. Saying it does not make it true, and people pointing out that they fly and are treated as spaceships for a reason does not mean they are wrong.
That is your argument in a nutshell. You claim rat aggro should only affect people who are not you, as if that was as obvious as a sunrise and indisputably true.
what a bunch of nonsense. I repeated x times why its a problem in overall game balance.
not going to reiterate on the rest, has been discussed to death here. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
774
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:13:42 -
[171] - Quote
I see you are going with the ever so informational and airtight argument of "nuh uh!" Again. Very Well reasoned, as always.
You say rat behavior is unbalanced. Clearly an opinion, one obviously not shared by the devs.
You give the killing of solo PvP as evidence. Refuted.
You put forth the opinion that PvE is too safe. This is really best answered with mind your own ship. It's not as if the ratter is having fun at your expense, nor really harming you in any but the most abstract sense at all. His gameplay is not your gameplay. It's also answered with its no safer than before the change, as evidenced by PvE ships exploding every day. The specifics of how they did have altered some, but they still die with enough effort.
You express desire to explode ratters with small cheap ships because bigger ones are too expensive to lose, and tankier ones make it too hard to catch them. This fails on both the level of just being cheap, and being bad.
You claim it's for the good of the game. Another unsubstantiated opinion, one that is easily challenged by an opposing viewpoint and by simple economic concepts.
All you have done for however many pages both now and when the changes were introduced is pitch a foot stomping temper tantrum devoid of all reason. No actual arguments of any substance, just pre-adolescent rage at life not being centered around what you want. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:55:43 -
[172] - Quote
you are repeating yourself, I already refuted all of your drivel on page 4 or something. At most on page 6-7. It all boils down basically to you want the add of pve safety and reduction of pvp threats, I dont want it. Your sole argument is essentially "rats helping ganker is unfair, gankers ganking ratters in weak ships is unfair". All of that has been opposed in deep detail on last 8 pages. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
776
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:23:51 -
[173] - Quote
I am not defending the new AI, except in that PvE needs to be more entertaining overall.
I am refuting your posts. You are just wrong, on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on.
No, you may not have the game mechanics twisted so that you have even more advantage. If you want PvP so bad, go do it and quit whining when you did to your own stupidity. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:24:33 -
[174] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:So never shoot pvers again? And piracy in this game can go to hell or what?
You should be asking for CCP to stop centralising pvp around pve activities.
Example, remove the rat from fw complexes but the complex has an anti-warp bubble of a 100km radius and an anti-cloak radius of 50. The button activates only within 20km.
slowly phase out traditional missions a few at a time and replace with mostly burner style missions.
move the higher paying ones to lowsec.
actually there's very little to do with this game so long as people pretend that CCP's hands are tied with regards to sec status and a multitude of other stupid mechanics like gates, beacons and the 250km sniper probeout.
I just don't see the point in proposing any changes until CCP asks for some input.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:47:41 -
[175] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am not defending the new AI, except in that PvE needs to be more entertaining overall. oh you are not?? Really, wtf.
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am refuting your posts. You are just wrong, on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on. you are not refuting anything, you abandon most of responses to your quotes in lack of no better argument.
Mike Voidstar wrote:No, you may not have the game mechanics twisted so that you have even more advantage. If you want PvP so bad, go do it and quit whining when you did to your own stupidity. but I can post here how I feel about game mechanics, thats what this forum is for. Why are you posting?
Caleb Seremshur wrote: You should be asking for CCP to stop centralising pvp around pve activities.
pvp is not centralized about pve, thats just a big part of it.
Caleb Seremshur wrote: Example, remove the rat from fw complexes but the complex has an anti-warp bubble of a 100km radius and an anti-cloak radius of 50. The button activates only within 20km.
orbiting button is then still pve, with or without that obligatory rat :D
[qwerweruote=Caleb Seremshur] slowly phase out traditional missions a few at a time and replace with mostly burner style missions.[/quote] burner mission is still pve. I dont get your idea.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:29:05 -
[176] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I am not defending the new AI, except in that PvE needs to be more entertaining overall.
I am refuting your posts. You are just wrong, on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on.
No, you may not have the game mechanics twisted so that you have even more advantage. If you want PvP so bad, go do it and quit whining when you did to your own stupidity.
Can you post with your main? It just doesnt do much for credibility if you post with a 0-1 char killwise, just shows that you have no experience whatsoever on the matter that is beeing discussed in here.
Not that kills matter much but 0 pvp experience just shows, doesnt have to be kills but having actually been in situations where things like rat agression matters is kinda important.
So pls stop posting on an alt. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:31:34 -
[177] - Quote
yaeh I'd love to see his pve losses too |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:47:06 -
[178] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote: You should be asking for CCP to stop centralising pvp around pve activities.
pvp is not centralized about pve, thats just a big part of it. Caleb Seremshur wrote: Example, remove the rat from fw complexes but the complex has an anti-warp bubble of a 100km radius and an anti-cloak radius of 50. The button activates only within 20km.
orbiting button is then still pve, with or without that obligatory rat :D Caleb Seremshur wrote: slowly phase out traditional missions a few at a time and replace with mostly burner style missions.
burner mission is still pve. I dont get your idea. [/quote]
Being centralised around something does involve it being the larger portion of what it is, so yes.
the button orbit is still pve but the stupid multi-stab cloak fits will be less viable.
burner missions have a high chance of being given to lowsec systems. It's not unrealistic to expect your average burner fit to be a lot better equipped to fight off an invader than some ****-fit that prioritises cap stability through undersized reppers.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:49:22 -
[179] - Quote
I like to parallel pvp in EVE with the pvp in X-souls series. It's mostly non-consensual but there is a degree of balance in it. The compelling points would be a lot stronger offense than defense in all cases.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:52:24 -
[180] - Quote
how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? |
|
Iain Cariaba
1556
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:06:54 -
[181] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? Obviously not.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:15:50 -
[182] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? your kill history speaks volumes |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:43:11 -
[183] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: your kill histories speak volumes.
forum alt = best alt. you mad you can't find my home system in game? (I have yours though) |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:52:26 -
[184] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote: forum alt = best alt. you mad you can't find my home system in game? (I have yours though)
sure, sure
"hey guise, i totally have a clue thrust me, im just a forum alt, umad?"
seriously, who would care about your home system? |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:55:22 -
[185] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:sure, sure
"hey guise, i totally have a clue thrust me, im just a forum alt, umad?"
seriously, who would care about your home system?
lots of people. lots of people care about that.
It's almost like having intel is important to EVE or something crazy like that
\_(pâä)_/-» |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
777
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:24:06 -
[186] - Quote
I don't have alts.
I don't farm killmails, nor post any. Nor care about killboards. At all.
Even when I lived in null and protected the miners that were my RL friends I didn't carry a scram because I don't care if people get away. It's not what I'm interested in.
The beauty of a sandbox is doing what you want within the system.
Does this mean you will now not have any respect for me? I somehow think that would have been the case if I had thousands of kills on my record. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:55:37 -
[187] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I don't have alts.
I don't farm killmails, nor post any. Nor care about killboards. At all.
Even when I lived in null and protected the miners that were my RL friends I didn't carry a scram because I don't care if people get away. It's not what I'm interested in.
The beauty of a sandbox is doing what you want within the system.
Does this mean you will now not have any respect for me? I somehow think that would have been the case if I had thousands of kills on my record.
so, you're discussing a topic which you have 0 experience with, is that what you're saying? This would explain a lot. I usually stay away from topics I have no business with or no clue about.
Killmails appear on killboards without you posting them on your own. |
Iain Cariaba
1557
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:01:37 -
[188] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? Iain Cariaba wrote: Obviously not.
your kill histories speak volumes. I do what I find fun at the time. If you don't like that, come stop me...
oh wait, you can't. You're scared enough of some red crosses that you need CCP to fight them for you.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:05:02 -
[189] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I don't have alts.
I don't farm killmails, nor post any. Nor care about killboards. At all.
Even when I lived in null and protected the miners that were my RL friends I didn't carry a scram because I don't care if people get away. It's not what I'm interested in.
The beauty of a sandbox is doing what you want within the system.
Does this mean you will now not have any respect for me? I somehow think that would have been the case if I had thousands of kills on my record.
I agree that is part of the beauty of a sandbox. I never *didn't* respect you.
I post on these forums with three real characters and two forum alts. I use whichever account serves me the best, including forum alts. Many, many threads are nothing but additional ways to gather intel.
I have two additional character slots per account. Why not put them to use, even without a skill queue? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
777
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:00:30 -
[190] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:I don't have alts.
I don't farm killmails, nor post any. Nor care about killboards. At all.
Even when I lived in null and protected the miners that were my RL friends I didn't carry a scram because I don't care if people get away. It's not what I'm interested in.
The beauty of a sandbox is doing what you want within the system.
Does this mean you will now not have any respect for me? I somehow think that would have been the case if I had thousands of kills on my record. so, you're discussing a topic which you have 0 experience with, is that what you're saying? This would explain a lot. I usually stay away from stuff I have no business with or no clue about. But I dont quite believe you. Since you care so much about rats, and you cared much about afk cloaking, there are no other things in 0.0 which drive ratters more mad than ratter gankers and afk cloakers. You cant tell me that someone would advocate for pve safety so much like you do if he wasnt personally affected. Post with your main. Killmails appear on killboards without you posting them on your own.
It's not that I have no experience, it's that my experience is different from yours.
As I understand the process, kills are logged into killboards by players that participate by dumping their logs on them. They are third party applications, not serviced directly by EVE's servers but through API keys and such. This is something I don't know a lot about, but I know that my whole combat history on killboards does not reflect what I see in game.
If you avoid things you don't understand, that must make life very difficult, and should have included any discussion concerning logic, reason or balance of game systems.
I am smart, despite my tendancy to argue with brick walls. I am capable of applying logic and reason to a given problem, and I also think objectively. Despite my sincerest disagreement with your every keystroke I even provided a reasoned portion of common ground--- that standings should be used to create the effect you want. Rather than consider such an option and accept that perhaps effort could be used to win for you the things you want, you instead opted for your usual sobbing about how you should be extra special.
You can believe this is my main, or not. It matters little to me. You have already claimed that Mauraders are immortal in your eyes, and since I live in high sec these day the odds of you trying to kill me are minimal. I suppose you might still manage, I also use smart bombs on it sometimes, you could get lucky and concord me to death. Or you could go the route CODE did and pop my Noctis. I wonder how that one solo guy managed that amazing feat? I mean no NPCs to help, or friends of his own. Simply perplexing. Regardless, this is me.
I have in fact lived in Null. I have formed up in defensive fleets and warped around, played bait the camper for days on end and scared off tackle from mining fleets. It's just dumb to me. Far more hassle than its worth. Sure you can make money at it, but it's really boring gameplay and I prefer doing things with my friends. The defense fleets and other PVP activities were some of the longest nights of my life, like watching paint dry. In slow motion. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:17:30 -
[191] - Quote
no further questions, your honor
I really assumed all the time you're just some shabby alt. all right. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 03:34:39 -
[192] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats?
We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up.
Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference.
The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first).
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 09:04:29 -
[193] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up. Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference. The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first).
recons are screwed too. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
778
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 09:21:01 -
[194] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up. Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference. The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first).
How is that any different from PvE pilots being forced into specific ships by the needs of the environment?
And how is that more unbalanced than forcing your target to deal with those environmental factors and you at the same time?
Neither side should get a free ride. Right now either side is a legitimate target of the AI, and your actions on grid determines if you get aggro. You know what triggers it, and if you want to use those effects you also need to fit appropriately.
As previously mentioned this was an intended part of the balance from the very roots of the sleeper AI. There is no logical game design reason to make AI hate nearly any type of ewar at all. Almost none of it works on them, or rats in general. That's why PvE pilots don't use them in the first place. Clearly this was aimed at precisely the type of gameplay that is being mourned by you and Robert.
You are asking for the wrong change. Rather than ask for free dps, ask for improvements to PvE content to make them worth fighting for. If your target does not want to lose what he has in space, he might be willing to stay and fight for it. Of course that might also mean he is prepared to fight for it and therefore not be a valid target for the type of player that you two appear to be. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 11:04:23 -
[195] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up. Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference. The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first). How is that any different from PvE pilots being forced into specific ships by the needs of the environment? And how is that more unbalanced than forcing your target to deal with those environmental factors and you at the same time? Neither side should get a free ride. Right now either side is a legitimate target of the AI, and your actions on grid determines if you get aggro. You know what triggers it, and if you want to use those effects you also need to fit appropriately. As previously mentioned this was an intended part of the balance from the very roots of the sleeper AI. There is no logical game design reason to make AI hate nearly any type of ewar at all. Almost none of it works on them, or rats in general. That's why PvE pilots don't use them in the first place. Clearly this was aimed at precisely the type of gameplay that is being mourned by you and Robert. You are asking for the wrong change. Rather than ask for free dps, ask for improvements to PvE content to make them worth fighting for. If your target does not want to lose what he has in space, he might be willing to stay and fight for it. Of course that might also mean he is prepared to fight for it and therefore not be a valid target for the type of player that you two appear to be.
Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.
So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed. |
tib0
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 12:30:52 -
[196] - Quote
Rats could take standings into account.
PVPr with good standing with Sansha could be able to attack PVEr in Sansha space without NPC agro for example.
Of course, if PVPr shoot rats, will get agro.
If there is logi pilot supporting PVEr, he gets standing hit as well and NPCs will switch to logi ship. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
778
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 13:24:59 -
[197] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats? We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up. Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference. The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first). How is that any different from PvE pilots being forced into specific ships by the needs of the environment? And how is that more unbalanced than forcing your target to deal with those environmental factors and you at the same time? Neither side should get a free ride. Right now either side is a legitimate target of the AI, and your actions on grid determines if you get aggro. You know what triggers it, and if you want to use those effects you also need to fit appropriately. As previously mentioned this was an intended part of the balance from the very roots of the sleeper AI. There is no logical game design reason to make AI hate nearly any type of ewar at all. Almost none of it works on them, or rats in general. That's why PvE pilots don't use them in the first place. Clearly this was aimed at precisely the type of gameplay that is being mourned by you and Robert. You are asking for the wrong change. Rather than ask for free dps, ask for improvements to PvE content to make them worth fighting for. If your target does not want to lose what he has in space, he might be willing to stay and fight for it. Of course that might also mean he is prepared to fight for it and therefore not be a valid target for the type of player that you two appear to be. Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons. So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed.
If it did get changed it would need to include some other form of agro switching mechanics. You still don't need a free ride just because you want to shoot ratters on the cheap, nor do ratters need to be able to utterly control what rats shoot in such a trivial fashion as existed before the change.
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
You may not like the logic of why Ewar gets so much rat attention, but I assure you it exists. The agro swapping is doing exactly what the devs intended, for whatever reasons they envisioned. This is not some random unintended consequence.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
340
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:03:17 -
[198] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up. Thank you for proving a point we have been trying to make for pages, the point being that you want to use cheap disposable ships to hunt with and CCP took that away from you because it was not balanced.
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.
So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed. You and a few others around here are the only ones that fail to see the LOGIC in how and why CCP changed this.
There are many things in EvE that make no sense when looked at from the logic of common sense.
Battleships being slower in warp than frigates when in real life the size of the ship would have no affect on it's maximum speed only it's rate of acceleration and even that could be overcome by using engines with more power.
Rockets, missiles and torpedoes that have artificially restricted maximum speeds when in real life they would continue to accelerate as long as they had fuel left to burn.
Guns with 1400mm (55") bores, yet these guns magically have no recoil affect on the ships that use them. For reference the 16" guns on the WW II US battleships would propel the vessel more than 9 feet sideways in the water when fired as a group of nine.
With these and hundreds of other exceptions to common sense and logic that exist in EvE why should this one be any different, especially when it was changed for game balance issues? Oh crap that's right I forgot it needs to change because "YOU" want it to go back to that unbalanced way of the past, even though CCP disagrees with you since they were the ones that changed it to start with.
|
Umino Iruka
Ultramar Independent Contracting
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 15:23:23 -
[199] - Quote
Show me on the doll where the NPC touched you... |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 16:00:04 -
[200] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
1562
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 16:15:55 -
[201] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships. In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 16:24:44 -
[202] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships. In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this.
Yes, as this is how it was supposed to work and a solution to a different problem is why it no longer does. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
782
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 17:02:45 -
[203] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships. In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this. Yes, as this is how it was supposed to work and a solution to a different problem is why it no longer does.
Umm... No.
You want to 1v1 in "cheap and cheerful" ships, feel free to go find PvE content that is appropriate to those hulls and gank those guys.
The expensive ship is *not* ignoring the PvE damage, it's fit for it. It's running an active tank that consumes a significant portion of the slots on the ship to maintain, not only from direct tank modules but also Cap fittings to sustain an active tank.
You in fact want to just let the NPC's kill your target for you, because if you are solo the odds of your cheap and cheerful frig breaking that tank are really bad. As he isn't packing Ewar of his own you can probably hold him till the server resets, but you won't be killing him solo.
It's clear that all you care about is yourself. You believe every other player should be doing nothing but providing you easy targets and entertainment because you bothered to jump in a frig and look for someone to shoot. I want a million dollars a day and an unending supply of sex programmed Scarlett Johansson clones, but I'm not getting that either. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 17:52:09 -
[204] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.
Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships. In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this. Yes, as this is how it was supposed to work and a solution to a different problem is why it no longer does. Umm... No. You want to 1v1 in "cheap and cheerful" ships, feel free to go find PvE content that is appropriate to those hulls and gank those guys. The expensive ship is *not* ignoring the PvE damage, it's fit for it. It's running an active tank that consumes a significant portion of the slots on the ship to maintain, not only from direct tank modules but also Cap fittings to sustain an active tank. You in fact want to just let the NPC's kill your target for you, because if you are solo the odds of your cheap and cheerful frig breaking that tank are really bad. As he isn't packing Ewar of his own you can probably hold him till the server resets, but you won't be killing him solo. It's clear that all you care about is yourself. You believe every other player should be doing nothing but providing you easy targets and entertainment because you bothered to jump in a frig and look for someone to shoot. I want a million dollars a day and an unending supply of sex programmed Scarlett Johansson clones, but I'm not getting that either.
You have no idea of pvp do you? You dont have to do anything to kill pvers, hell you dont even have to use expensive stuff. But you cant use frigates due to the longish engagement due to lowish dps and a reliance of another type of tank. Take the confessor, you get 500dps or so in em which is enough to break pretty much all pvers given time (unless you are in sansha space) but your tank is reliant on your ab and your super small sig, stuff certain rats dont care about.
Its not actually lvl 4 missions or similar that pose a problem, its stuff like besieged sites and lvl 5s that make frigate pvp vs pveers flat out impossible due to how they work.
I dont want rats to help me i dont care about what they shoot as long as it isnt me. They should just do the logical thing and shoot what has aggro the proper way. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 18:27:39 -
[205] - Quote
I want to remind you that you are trying to discuss f**ing with a virgin.
mike voidstar has no clue about nor has he ever been involved in any meaningful combat pvp, dont expect any level idea from him, all he knows is that you should bring a "proper ship for the job", mhkay? |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
159
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 20:27:16 -
[206] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.
So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed.
wat?
Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.
How is anything BUT that logical? |
Iain Cariaba
1563
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 20:31:10 -
[207] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.
So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed.
wat? Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me. How is anything BUT that logical? Because WOlf Crendraven says so, apparently.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 20:38:58 -
[208] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote: wat?
Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.
How is anything BUT that logical?
when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet. |
Iain Cariaba
1563
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 20:58:53 -
[209] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote: wat?
Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.
How is anything BUT that logical?
when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet. So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 21:10:08 -
[210] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.
not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine".
there are 2 guys
1) a known mass murder and enemy 2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy
target priority should be obvious
|
|
Iain Cariaba
1563
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 21:53:45 -
[211] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense. not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine". there are 2 guys 1) a known mass murder and enemy 2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard. You're right only once here, there are, in fact, two guys, but both of them are enemies.
We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else." There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next. Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him.
The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
45
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 22:07:15 -
[212] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:
We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else."
this is obviously not true, since you can for example fly missions for pirate factions. So not hostile as you would like to.
Iain Cariaba wrote: There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next. you say so? Where do you have this info from? Did you ever read eve chronicles or eve books, those say otherwise.
http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/ is a good start.
You dont need to be affilated with anyone for differentiation between a hostile or not so hostile pilot, someone who massmurdering my people on daily basis would be far above the guy who sides with me in a certain combat situation on my targets list, thats just common sense, this is how majority of sane human population would think and act. When the top priority guy is down, they might switch to less important target, exactly as it was in old AI.
Iain Cariaba wrote:Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him. yes, because it worked so great in the previous 545 Guristas Forlorn Hubs, we better get rid of any chance of help as top priority. I understand.
Iain Cariaba wrote: The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
The old AI might've been broken for PvE (not aggressing drones, not agressing anything but tank ship ever) but it behaved correctly in PvP situations when switching targets doesnt make any sense, unless new guy starts assisting the other. |
Iain Cariaba
1563
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 22:53:15 -
[213] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:
We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else."
this is obviously not true, since you can for example fly missions for pirate factions. So not hostile as you would like to. Iain Cariaba wrote: There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next. you say so? Where do you have this info from? Did you ever read eve chronicles or eve books, those say otherwise. http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/ is a good start. You dont need to be affilated with anyone for differentiation between a hostile or not so hostile pilot, someone who massmurdering my people on daily basis would be far above the guy who sides with me in a certain combat situation on my targets list, thats just common sense, this is how majority of semi intelligent human population would think and act, thats a basic strategy for minimizing harm to ourselves - kill the most hostile/dangerous first, not to a score a pointless kill and get slaughtered for another 14 days non-stop. "When the top priority guy is down, we might switch to less important target", exactly as it was in old AI. Iain Cariaba wrote:Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him. yes, because it worked so great in the previous 545 Guristas Forlorn Hubs, we better get rid of any chance of help as top priority. I understand. Iain Cariaba wrote: The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
The old AI might've been broken for PvE (not aggressing drones, not agressing anything but tank ship ever) but it behaved correctly in PvP situations when switching targets doesnt make any sense, unless new guy starts assisting the other. 1. Yes, you can fly missions for the pirates, and if you had, and actually had some standing with them, I could see them considering you an ally. Beyond that, you're just another target. 2. Where do I get how pirates think? Maybe this wonderful thing we call "history." You shoukd readmsome actual historymsome time, rather than fictional histories based in the future. Things make alot more sense that way. 3. So it makes sense to take you in the little ship out before you become the next person to slaughter them in 545 Forlorn Hubs. 4. Switching targets made enough sense for CCP to implement it. If you don't like it, don't hunt ratters.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
684
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 22:54:33 -
[214] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense. not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine". there are 2 guys 1) a known mass murder and enemy 2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard.
Except....it was used to kill spawns. Especially officer and faction spawns. Land on ratter, they had the aggro, you killed the officer spawn (still focused on ratter) and the ratter for the pvp fun and the pve payout.
Or are you and your other supporters of this going to tell us if you jumped a ratter, they have wiped out the officers BS escort, they have the lone officer close to hull....you would not finish it off? Billion isk loot drop is telling me this ain't happening.
If the old system left in play as is....this would have left this loophole wide open. Why CCP went the way they did and implemented sleeper ai aspect of kill em all and let God sort it out. It works. Site runners die in wh's every hour of every day. And the pvp'er(s) who killed them live to fly away after.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 23:44:00 -
[215] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:there are 2 guys
1) a known mass murder and enemy 2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy
target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard. Mission Rats: the only entity in EVE following NBSI doctrine. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
782
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 03:05:53 -
[216] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:I want to remind you that you are trying to discuss f**ing with a virgin.
mike voidstar has no clue about nor has he ever been involved in any meaningful combat pvp, dont expect any level idea from him, all he knows is that you should bring a "proper ship for the job", mhkay? So the other duders in here with 3 kills in their lifetime on eve-kill are trolling you with their valuable opinion how pvp should work.
Well, at least you have more logic in that post. I suppose it was too much to ask you actually support your own opinions so it's easier to just attack mine.
You are incorrect that I know nothing of PvP. I don't like EVE's PvP. There is a difference. I also know game design, and a whole host of related subjects.
The problem is that you lack any basis for the change you want beyond your own selfish entitlement. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to kill whatever you want in a frigate, and having areas where frigates are not what you want to use is perfectly fine. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
330
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 08:05:00 -
[217] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote: wat?
Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.
How is anything BUT that logical?
when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet. So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is one of the oldest rules in human history.
Imagine your a criminal and some other criminal starts shooting you and kills your gang members, suddenly another criminal shows up and shoot the criminal you are fighting, any sort of logic would suggest that you dont kill that guy. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 08:05:17 -
[218] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:1. Yes, you can fly missions for the pirates, and if you had, and actually had some standing with them, I could see them considering you an ally. Beyond that, you're just another target. you can fly missions for them even with 0 standings (lvl1), not that important even, I merely wanted to show you how wrong your previous statement was.
Iain Cariaba wrote: 2. Where do I get how pirates think? Maybe this wonderful thing we call "history." You shoukd readmsome actual historymsome time, rather than fictional histories based in the future. Things make alot more sense that way.
they are humans, so you can imagine how humans think - I have no instance from our "history" come in mind, when humans behaved this stupid in a similar situation. Engaging 3rd party who is not showing any hostility (but even assistance) during a confrontation would very unlikely have a higher or same priority over someone who is mass murdering your nation. Ofc you can assume utter stupidity on their side but it would at least contradict game backstory (which shows that pirate nations can very well have relationships to outside of their realm deep into empire; no they arent stupid) and human basic instincts - enemy of my enemy is my friend is very basic thinking pattern.
Iain Cariaba wrote: 3. So it makes sense to take you in the little ship out before you become the next person to slaughter them in 545 Forlorn Hubs.
- you stated by yourself that the little ship is easy kill for them, so how would it become the next one to slaughter them? - "could" is far from "is"
Iain Cariaba wrote: 4. Switching targets made enough sense for CCP to implement it.
their focus of AI change was pve
Iain Cariaba wrote:If you don't like it, don't hunt ratters. yes, I dont hunt ratters anymore (solo) |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 08:07:23 -
[219] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote: Except....it was used to kill spawns. Especially officer and faction spawns. Land on ratter, they had the aggro, you killed the officer spawn (still focused on ratter) and the ratter for the pvp fun and the pve payout.
yes, pve was broken, not saying otherwise, never did. As soon as you start engaging NPC or assist PvEer, they should switch targets. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 09:26:46 -
[220] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Well, at least you have more logic in that post. I suppose it was too much to ask you actually support your own opinions so it's easier to just attack mine.
I have countered every single of your points in this thread, then you abandoned them one by one until you run out of them and started next full new circle of reiteration.
Mike Voidstar wrote:You are incorrect that I know nothing of PvP. I don't like EVE's PvP. There is a difference. I also know game design, and a whole host of related subjects. everyone who is involved in the slightest pew pew in this game, has (even if a short one) a killboard record. you have 0. You dont like it I see, its same kind of discourse like argueing about ship fits with EFT warriors who dont fly them.
Mike Voidstar wrote: The problem is that you lack any basis for the change you want beyond your own selfish entitlement. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to kill whatever you want in a frigate
but this is not how this game works, you would know it if you did pvp - small ships killing bigger stuff (even solo) is a very common thing. You might not like it but its part of overall game balance.
Mike Voidstar wrote:and having areas where frigates are not what you want to use is perfectly fine. ofc you're saying that, you are pveer, you dont pvp, you would probably remove it from the game entirely if you only could since you dont like it, so you're happy when parts of it get screwed by strange game mechanics like in this instance, so you trying to defend it by all means, very obvious in here. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 11:16:20 -
[221] - Quote
You countered nothing. You made statements that you assume are true, as if the mere utterance could change reality and make it so. You have no support for anything you say except that you want it.
I don't bother to log into killboards, and I don't die very often. It's impossible to prove a negative, except in proving a mutually exclusive positive. One thing does not mean the other in this case.
Small ships killing big ships is perfectly fine, even solo. What you don't get to have is selective help from the environment. The thing you are complaining about is wanting the rats to help you kill things. Rats are equally hostile to everyone, and you don't like that.
There is nothing wrong with environmental conditions that require specific ships, classes of ship, specialized equipment, etc... You don't get to fly in inherently dangerous and damaging space hunting people who have dealt with the danger without dealing with it yourself. That's not your enemy being protected by the environment, that's you failing to prepare. Choices and Consequences are at the very heart of EVE. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 11:48:39 -
[222] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You countered nothing. You made statements that you assume are true, as if the mere utterance could change reality and make it so. You have no support for anything you say except that you want it. the myth about assets at risk, which your whole argument revolves around has been disqualified here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5837738#post5837738 and here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5842356#post5842356 Both times you've chosen to abandon and leave it unanswered. moved to the next nonsense instead. To show one of these...
furthermore, as I threw ratters safety (inverse of risk) argument back at you, suddenly risk (for ratters) wasnt even an issue anymore, you apparently prefer double standards and one sided argumentation like that https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5846550#post5846550
Mike Voidstar wrote: I don't bother to log into killboards, and I don't die very often. It's impossible to prove a negative, except in proving a mutually exclusive positive. One thing does not mean the other in this case.
not a big deal, just saying you have 0 combat record, because otherwise even worst noob shows up on killboards on some kills he ever whored on.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Small ships killing big ships is perfectly fine, even solo. What you don't get to have is selective help from the environment. The thing you are complaining about is wanting the rats to help you kill things. Rats are equally hostile to everyone, and you don't like that. whatever your interpretation of my demand is - yes I want it to get changed again, for reasons I told on last 10 pages here.
Mike Voidstar wrote:There is nothing wrong with environmental conditions that require specific ships, classes of ship, specialized equipment, etc... You don't get to fly in inherently dangerous and damaging space hunting people who have dealt with the danger without dealing with it yourself. That's not your enemy being protected by the environment, that's you failing to prepare. Choices and Consequences are at the very heart of EVE. you repeat yourself again, has all been covered in detail. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:00:22 -
[223] - Quote
Your links don't prove anything at all. They are just you making statements based on false assumptions, and are themselves invalid for lacking a solid base to begin on.
There is a greater chance than zero of losing a ship anytime you undock, even in friendly space. If the ship you are after is worth a great deal more than your ship, and the chances of an engagement are anything close to even, then they are at greater risk. As initiative is yours you were able to calculate those odds and find them in your favor before the engagement began.
If your ship is a throw away ship, and you are hunting a real ship, then they have risked more than you. They stand to lose more, and they were always in danger of losing more even before you got there.
Saying "Nuh Uh!" does not invalidate that, and that's all you have brought out so far. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
302
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:16:51 -
[224] - Quote
What a refreshing thread after all those "icongate" and "eve is dying" ones. Gankers want to gank even easier It's binary. NPC not switching to ganker - bad for PvEers. NPC switching to ganker - bad for ganker. It's all about ewar. Pirates in BR regions don't have problem with ganking me. I lost lots of gilas there. All not without a fight. There is no simple solution here.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:30:34 -
[225] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your links don't prove anything at all. They are just you making statements based on false assumptions, and are themselves invalid for lacking a solid base to begin on. which assumptions?
Mike Voidstar wrote: There is a greater chance than zero of losing a ship anytime you undock, even in friendly space.
noone denied the existance of risk
Mike Voidstar wrote:If the ship you are after is worth a great deal more than your ship, yes, occassionally there were lucky shots where you fragged a 500m battleship, but such kills are/were exceptional, so not a general rule.
Mike Voidstar wrote: and the chances of an engagement are anything close to even
not even close to even, by miles
you trying to say that the chance of getting blown up for a ratter who 1) is hiding behind 33453 blues around him 2) mostly lives in a system he never leaves 3) has access to intel channels reporting neutrals and hostiles + instant local chat is same (or close) as for a roamer, roaming hostile space alone.
Is this your idea? Because if not, your whole risk myth would collapse.
Mike Voidstar wrote:, then they are at greater risk. yes then they would be, but like I said, rather exceptional event. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:31:23 -
[226] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:As initiative is yours you were able to calculate those odds and find them in your favor before the engagement began. sure the initiative is mine and I wouldnt engage someone I think I wouldnt be able to take down. Although I even tried that many times, you might always have a lucky shot on a moron in expensive hull, absolutely.
But what does my chance to win a particular fight have to do with risk of engagement for my target? He seeks to evade and has everything in his favor to do so. These are 2 different things, one is chance to get caught and the other is chance to loose. You mix things up.
The value of average ratter ship that time (insurable battleship) was pretty much the same as of uninsurable T2. Do you want to dispute this?
Mike Voidstar wrote: If your ship is a throw away ship, and you are hunting a real ship, then they have risked more than you. They stand to lose more, and they were always in danger of losing more even before you got there.
same stuff about risk in a different fashion. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
816
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:49:32 -
[227] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I agree that it is absurd. The dynamic of catching someone in a PVE situation has totally changed over the past few years. It used to be that a Pilgrim could catch a ratter, turn off his tank, and let the NPC's do most of the damage.
The absurdity of that statement escapes you doesn't it?
"I used to just warp in shut down his tank, and then get a killmail for orbiting him at a 1000."
Grow up, adapt to the change, and pwn the PVErs in a different manner. Or don't.
Honestly, I have no dog in this hunt, and I really don't care which you do, but for the love of God, stop whinging on like a bunch of pansy asses who fouind out mummy moved the cookie jar and you actually have to stand on a chair to reach it now.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
398
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:54:43 -
[228] - Quote
When we are brawling, and a new ships warps on grip, if its more of a threat than the current primary we will switch aggression. We have a conversion or wait to see if they are going break out the reps for us for gods sake.
Why shouldn't rats.
I mean how many pages and yet no good reason as to why rats should ignore you, the special snowflake.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
816
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:57:05 -
[229] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: The enemy of my enemy is my friend and so on.
In Eve, the enemy of your enemy is the guy who will shoot you while you're shooting at his enemy.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 13:16:58 -
[230] - Quote
The only way for a ratter to win an engagement 99% of the time is to not allow an aggressor on grid. If that hostile is there to hunt you, he likely is prepared to win, and getting tackled is a death sentence. If the hostile is not there to hunt ratters, then the ratter looses only a small amount of time by evading.
There is no point in staying on grid with hostiles in the area.
Everyone in EVE should already know that to undock is to consider your ship lost until it returns. Your risk is equivalent to what you put in space. You cannot claim you are at anything near the same risk as your target when you have less than 100 mil on the line and they have many times that---even if you are guaranteed to explode for just the chance to make them explode. You would need a fail rate roughly equal to the number of times you need to die to make up the difference in ship cost to make that risk even---and you don't even have that now, if you bother to apply a little tactics and intelligence to your hunt. But that's not what invalidates your ideas about risk.
Your argument about risk is invalid because it assumes that ratting and other PvE professions rely on solo gankbears hunting them for balance. It does not. Ratters are hunted all the time, die all the time, and the balance of their profession has other better controls that the Devs can apply than gankbears.
So everything you say boils down to just wanting cheap easy kills because that's how you get your rocks off. It's not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor. It's purely your enjoyment and frag all anything else. |
|
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
159
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 13:59:46 -
[231] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet.
dude, let it go. Stop whining and find the right ship, or a few friends to take out ratters.
How have you not realized you're wrong by now? Good god...the trouble people go through to try and get easy kills. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 14:19:09 -
[232] - Quote
yet again you left out and ignored one my questions, cant you follow simple rules and quote parts of my posting you are replying to?
Mike Voidstar wrote:The only way for a ratter to win an engagement 99% of the time is to not allow an aggressor on grid. If that hostile is there to hunt you, he likely is prepared to win, and getting tackled is a death sentence. If the hostile is not there to hunt ratters, then the ratter looses only a small amount of time by evading.
There is no point in staying on grid with hostiles in the area. Yes, if I seek a target I pick relatively easy one, I specialize on a certain type of ship I can kill relatively safely, this is how this game works, absolutely right. But how does stating this obvious fact help in this discussion?
Mike Voidstar wrote: Everyone in EVE should already know that to undock is to consider your ship lost until it returns. Your risk is equivalent to what you put in space.
What you mean is you shouldnt undock anything you cant afford to lose, right. However, risk is no invention of eve, its a common term and is defined by chance of event multiplied by value of loss - not only value of loss, you cant simply disregard this established basic formula when talking to people about risk, which always implied calculation of chance. Undocking a ship and sitting on undock with finger over the dock button is not even close to equally risky as going onto a roaming with it, for instance.
Mike Voidstar wrote:You cannot claim you are at anything near the same risk as your target when you have less than 100 mil on the line and they have many times that I cant and I did not claim anything because we dont have a particular instance to base on.
Ship I used to fly was a 250m bomber. Uninsurable. Average ratters battleship hull was around 200m, fully insured + 60m fitting at tops, means possible net loss of 80-100m? So there we go, even at same risk (which is by far not), I put 150m more at stake than average ratter. In case I omit expensive fitting, it would be still like 100m vs. 100m at 10-20, 50 times of loss probability from roaming hostile region. What made up for it was the sole sheer amount of ratters in a well populatd area, a good full pool of stupid lazy targets which basically threw all their tiny risks together to make it worthwhile and fun thing for me to do.
Mike Voidstar wrote: ---even if you are guaranteed to explode for just the chance to make them explode. You would need a fail rate roughly equal to the number of times you need to die to make up the difference in ship cost to make that risk even---and you don't even have that now, if you bother to apply a little tactics and intelligence to your hunt. But that's not what invalidates your ideas about risk.
what? Stop posting unreadable garbage like that, risk is actually a pretty simple concept to understand. => chance * loss.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Your argument about risk is invalid because it assumes that ratting and other PvE professions rely on solo gankbears hunting them for balance. It does not. Ratters are hunted all the time, die all the time, and the balance of their profession has other better controls that the Devs can apply than gankbears.
which argument do you mean exactly? Yes, "gankbears" are part of the risk for everyone who undocks in this game. How does it relate to which argument at all in what way? I dont understand. PvE profession does not "rely" on anything, its under certain risk like everything else.
[quw34345ote=Mike Voidstar] So everything you say boils down to just wanting cheap easy kills because that's how you get your rocks off. It's not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor. It's purely your enjoyment and frag all anything else.[/quote]
everything you say is just because you want ratting safety, for pure enjoyment and easy isk. Thats how you get your rocks off. Its not about game balance or any other actual relevant factor. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:11:36 -
[233] - Quote
You are just too dense to be real.
You have no concept of risk, balance, or general game design.
Reversing my sentence does not make your point more valid. The 2 sides of this are not equal but opposite viewpoints. You have not one scrap of objective reasoning. It's seriously like trying to argue with a toddler. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:20:47 -
[234] - Quote
you can read up about what risk means on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk
its not "my concept", its a well defined thing. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:37:38 -
[235] - Quote
You have a definition of risk, but no understanding of how to apply it to real world applications. Good Googling though. It's nice to see you are capable of at least a little thought. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:43:42 -
[236] - Quote
for you, sitting in a car in front of your garage with ignition off probably means same risk as driving 120mph over a highway with it, according to your understanding of risk. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
783
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:35:03 -
[237] - Quote
Whatever dude.
Yes. Those 2 are the exact same thing.
Go find a clue. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2477
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 04:58:40 -
[238] - Quote
I think rats should be fickle, but should maintain a definite preference for their original targets as well as those who have redboxed them over targets who have not aggressed them yet, and especially over targets who are attacking their enemies.
Give me a top hat.
|
Yolo
Intergalactic Combined Technologies
164
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 05:53:13 -
[239] - Quote
the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.
- since 2003, bitches
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
332
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 07:28:22 -
[240] - Quote
Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.
That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat. |
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1482
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 07:39:50 -
[241] - Quote
Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.
its the ewar that's the high threat priority
'sleeper lite AI' npcs don't be liking ewar or remote reps
it's not even a recent change it's a change that happened to some mission npcs and belt/anomaly npcs SEVERAL years ago
the OP's problem is
he's got himself locked into a "The NPC's should be my friends because I'm killing their target" mindset
and he refuses to accept that that mindset is A: wrong B: stupid C: has no basis in fact |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 07:56:25 -
[242] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote: he's got himself locked into a "The NPC's should be my friends because I'm killing their target" mindset
and he refuses to accept that that mindset is A: wrong B: stupid C: has no basis in fact
this mindset is not wrong or stupid and has a very good basis. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
784
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 08:38:37 -
[243] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Kitty Bear wrote: he's got himself locked into a "The NPC's should be my friends because I'm killing their target" mindset
and he refuses to accept that that mindset is A: wrong B: stupid C: has no basis in fact
this mindset is not wrong or stupid and has a very good basis.
Just saying it does not make it so. It's like math class. Show how you got there. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 09:09:32 -
[244] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Just saying it does not make it so. It's like math class. Show how you got there.
1) already done 2) answering on same level as kitty.. no reasoning whatsoever..
3) go get some kills prior trying to contribute to pvp topics. bye |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
784
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 10:39:33 -
[245] - Quote
Yes, because reason and logic clearly have no bearing in a discussion with you. If it's not someone agreeing that you should have all the candy then they must not know anything.
You have still yet to provide actual reason beyond wanting to be able to kill on the cheap for reverting this change. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 10:54:51 -
[246] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: You have still yet to provide actual reason beyond wanting to be able to kill on the cheap for reverting this change.
you should share your knowledge about cheap kills with me, from your mission boat in high sec. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
784
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 10:59:28 -
[247] - Quote
Stunning argument as always.
So that would be nothing to say about your own particular children's crusade? You would rather try and attack me directly than support any of the garbage you suggested? Fair enough. I suppose that is all you had in the first place. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 11:02:50 -
[248] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Stunning argument as always.
So that would be nothing to say about your own particular children's crusade? You would rather try and attack me directly than support any of the garbage you suggested? Fair enough. I suppose that is all you had in the first place.
how would you know anything substantial about the garbage I suggested? Has CCP recently added some new tutorial agents to Caldari Navy telling you about all of that? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
784
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 11:08:36 -
[249] - Quote
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2481
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 13:47:36 -
[250] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority. That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat. It's a good point because CCP adjusted rat AI a while back to make them prefer targets of the right size. So if a frigate pilot jumps in on a battleship fighting off cruiser and frigate rats, that frigate pilot is likely to get jumped by the rats. You can alternatively use this to your advantage, to split up the incoming DPS.
Give me a top hat.
|
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
824
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 13:54:39 -
[251] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority. That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat.
That isn't always true. Dictors are easy to kill and a huge threat to ships with many times their firepower.
In a fight, my target priority is:
A - EWAR and tackle. B - Reducing the incoming DPS enough to be able to safely tank it.
You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.
What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor. And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
785
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 13:55:57 -
[252] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority. That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat. It's a good point because CCP adjusted rat AI a while back to make them prefer targets of the right size. So if a frigate pilot jumps in on a battleship fighting off cruiser and frigate rats, that frigate pilot is likely to get jumped by the rats. You can alternatively use this to your advantage, to split up the incoming DPS.
That really only helps the ganker however. The way that works is that each class of ship prefers it's own size and larger. So Frigate rats prefer frigates and up, cruiser rats prefer cruisers and up, but will be reluctant to go back down to frigates, etc...
Their issue comes in two strengths. At a basic level they don't want to have to deal with rats *at all*. The more sensible want rats to be a bit more evenhanded concerning Ewar.
The rats preference for ewar is stronger than their desire to stay within class. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
49
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 14:01:30 -
[253] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.
this would be valid if you would add DPS to rats, which you dont in given scenario.
Elenahina wrote:What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor. And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way. there were several reasons given in this thread 1) removed pvp content - solo ratter hunting basically dead due to post-Retribution NPC aggro AI 2) resulting more on safety for ratters was not needed, nor is it good for anything but ISK farmers 3) AI protecting the ratter and so spoiling player kills does not make sense |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
785
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:26:30 -
[254] - Quote
You just keep hammering on those false assumptions. 1- ratters still hunted all the time, even by solo pilots. Content balanced and upgraded, not removed. 2- ratter professions not balanced by solo gankbears. argument has no basis in anything real. 3- AI treating all players the same. Don't do things to get agro and live longer.
Repeating the same baseless drivel does not add any more merit.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:32:29 -
[255] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You just keep hammering on those false assumptions. 1- ratters still hunted all the time, even by solo pilots. Content balanced and upgraded, not removed. 2- ratter professions not balanced by solo gankbears. argument has no basis in anything real. 3- AI treating all players the same. Don't do things to get agro and live longer.
Repeating the same baseless drivel does not add any more merit.
reporting from motsu, or what? What do you know about pew pew? Right, nothing. so keep your unqualified theory for yourself. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
825
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:34:24 -
[256] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Elenahina wrote: You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.
this would be valid if you would add DPS to rats, which you dont in given scenario.
From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
Mark Hadden wrote:Elenahina wrote:What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor. And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way. there were several reasons given in this thread 1) removed pvp content - solo ratter hunting basically dead due to post-Retribution NPC aggro AI 2) resulting more on safety for ratters was not needed, nor is it good for anything but ISK farmers 3) AI protecting the ratter and so spoiling player kills does not make sense
1) No it didn't, it changed the way you have to go about it. Your failure to adapt to that change does not mean it was removed. 2) The ratters aren't any more safe than they were except in absolute terms because fewer people hunt them, because they refuse to adapt their hunting styles. YOU made them safer by deciding they were now too hard to kill anymore. The rats had very little to do with it. 3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first. Which is exactly what players do. When a third party jumps in on your fights, do you just leave them be and hope they won't start shooting you, or do you evaluate the situation and start shooting the larger threat? If you decide to shoot the third party, are you now somehow protecting your original target? The convulutions of logic necessary to come to that conclusion are simply baffling.
Ratters can be caught and killed at any number of places - inside an anomoly are only one them.
The real problem is that the so-called solo ratter hunter bascially wants to do no more than fill the role of heavy tackle for the rats. You lock them down, the rats apply the bulk of the DPS, you get a kill mail.
Well, the rats have decided they do not want your help, thank you very much, and would you please **** off somewhere else.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
826
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 17:27:58 -
[257] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:
From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do.
What if rats did have blue lists?
What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in.
There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I,
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
786
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 18:38:19 -
[258] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Elenahina wrote:
From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do. What if rats did have blue lists? What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in. There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I,
This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.
They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 20:18:30 -
[259] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.
They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.
are you afraid that CCP could actually read here and nerf your NPC bodyguards? The rule is simple, dont undock your mission boat during wardec, thats it.
Elenahina wrote: 3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first.
yeah yeah, regardless how you put it, the result matters.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5844897#post5844897
a gun doesnt kill anyone, all it does is accelerating a piece of lead with high velocity in a certain direction. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
827
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:22:24 -
[260] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Elenahina wrote: 3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first.
yeah yeah, regardless how you put it, the result matters. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5844897#post5844897 a gun doesnt kill anyone, all it does is accelerating a piece of lead with high velocity in a certain direction.
And regardless of how you put it, you're assigning an intention to the NPCs that doesn't exist. They're no more protecting the ratter than you are protecting third parties you choose not to engage.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
827
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:23:42 -
[261] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Elenahina wrote:Elenahina wrote:
From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do. What if rats did have blue lists? What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in. There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I, This was suggested and discarded because *effort*. They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.
Adapt or die. I honestly give less than two ***** which they do. I was just trying to offer an alternative.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 22:00:12 -
[262] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: And regardless of how you put it, you're assigning an intention to the NPCs that doesn't exist. They're no more protecting the ratter than you are protecting third parties you choose not to engage.
not assigning intention but resulting effect. NPC AI is designed the way that it makes an impression of protecting the ratter. Eventually the AI even has the same effect of protecting the ratter. better this way? Whats the difference if its intention or not if final result is the same. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
334
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 22:27:54 -
[263] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yolo wrote:the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority. That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat. That isn't always true. Dictors are easy to kill and a huge threat to ships with many times their firepower. In a fight, my target priority is: A - EWAR and tackle. B - Reducing the incoming DPS enough to be able to safely tank it. You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS. What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor. And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.
If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs? |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 22:58:57 -
[264] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs?
he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~ |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 14:02:34 -
[265] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic. Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more.
Elenahina wrote: 2) The ratters aren't any more safe than they were except in absolute terms because fewer people hunt them, because they refuse to adapt their hunting styles. YOU made them safer by deciding they were now too hard to kill anymore. The rats had very little to do with it.
you cant blame people who they dont want to cross a certain line - its a game whose rules should be cathered for players, how they want to play the game or under which conditions.. - this argument is hilarious, "your fault CCP made it too hard for you, adapt or die, noob, trololol". The only meaningful indication whether a mechanic is good or not is the acceptance on part of the player, nothing else. Same situation as if CCP would cut mission rewards by 75% and people like you would come around the corner trolling players for not doing them anymore, you still could after all, at 25% reward... You get the idea hopefully.
Elenahina wrote: Ratters can be caught and killed at any number of places - inside an anomoly are only one them.
yes and anomalies are the place where they spend 98% of their time, if not safed up in POS or docked, mkay? Hunting in this place got severely nerfed presumably by bad thought out pve aggro mechanics.
Elenahina wrote: The real problem is that the so-called solo ratter hunter bascially wants to do no more than fill the role of heavy tackle for the rats. You lock them down, the rats apply the bulk of the DPS, you get a kill mail.
Yes, after all the time spent and hassle of getting around myriads of obstackles, pitfalls and traps of deep hostile space you shouldnt have to bother about NPC negating all of your massive effort getting to that point.
Elenahina wrote: Well, the rats have decided they do not want your help, thank you very much, and would you please **** off somewhere else.
again, stating status quo doesnt help nor is needed for anyone, we all know how rats work nowadays, thats exactly the questionable mechanic we want to get rid of. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
788
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 14:48:04 -
[266] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic. Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more. It's generally accepted on the forums that someone suggesting a change to the current rules provide sound reasoning and justification for that change.
Currently few people accept the tiny scraps of "reasoning" you have laid out for the change being proposed. Some of them are kind enough to engage with you and try to develop the idea by examining and coming up with potential compromises. So far you have not engaged in a positive manner with anyone who has attempted this with you---instead you whine, rant and gibber nonsense in a temper tantrum that no one agrees with your selfish demands for NPC support in gankbearing.
Mark Hadden wrote:you cant blame people who they dont want to cross a certain line - its a game whose rules should be cathered for players, how they want to play the game or under which conditions.. - this argument is hilarious, "your fault CCP made it too hard for you, adapt or die, noob, trololol". The only meaningful indication whether a mechanic is good or not is the acceptance on part of the player, nothing else. Same situation as if CCP would cut mission rewards by 75% and people like you would come around the corner trolling players for not doing them anymore, you still could after all, at 25% reward... You get the idea hopefully. By that standard you should have stopped arguing back around your second response on either of these threads. Clearly the players, except for you and Wolf, are ok with the mechanics as they stand. You have failed to gather the support of PvP and PvE pilots alike. Pretty much *everyone* except you two have rejected all of your arguments as the idiocy they are.
Mark Hadden wrote:Yes, after all the time spent and hassle of getting around myriads of obstackles, pitfalls and traps of deep hostile space you shouldnt have to bother about NPC negating all of your massive effort getting to that point. Couple of points here. First, nothing should make you immune to environmental conditions of the space you are flying in except for your fit. The playing field is level, not tilted in or out of your favor.
Second, lets not pretend it's that hard to travel around, and it's not like you are putting that much on the line anyway.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:20:11 -
[267] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:It's generally accepted on the forums that someone suggesting a change to the current rules provide sound reasoning and justification for that change.
Currently few people accept the tiny scraps of "reasoning" you have laid out for the change being proposed. Some of them are kind enough to engage with you and try to develop the idea by examining and coming up with potential compromises. So far you have not engaged in a positive manner with anyone who has attempted this with you---instead you whine, rant and gibber nonsense in a temper tantrum that no one agrees with your selfish demands for NPC support in gankbearing. 1) lot of reasoning was provided 2) nothing wrong with "gankbearing", it wasnt out of hand an pretty well balanced, otherwise people wouldnt've been farming billions of ISK in week, but how would you know about that, squatting in highsec mission hubs.
Mike Voidstar wrote: By that standard you should have stopped arguing back around your second response on either of these threads. Clearly the players, except for you and Wolf, are ok with the mechanics as they stand. You have failed to gather the support of PvP and PvE pilots alike. Pretty much *everyone* except you two have rejected all of your arguments as the idiocy they are.
no, a lot of people are pissed, these thread pop up regularly on forums, its just not many people who bother taking part in discussions with people like you.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Couple of points here. First, nothing should make you immune to environmental conditions of the space you are flying in except for your fit. The playing field is level, not tilted in or out of your favor. I certainly would count magnetic/solar storms, asteroid belts, radiation or hazardous clouds to environmental conditions, but surely not parts of the game which imply and represent some form of (artificial) intelligence, so please get real and stop calling human beings (pirate nation) as environmental factor, this is an offense against humanity. Living species dont function that way like a water draining in the least way of resistance, electric current following strong laws of physics or a tropic storm blowing off everyone equally.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Second, lets not pretend it's that hard to travel around, and it's not like you are putting that much on the line anyway.
yet again, its not hard from your mission agent to mission deadspace. But moving in hostile territory, doing easily 40-50 jumps per evening on the hunt, avoiding 5 camps which sometimes even move with you forcing you to take breaks and catching prey is all but easy as you'd like to display, so better stop embarrasing yourself in this matter. It is easy in empty 0.0, yes, but its not where you wanna hunt. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
827
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:20:21 -
[268] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Elenahina wrote: From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.
The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.
why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic. Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more.
You do realize that all you've asked for is a return to the previous status quo before this one - when the hunters had all the advantages.
Right?
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
167
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:26:17 -
[269] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: yet again, its not hard from your mission agent to mission deadspace. But moving in hostile territory, doing easily 40-50 jumps per evening on the hunt, avoiding 5 camps which sometimes even move with you forcing you to take breaks and catching prey is all but easy as you'd like to display, so better stop embarrasing yourself in this matter. It is easy in empty 0.0, yes, but its not where you wanna hunt.
Step 1: scan down a few wormholes
Step 2: scan down their exits
Step 3: bookmark everything
Step 4: take two jumps to hostile null
Seriously, if you're taking 50 jumps to get to hostile space, you are doing something wrong. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
827
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:26:59 -
[270] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs? he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~
Please don't presume to know how I would respond in a given situation. It's insulting, and it makes you look like an arrogant *******.
As to the question, the answer would depend largely on how the BS reacts - I would evaluate the tactical situation, and make a decision based on the new information, rather than blindly continuing to plink away at the target I currently have locked.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:34:50 -
[271] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: You do realize that all you've asked for is a return to the previous status quo before this one - when the hunters had all the advantages.
Right?
what? You dont even get this easy thing right. Its not returning to anything, its about stating obvious, stating status quo being useless. You dont need to say how rats behave now, we all know it, you also dont need to say that space is cold or water is wet, we all know that without your help. Better waste your words on something that remotely looks like argument.
Petre en Thielles wrote: stuff
not going argue much with a forum alt. Post with your main, even Mike had balls to reveal us the fact that he has almost no business with pvp. 40-50 jumps on the hunt, regardless how you got there is real (assumed you survive that long at all). |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
167
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:35:18 -
[272] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~
If I had a chance to quickly pop a frigate and get another kill before switching back to my first target, why the hell wouldn't I?
Do you not like more kills on your KB? Why do you think the NPCs would think differently?
Mark Hadden wrote: not going argue much with a forum alt. Post with your main, even Mike had balls to reveal us the fact that he has almost no business with pvp. 40-50 jumps on the hunt, regardless how you got there is real (assumed you survive that long at all).
Something something I can't address the point.
And no, I don't give free intel about my multiple characters. talking about 'having balls'. Since when is EVE an honorable game?
Either address what I *actually* said, or don't bother responding, mmkay? |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
167
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:37:41 -
[273] - Quote
duplicate post |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1134
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:44:22 -
[274] - Quote
Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please? |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:45:27 -
[275] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please? yes its still about rag aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1134
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:04:19 -
[276] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please? yes its still about rag aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it?
So my take on it. They are all from pirate factions. (follow me here) That makes them pirates. I think the deep down core of being a pirate is "pirates gonna do what a pirates gonna do".
If I were an npc pirate getting my poop pushed in by some pve bear and you showed up in a garmur, then hells yeah I'd swap over and take you down before I lose out to some bear. Think of my npc pirate kb. That only makes super obvious sense.
The underlying argument of "I'm helping the pirate, so he shouldn't attack me" makes me laugh. Are you really playing the 'How dare a pirate act in an illogical way?" card. The whole premise of this thread is totally borked.
Let's boil it down to the real issue. You're just all pantybunched because you've chosen to rip around in a risk averse kiting piece of garbage. Said garbage can't even hang w/ belt rats and now you panties are all twisted. The game doesn't have an issue - you're just mad you don't have a kitey risk averse I win button.
I'll be honest.... your risk averse garmur tears are truely tastey. An npc belt rat exposing your inability to play eve is also delicious. Your "To the forums lads - let's hide out bads" is devine. I totally get where you're coming from and what you are trying to do. Please... keep crying. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1134
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:07:51 -
[277] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please? yes its still about rat aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it?
I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??
This is like the silliest thread ever. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:10:06 -
[278] - Quote
the issue is way deeper than just the garmur in belt scenario from original post (not even mine). But nice that you at least bothered to read the first post of this threadnought.
Serendipity Lost wrote: I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??
This is like the silliest thread ever.
people (include me) mainly care about gameplay implications, not some ****** lore behind it (even if it should make sense) which is secondary. But yes, you're basically right. We want to get mechanics changed because we think they are broken. I think thats what this forum exists for if I didnt miss something.
What silly is it's people who think that using forum on purpose is somehow silly - but its just me, I might be wrong. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
788
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:28:57 -
[279] - Quote
I like how you switch to lore for " it makes no sense pirates won't help me", and then claim you are all about gameplay when it's pointed out you are wrong on the lore.
People, most certainly not you, do care about gameplay implications. The AI should not be so easily manipulated for or against anyone without some substancial effort involved.
You have failed to effort, you failed to risk, and now you fail to get rewarded. Rather than correct your choices you want the game altered so you don't have to. That's rarely received well on the forums, usually by guys just like you.
At least with PvE pilots you might have had a chance if your lore reasoning had been functional, or if you were willing to effort up some standings and face consequences from standings having meaning.
As it is, you are pretty much the crazy guy preaching on the street corner about doom. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 17:08:27 -
[280] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I like how you switch to lore for " it makes no sense pirates won't help me", and then claim you are all about gameplay when it's pointed out you are wrong on the lore. yes, I do say the current mechanics are ******** from lore perspective, they dont respect one of the basic human rules "enemy of my enemy is my friend", even worse they even quasi protect their slayer.
Mike Voidstar wrote:People, most certainly not you, do care about gameplay implications. The AI should not be so easily manipulated for or against anyone without some substancial effort involved. In the first line, AI shouldnt spoil player kills. In the second line, it shouldnt make carebearing even safer than it ever was, stacked upon bunch of all other advantages a carebear already had.
Mike Voidstar wrote: You have failed to effort, you failed to risk, and now you fail to get rewarded. Rather than correct your choices you want the game altered so you don't have to. That's rarely received well on the forums, usually by guys just like you.
you still failed to understand that you basically cant contribute anything to this discussion, as a pure mission runner high sec squatter.
Mike Voidstar wrote: At least with PvE pilots you might have had a chance if your lore reasoning had been functional, or if you were willing to effort up some standings and face consequences from standings having meaning.
As it is, you are pretty much the crazy guy preaching on the street corner about doom.
go back to motsu, Mr. 0 kills. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
334
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 17:54:28 -
[281] - Quote
Petre en Thielles wrote:Mark Hadden wrote: he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~
If I had a chance to quickly pop a frigate and get another kill before switching back to my first target, why the hell wouldn't I? Do you not like more kills on your KB? Why do you think the NPCs would think differently? [
Because you are dying to that 1 target, togetther you have a chance. And sorry but that answer alone disqualifies you in my mind from beeing taken seriously in any pvp related topic. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
232
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 17:59:48 -
[282] - Quote
NPC focusing on main aggressor gets my support in High and Nullsec, lowsec should be as dangerous as possible to everyone.
Just to quibble, the proper quote for eve, the more realistic one at least is "the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy"
Were I an NPC, I'd shoot the thing that has been and is shooting at me, that 3rd party might not agress ME if i don't agress it. Less ships shooting at me=better chance of survival+better chance of killing the first target.
Even if the 3rd party agresses me, I wouldn't switch targets until it is shown the 3rd party hits harder and has a weaker tank.
Supported, excepting Lowsec, where NPC's options/actions should be a bit more random.
[note: my killboard is crap, this is a logi character. I'm pretty good at running away, cause I'm an untrusting pessimistic bastard, and I expect other to be as well, NPC's included]
ed* the maxim quoted was from this page, which is a decent list, if padded out a little:
http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries
You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, you're just the game
|
Iain Cariaba
1574
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:14:01 -
[283] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:rabble rabble rabble, ad hominem, rabble rabble Can't debate the topic beyond repeating the same tripe argument, so let's simply start in on the debater.
Sure supports your side.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1135
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:41:49 -
[284] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:the issue is way deeper than just the garmur in belt scenario from original post (not even mine). But nice that you at least bothered to read the first post of this threadnought. Serendipity Lost wrote: I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??
This is like the silliest thread ever.
people (include me) mainly care about gameplay implications, not some ****** lore behind it (even if it should make sense) which is secondary. But yes, you're basically right. We want to get mechanics changed because we think they are broken. What silly is it's people who think that using forum on purpose is somehow silly - but its just me, I might be wrong. If you post a petition (alrady did twice) you'll be sent over here with a request for a thread. You might not realize it but you are acting exactly the same like the opposite party, trying to justify your vision of NPC AI with no further reasoning... "BUT, GUISEE LOL, LISTEN TO ME - ITS PIRATES, PI-RA-TE-S!!! GOT IT? THEY BLAZE YA BUTT THATS ALL RIGHT CUS PIRATES, MHKAY?".
There are several differences. 1. I'm right 2. I'm stating lore facts 3. I'm stating obvious facts 4. I'm not crying 5. I'm not a hypocryte wanting to shoot anything at will while saying an npc should follow rules I dictate (Side note: Pirates don't like dicktate) 6. I don't fly risk averse garbage ships such as garmurs.
So we don't act / aren't the same.
TL/DR They are pirates PIE......RATS. They are correctly acting like PIRATES. (because - pirates) LOL |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:52:32 -
[285] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: There are several differences. 1. I'm right 2. I'm stating lore facts 3. I'm stating obvious facts 4. I'm not crying 5. I'm not a hypocryte wanting to shoot anything at will while saying an npc should follow rules I dictate (Side note: Pirates don't like dicktate) 6. I don't fly risk averse garbage ships such as garmurs.
So we don't act / aren't the same.
TL/DR They are pirates PIE......RATS. They are correctly acting like PIRATES. (because - pirates) LOL
1. me too 2. lore facts? You got a link to backstory backing you? That would be fact. What you are stating is the obvious which is useless act, we dont need you to see the obvious. 3. me too 4. me neither 5. How is defending my own playstyle openly = hypocryte? Learn the meaning of this word. 6. me neither, you still believe that I started this thread, dont you? Even after I pointed you at that.. /o\
No the PIE....RATS act wrong.
Hope that helps. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
334
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 07:08:08 -
[286] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:rabble rabble rabble, ad hominem, rabble rabble Can't debate the topic beyond repeating the same tripe argument, so let's simply start in on the debater. Sure supports your side.
Ad hominem is bad, but you do need a certain experience to know what you are talking about. If all you ever do is sit in highsec you really cant contribute to any discussion about the topic.
Its not important to have a good killboard, killboard numbers mean nothing i.e if you are a null grunt and your 500man fleet fights a 400man fleet and you lose 400 people and die yourself but you killed 200 of theirs, you totally lost but your killboard shows 200-1.
Loss history is usually way more important then the kills. But if you have neither maybe you should keep quit.
Lastly, and this may sound mean but the opinion of highsec bears should be ignored for everything in this game, what they want (i.e more secure and pve friendly eve) is what would kill eve. Just look at the discussions about the new missile mods and retards wanting the application bonus to remain and only range to get nerfed. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
791
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 08:23:04 -
[287] - Quote
Cherry picking your arguments is the first sign that you know that you have no solid ground to stand on.
My lack of killboard is the result of my lack of concern about PvP, not my lack of experience with it. I have certainly lost ships all over EvE, from high sec to null in PvP. I don't pursue kills, I don't prevent people from warping away, I don't post logs to killboards. My goal is not PvP explosions but rather whatever PvE project I undocked for.
My arguments likewise do not draw upon any particular PvP philosophy. They stem from logic, reasoning and extrapolation from established facts within the game. I few EvE as a game, not a bland shooting gallery. Plenty of games offer pure PvP and EvE isn't one of them.
More particular in this case, you are asking for a change from what is, back to a state of the game deemed unbalanced a few years ago. You give no reason to make such a change beyond it being easier for you. Your claims of balancing the ratter playstyle are manifestly false, your assigning motivation to NPCs are nothing but reaching for straws.
Your only defense against having your illusory narrative of the poor disadvantaged PvP gankbears shown for a hollow sham is to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with you as lacking understanding because Gankbear PvP is some mystical holy Grail that must be preserved for reasons the unbelievers can never understand.
You don't need combat experience to understand that warping the rules so that you are off the NPC menu is hilariously unbalancing in any engagement where they are present . You can say that the net affect of npcs shooting you is defending your target, but it's not true as they follow the same rules no matter who you are.
I am not attacking your profession. I am not defending the AI. I am pointing out that your suggestion is unbalanced, and asking for real solid reasons beyond it makes it easier to gank that might justify such a sanity warping idea, and failing that willing to engage in a discussion to develop the idea into a form less stupidly one sided.
If all you got is I want the game to be easier and anyone that disagrees is either lying, ignorant or stupid, then I am afraid you should get used to your only support being trolls and mental handicaps. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 09:20:07 -
[288] - Quote
we've been all over it 15 times in this thread and I learned that I dont want to argue pvp topics with a pve high sec bear because its like, well, talk about fking with a virgin... he knows the theory, yet noone would ever care about his opinion. Go back to Motsu. Not going to reiterate on anything once again. You want the add on safety, you like rats quasi protecting you, I want the opposite. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
401
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 10:26:21 -
[289] - Quote
Why is this thread still going.
For the love of god stop feeding the trolls.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1138
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:16:28 -
[290] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Why is this thread still going.
For the love of god stop feeding the trolls.
It's like that bait drake in amamake top belt, you know you shouldn't, but every once in a while you do it anyway.
Every once in a while the community bands together and tries to break a stupidity tank on the forums. We all know you can't break a stupidity tank, but every once in a while we have to verify it. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
795
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:41:37 -
[291] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:we've been all over it 15 times in this thread and I learned that I dont want to argue pvp topics with a pve high sec bear because its like, well, talk about fking with a virgin... he knows the theory, yet noone would ever care about his opinion.
You simply CAN'T judge or evaluate any of pvp related aspects of this topic, nor do you accept the opinion of people who can, so why are you here? If you hunted ratters a bit, if you knew how much effort and skill it requires to get those kills you'd guaranteed feel differently about getting jammed and hammered by ******* NPC at that point after hours of hunt and see the ratter warping off and hear him laughing from under his POS force field.
So, go back to Motsu and talk to other mission runners about stuff you have an idea of. I'm not going to reiterate on anything once again. You want the add on PvE safety, you like rats quasi protecting you, I want the opposite, this is all what it boils down to.
See, here is where you are wrong. Again. In an almost mind boggling new way.
First, I would not try to fly in an area full of dozens of rats without a proper tank or without preparations for the ewar they use. That's just dumb. Even without using ewar you can expect some rat lovin, so going in with the intention of using modules that really, really get their attention is just brain dead rock stupid- which I am not.
Perhaps the problem is your lack of interest or respect for PvE. You don't understand the playstyle, costs, risks or other considerations, and so rather than learn you just want to be able to ignore it. That would be like me asking for my ship to be immune to player weapons fire because I don't want to deal with PvP.
I am not advocating for more ratter safety. I am advocating for a level playing field. What you want is stupid, selfish and unbalanced- especially to get such a huge advantage as a default for no effort.
You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance. You want to pretend like there is some mystical secret to your playstyle that makes it somehow morally superior or something. All you succeed in doing is prove yourself incapable of rational dialogue, especially with your juvenile references to sex and virgins. Oooh, yeah! That just made you cooler!
Quite the opposite, I move expensive ships through all areas of space on a regular basis. I know the effort required to travel safely and get where you are going even with very slow ships.
It's more like discussing baseball with someone who is not a fan, but lives with lots of superfans. It's impossible to play EvE without picking up PvP skills of some kind. You might take my lack of substancial lossess as more of a clue than a reason to discount any opinion I might voice. And really, I don't know that I have ever been to Motsu, try banging on another hub for a while. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1138
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:42:38 -
[292] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:we've been all over it 15 times in this thread and I learned that I dont want to argue pvp topics with a pve high sec bear because its like, well, talk about fking with a virgin... he knows the theory, yet noone would ever care about his opinion.
You simply CAN'T judge or evaluate any of pvp related aspects of this topic, nor do you accept the opinion of people who can, so why are you here? If you hunted ratters a bit, if you knew how much effort and skill it requires to get those kills you'd guaranteed feel differently about getting jammed and hammered by ******* NPC at that point after hours of hunt and see the ratter warping off and hear him laughing from under his POS force field.
So, go back to Motsu and talk to other mission runners about stuff you have an idea of. I'm not going to reiterate on anything once again. You want the add on PvE safety, you like rats quasi protecting you, I want the opposite, this is all what it boils down to.
Before you feel start feeling a little too tough and awesome, man up and come to wh space. I think you'll be able to recommend many many vast npc changes. You'll have WH space all fixed (risk averse friendly) in no time.
In wh space the last guy to appear on grid gets scrammed, nueted, webbed and whammed by every npc still standing. Those bastards don't care who you are, what you're in - they don't even ask why you're there - they just immediately go all in on you. Then they swap quickly to whatever you want them to target the least (yeah, they know).
It's BS mechanics like this that have ruined elite pvp in wh space. You have to bring a ship capable of completing the job you're trying to do - the game should obviously bend to allow any pilot in a solo piece of garbage.... errr garmur to to gank any player the come across risk free. I'm surprised the elite risk averse k-space gankers didn't address these crappy mechanics years ago.
(for the daft - this is sarcasm) |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:52:56 -
[293] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.
no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what. Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check.
Serendipity Lost wrote: Before you feel start feeling a little too tough and awesome, man up and come to wh space. I think you'll be able to recommend many many vast npc changes. You'll have WH space all fixed (risk averse friendly) in no time.
WH space? I should man up? For what "man up"? I dont like WH space because I would kill myself from constant probing after 2 days. Its completely different, its WH space, there is also no chat instantly showing everyone a bad guy or a group of them as they enter the room. Dont try to argument K-Space with anything from W-Space, this wont get you anywhere and you know it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
795
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:00:24 -
[294] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.
no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what. Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check.
Good job proving yourself a snickering 12 year old again.
What is really sad is even in your own examples you won those engagements.
PvE guy wants to shoot rats. You come along, and because tackle is a death sentence he runs off to hide. Your stated reason for this solo roam is to disrupt PvE. You did that- he can't shoot his rats, you win. For added injury you can now shoot his rats for more profit than you would have got from his wreck unless he was really blinged, and possibly still get your epeen stroked if he comes back in a combat ship to evict you. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:04:12 -
[295] - Quote
sure sure, I won them. After all, the main purpose of PvP and hunting PvEers is denting their isk/h graph for a little. Everyone knows. lmao. Your L4 agent seems busy. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1138
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:16:18 -
[296] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.
no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what. Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check. Serendipity Lost wrote: Before you feel start feeling a little too tough and awesome, man up and come to wh space. I think you'll be able to recommend many many vast npc changes. You'll have WH space all fixed (risk averse friendly) in no time.
WH space? I should man up? For what "man up"? I dont like WH space because I would kill myself from constant probing after 2 days. Its completely different, its WH space, there is also no chat instantly showing everyone a bad guy or a group of them as they enter the room. Dont try to argument K-Space with anything from W-Space, this wont get you anywhere and you know it.
I underestimated your awesomeness. You truly do have a prepared canned response to everything. (I don't want to fly in W-space anyway..... giggle) Maybe once you make rats risk averse friendly you could go to work on scanning and make that 'better' too.
Please, come to wh space and help us fix the broken npc mechanics.
WE NEED YOU !!! SAVE US MARK HADDEN - YOU'RE OUR LAST HOPE. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:21:24 -
[297] - Quote
No, I dont want to live in WH space. Whats your point? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
796
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:23:47 -
[298] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:sure sure, I won them. After all, the main purpose of PvP and hunting PvEers is denting their isk/h graph for a little. Everyone knows. lmao. Your L4 agent seems busy.
That was your argument not mine. Remember that whole self righteous claim that bears are too safe and need your npc subsidized hunting to keep the Isk faucets in check? Personally I think you are just a sociopathic idiot without a clue of what a balanced mechanic would look like, reaching for any excuse you think will bamboozle some even bigger idiot to agree with you.
The point is from the other perspective you got your win. Stick around long enough and you will even inflict more harm than just popping his hull would have done.
I suppose the fundamental idea of fighting for resources in game vs. Just ganking for tears escapes your limited understanding. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1138
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:50:13 -
[299] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:No, I dont want to live in WH space. Whats your point?
I don't want npc mechanics changed so risk averse kiters flying garbage.... err garmurs can conduct 'pvp' with zero risk. I want to jar some of your 'belt rats are too dangerous' tears. I enjoy your awesomeness!
(I guess I have 3 points)
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
797
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:56:42 -
[300] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:No, I dont want to live in WH space. Whats your point? I don't want npc mechanics changed so risk averse kiters flying garbage.... err garmurs can conduct 'pvp' with zero risk. I want to jar some of your 'belt rats are too dangerous' tears. I enjoy your awesomeness! (I guess I have 3 points)
No, you just don't get it. Or you are lying. Somehow.
It has to directly benefit him or else there is no balance. Just being neutral isn't an option, clear bias for his ship must be present. |
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
900
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:00:37 -
[301] - Quote
That probably has come up already in this thread, but there it is anyway.
I'll try to play devil's advocate here and say that in the end rats, for the most part, are resource to be harvested with adequate tools. Although instead of binary evaluation of said tool by game mechanics (for example: is this mining laser? yes, you can gather your ore), adequacy is tested in combat (can you deal this DPS and not be toasted in the process? here's yor ISK and loot opportunity).
So, if we treat it like that (and I guess not many people would object if we are talking about practical matters), is it really a good idea that we currently have almost-rocks defending almost-miners in case someone jumps the latter?
Of course, abstract principle is not the only concern, there may be others, like "do we want ratting/ganking easier/harder in practice?", but there's that. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:08:44 -
[302] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: That was your argument not mine. Remember that whole self righteous claim that bears are too safe and need your npc subsidized hunting to keep the Isk faucets in check?
sure I remember, that was my claim. I want the mechanics fixed.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Personally I think you are just a sociopathic idiot without a clue of what a balanced mechanic would look like, reaching for any excuse you think will bamboozle some even bigger idiot to agree with you.
"a game designer Mike Voidstar reporting from motsu"?
Mike Voidstar wrote: The point is from the other perspective you got your win. Stick around long enough and you will even inflict more harm than just popping his hull would have done.
I suppose the fundamental idea of fighting for resources in game vs. Just ganking for tears escapes your limited understanding.
again "a game designer from motsu". dent in your isk/h curve is not the same as risk I was referring earlier in this thread.
Serendipity Lost wrote: I don't want npc mechanics changed so risk averse kiters flying garbage.... err garmurs can conduct 'pvp' with zero risk. I want to jar some of your 'belt rats are too dangerous' tears. I enjoy your awesomeness!
(I guess I have 3 points)
whats your point again? You wanna troll? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
401
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:39:22 -
[303] - Quote
Can confirm stupidity tank unbreakable.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
797
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:53:44 -
[304] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:That probably has come up already in this thread, but there it is anyway.
I'll try to play devil's advocate here and say that in the end rats, for the most part, are resource to be harvested with adequate tools. Although instead of binary evaluation of said tool by game mechanics (for example: is this mining laser? yes, you can gather your ore), adequacy is tested in combat (can you deal this DPS and not be toasted in the process? here's yor ISK and loot opportunity).
So, if we treat it like that (and I guess not many people would object if we are talking about practical matters), is it really a good idea that we currently have almost-rocks defending almost-miners in case someone jumps the latter?
Of course, abstract principle is not the only concern, there may be others, like "do we want ratting/ganking easier/harder in practice?", but there's that.
The argument falls through when you discuss the almost rock *defending* your almost miner. The almost rock isn't defending anything, it's acting according to it's nature in a completely neutral manner. To keep your analogy going, the Almost Rock is dangerous to be around, more so when you use Ewar around it. The nature of the danger is well known to all and sundry, and the OP and his pet lobotomy victim want the danger changed so it only affects your almost miner. Not an adjustment to more evenly balance the danger, not a mechanic where they can earn that immunity... they just want the game to default that they don't' have to deal with that danger at all while their enemy does.
Lacking any sort of clear justification for such a change, the vast majority of folks simply dismiss the idea as ludicrous. The overall poor reasoning skills displayed by the ideas most ardent defenders has squashed any realistic discussion of how to make this harebrained idea less stupid. Your own analysis is the most clear sighted, and it's reliance on insisting the rats defend the ratter makes it an ineffective argument at best. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
352
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:02:45 -
[305] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.
no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what. Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check. Loving the way you immediately dismiss someone because the character they post with on these forums essentially has no kill board. Wondering if the EvE reality of many accounts, many characters has even entered your mind. Perhaps the character Mike Voidstar has no kill board, does that mean the person who owns that account/character has no PvP experiences? Your assuming that the person behind the character Mike Voidstar has no PvP experience and to that I have to say. When you assume you make an "ass" out of "umption" and he has enough problems with a name like that. No this is not original I read it in a thread a long time ago but it seems appropriate here. All credit to the original poster of this tid bit I just wish I could remember the name to give proper credit.
Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.
1. In times past rats never changed aggro. 2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types. From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way.
Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.
Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think. And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it. And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.
In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here. "Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
797
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:20:02 -
[306] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.
no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what. Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check. Loving the way you immediately dismiss someone because the character they post with on these forums essentially has no kill board. Wondering if the EvE reality of many accounts, many characters has even entered your mind. Perhaps the character Mike Voidstar has no kill board, does that mean the person who owns that account/character has no PvP experiences? Your assuming that the person behind the character Mike Voidstar has no PvP experience and to that I have to say. When you assume you make an "ass" out of "umption" and he has enough problems with a name like that. No this is not original I read it in a thread a long time ago but it seems appropriate here. All credit to the original poster of this tid bit I just wish I could remember the name to give proper credit. Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument. 1. In times past rats never changed aggro. 2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types. From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way. Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this. Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think. And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it. And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet. In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here. "Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act.
To be fair, I did admit that this is my main, and I don't have alts. The reason I don't have a killboard history is because I don't participate in any killboards, and rarely come into conflict with those that do.
He also does have the right to suggest changes in F&I like anyone else. It's just sad that neither Robert nor Wolf can justify the change with anything other than "I want it" and can only defend the idea with "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you!!". |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:47:19 -
[307] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.
1. In times past rats never changed aggro. 2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types. From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way. you attest CCP the knowledge and foresight about gamechanges they ever commited and thus being always right? Are you for real? Honestly. They changed it for PvE's sake and broke PvP rather unintentionally. Because I cant and dont believe the consequence of NPC protecting the farmer were intentional, since CCP had no reason or whatsoever to make already safe thing even safer of that magnitude.
Donnachadh wrote:Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.
Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think. I dont really care - we can complain nonetheless, cant we? Ratters whined and stil whine about cloakers occupying their farming corners.
Donnachadh wrote:And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it. oh really? then you probably can tell me a reason why they would add a huge chunk of safety for farmers where it wasnt needed at all - and reduce amount of pvp (a really simple conclusion, was explained on first pages) in same time? Why would that be good? I cant think of a reason, really not.
Donnachadh wrote:And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.
In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here. "Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act. I adapted by not doing it anymore. And who knows how long I will pay for this game at the pace CCP is removing content, but thats not a subject of this topic. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1952
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:58:21 -
[308] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: you attest CCP the knowledge and foresight about gamechanges they ever commited and thus being always right? Are you for real? Honestly. They changed it for PvE's sake and broke PvP rather unintentionally. Because I cant and dont believe the consequence of NPC protecting the farmer were intentional, since CCP had no reason or whatsoever to make already safe thing even safer of that magnitude.
If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know... It's not like some PvE dude was going to find some game breaking flaws making PvE encounter as long has he help point on his alt and thus needed the rats to target those point users...
They could of made it random with a diceroll every few seconds but they decided that instead, E-war had the potential to generate a hard switch. Is this really in the realm of unintended consequence? |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:10:15 -
[309] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know...
but, why would they want that?? I mean ratting was safe enough already, why would they make it even safer and implement a NPC counter to pvp in complexes?
I mean you should know what happens if you solo tackle something inside guristas anomaly? You'd be instantly jammed and probably miss your target. Scouts in ceptors get jammed all the time and miss killmails. Why whould rats need to quasi protect the farmer that way? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1952
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:52:17 -
[310] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know...
but, why would they want that?? I mean ratting was safe enough already, why would they make it even safer and implement a NPC counter to pvp in complexes? I mean you should know what happens if you solo tackle something inside guristas anomaly? The chance of getting jammed and probably missing your target are pretty damn high. Scouts in ceptors get jammed all the time and miss killmails, pushing Guristas in the top rank of best rats in the game, followed by serpentis who will only damp you to **** and all the others who'd just tracking disrupt, target paint and neut your ship (not that severe as disruptor doesnt need much cap) -drones not doing any ewar afaik, worst from all. But the question stands, why would CCP want rats to quasi protect the farmer that way?
I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.
Only CCP can ever answer why they though it made sense for rats to switch so consistently on those e-war application. For all I know, it was a plot to force you to run in groups but what the hell do I know? Just as much as you on this to be honest. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:00:08 -
[311] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.
its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences.
Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1143
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:06:59 -
[312] - Quote
I was confused as to how this could keep going, but then I remembered something from the past that kind of explains all of this. I doubt any of the voices you will hear are this lad, but it is from the pond he swims in.
For your listening pleasure please do the following:
1. Open Google 2. Type in: eve online armor hacs 3. Push play 4. Enjoy
I think this will tie things up neatly for a lot of folks. It must be an alliance thing!?!?? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1953
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:11:03 -
[313] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.
its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences. Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog.
How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:20:24 -
[314] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.
Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
798
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:28:12 -
[315] - Quote
For one thing, those PvE activities aren't that safe. They may not die in the easy and cheap way you would prefer, but they die all the time, even to solo hunters.
Secondly, yet again, Those activities are not balanced by the presence of gankbears in cheap ships. Creating a need for bigger ships that require more minerals to produce is a vastly more productive balance on the economy, and provides a less frustrating situation for the PvE pilot as well. ISK only gets destroyed when you purchase something from an NPC--- not a terribly common occurrence in the game. Mineral Value dies every time something explodes, and that helps drive the economy.
As for the heat from tackling someone in an anomaly filled with rats... it's not a death sentence with the proper preparation. Your target is doing it, and so can you. I will say it again---the real problem is that your target has no motivation to fight you for anything there. If he did, you would find your fight, but you would not like that either as he would likely be prepared to fight rather than flee.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
335
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:30:34 -
[316] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:we've been all over it 15 times in this thread and I learned that I dont want to argue pvp topics with a pve high sec bear because its like, well, talk about fking with a virgin... he knows the theory, yet noone would ever care about his opinion.
You simply CAN'T judge or evaluate any of pvp related aspects of this topic, nor do you accept the opinion of people who can, so why are you here? If you hunted ratters a bit, if you knew how much effort and skill it requires to get those kills you'd guaranteed feel differently about getting jammed and hammered by ******* NPC at that point after hours of hunt and see the ratter warping off and hear him laughing from under his POS force field.
So, go back to Motsu and talk to other mission runners about stuff you have an idea of. I'm not going to reiterate on anything once again. You want the add on PvE safety, you like rats quasi protecting you, I want the opposite, this is all what it boils down to. See, here is where you are wrong. Again. In an almost mind boggling new way. First, I would not try to fly in an area full of dozens of rats without a proper tank or without preparations for the ewar they use. That's just dumb. Even without using ewar you can expect some rat lovin, so going in with the intention of using modules that really, really get their attention is just brain dead rock stupid- which I am not. Perhaps the problem is your lack of interest or respect for PvE. You don't understand the playstyle, costs, risks or other considerations, and so rather than learn you just want to be able to ignore it. That would be like me asking for my ship to be immune to player weapons fire because I don't want to deal with PvP. I am not advocating for more ratter safety. I am advocating for a level playing field. What you want is stupid, selfish and unbalanced- especially to get such a huge advantage as a default for no effort. You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance. You want to pretend like there is some mystical secret to your playstyle that makes it somehow morally superior or something. All you succeed in doing is prove yourself incapable of rational dialogue, especially with your juvenile references to sex and virgins. Oooh, yeah! That just made you cooler! Quite the opposite, I move expensive ships through all areas of space on a regular basis. I know the effort required to travel safely and get where you are going even with very slow ships. It's more like discussing baseball with someone who is not a fan, but lives with lots of superfans. It's impossible to play EvE without picking up PvP skills of some kind. You might take my lack of substancial lossess as more of a clue than a reason to discount any opinion I might voice. And really, I don't know that I have ever been to Motsu, try banging on another hub for a while.
See this is why you cant be taken seriously. That stuff you wrote is just bullshit but you arent good enough at this game to understand why it is and hence argueing about it with you is pointless and its going in circels forver and it that makes me sad. (or you are a very good troll)
I mean just look at that first paragraph and tell me that any semicompetent eve pilot doesnt immeditaly get why that is utter nonsense. Its a experience thing.
And no one in this game respects pve, its a joke that can be done by brainless people. Sure optimal lvl 4 misison triggers and so on takes experience (although 0 piloting skill) but seeing as if you do lvl4s you are terrible at the game anyways (due to their appalling isk/h). I mean the ages of 3bil/h times are over but if you cant break 500mil/h or so you seriously should reconsider your playstyle. Dont look at pvpers and think you are actually better at pve then they are, their losses have to be payed by something and for most people it sure as hell isnt selling plex. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1144
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:40:15 -
[317] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later. Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?
I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:41:07 -
[318] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:For one thing, those PvE activities aren't that safe. They may not die in the easy and cheap way you would prefer, but they die all the time, even to solo hunters. PvE is safe, was safe enough if you arent idiot - otherwise there werent thousands of ratters across 0.0 even pre-Retribution. But how would you know it as high sec mission runner squatter. Right. You couldnt...
Mike Voidstar wrote: Secondly, yet again, Those activities are not balanced by the presence of gankbears in cheap ships.
yet again, I dont know how you'd relate my statement about gankbear balance, my statement is completely unrelated and stands for itself. Changed PvP mechanics which make it harder to gank ratters consequently removes pvp, this is a logical conclusion you cant deny. Not everyone (majority in this case) dont bother anymore trying solo -> removed pvp. This conclusion is actually totally obvious for any half brained human with a little sense of logic. Thats what I say, why was this huge chunk of additional safety justified?
Mike Voidstar wrote: Creating a need for bigger ships that require more minerals to produce is a vastly more productive balance on the economy, and provides a less frustrating situation for the PvE pilot as well.
not if people stop or significantly reduce solo roaming, which happened. Apart of that, an exploded ratting raven needed minerals to replace too, silly argument. Less frustrating? Not as frustrating as its for hunters now who lose tackle on hard earned kills by broken NPC.
Mike Voidstar wrote:ISK only gets destroyed when you purchase something from an NPC--- not a terribly common occurrence in the game. Mineral Value dies every time something explodes, and that helps drive the economy. another argument why these mechanics are bad. less ratters explode.
Mike Voidstar wrote:As for the heat from tackling someone in an anomaly filled with rats... it's not a death sentence with the proper preparation. Your target is doing it, and so can you. I will say it again---the real problem is that your target has no motivation to fight you for anything there. If he did, you would find your fight, but you would not like that either as he would likely be prepared to fight rather than flee.
I will say it again, go back to your missions and leave this topic you arent qualified for, not a bit. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1953
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:48:19 -
[319] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:
Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?
What exactly could of been wanted by CCP beside rats swapping aggro on E-war usage when they coded hard switch of aggro on e-war usage?
This is not unintended. As long as people like you keep saying it might be unintended, I will put a value of "bullshit" on your argument because you flat out don't make sense.
It's not about it being un-tested and containing something bad, it's a hard switch which mean they had to insert different value for those modules since attacking a target with guns for example does not trigger such drastic change.
It was wanted by CCP when it was done. Now all you can do is hope they ever say WHY it was wanted or keep being delusional in your though of how this happened by accident. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
798
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:51:38 -
[320] - Quote
Your entire hunting style depends on ratters needing to flee rather than fight. If they had a reason to stay they would be ready to fight and everyone would have more fun, unless you were a whining child that only has fun when the other guy explodes.
Your entire schtick about ratters being to safe relies upon the false notion that they require your cheap ships killing them on a regular basis to balance them. They don't.
People stopped roaming the way you want, they didn't stop roaming all together. Most people adapted and moved on with their lives. Those PvE pilots didn't stop dying, they just die in different ways. Perhaps they die a little less often, but that's healthy for the game if its made up by hunters dying a little more often, which apparently they do judging from the sheer volume of your tears and bile.
Less ratters explode, more hunters explode, balance and health of the game is maintained. PvP experience of PvE pilots is improved by the perception of less cheap deaths. Seems all positive from here.
I will leave the topic when it sinks to the bottom of the forums where it belongs. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:54:28 -
[321] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: What exactly could of been wanted by CCP beside rats swapping aggro on E-war usage when they coded hard switch of aggro on e-war usage?
web on rats, target painter, ECM on rats maybe? Who knows.
Frostys Virpio wrote: This is not unintended. As long as people like you keep saying it might be unintended, I will put a value of "bullshit" on your argument because you flat out don't make sense.
you still failed to provide any argument why making PvE safer would make sense from CCPs perspective, apart of "because they put it there", which is obviously a fallacy as I explained above.
Frostys Virpio wrote: It's not about it being un-tested and containing something bad, it's a hard switch which mean they had to insert different value for those modules since attacking a target with guns for example does not trigger such drastic change.
they also coded whole teams feature and SHIFT-DEL'd it one release later. so what?
Frostys Virpio wrote: It was wanted by CCP when it was done.
lol. Oh well. actually I'd like to leave this stunning quote uncommented |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
335
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:00:59 -
[322] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later. Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree? I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1.
Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:03:02 -
[323] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Your entire hunting style depends on ratters needing to flee rather than fight. If they had a reason to stay they would be ready to fight and everyone would have more fun, unless you were a whining child that only has fun when the other guy explodes. its how this game works, you usually catch and "fight" who doesnt want it, because a fight without a mountain of advantage over your victim is untypical for eve, its not only about ganking ratters. This is how eve works and always worked, but a mission runner ofc couldnt know that.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Your entire schtick about ratters being to safe relies upon the false notion that they require your cheap ships killing them on a regular basis to balance them. They don't.
they dont? Risk vs. reward is a common equation in this game and PvPer are part of risk. Why do you think its different. CCP removed a chunk of risk but left rewards untouched. This is why I question their reasoning behind the change and more of safety - imo it wasnt required.
Mike Voidstar wrote: People stopped roaming the way you want, they didn't stop roaming all together. Most people adapted and moved on with their lives. Those PvE pilots didn't stop dying, they just die in different ways.
never disputed the fact that they still die. But they die less, concludent from less pvp as I pointed out in my prev. post. Thats all about - if its less, pvp got removed from a PvP oriented game.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Perhaps they die a little less often, but that's healthy for the game if its made up by hunters dying a little more often, which apparently they do judging from the sheer volume of your tears and bile. PvP was always a more risky thing than undocking and farming anomaly. What required this drastic shift toward even more risk for PvPer (or removed content, depends whether you wanted to "adapt" to broken NPC) in the favor of the ratter? I cant see any.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Less ratters explode, more hunters explode, balance and health of the game is maintained. PvP experience of PvE pilots is improved by the perception of less cheap deaths. Seems all positive from here.
not more hunters explode, many gave up. Less ships explode in total.
[quotwerwere=Mike Voidstar] I will leave the topic when it sinks to the bottom of the forums where it belongs.[/quote]
go back to motsu |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
798
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:21:36 -
[324] - Quote
Catching unwilling prey and making a kill (the way you want it isn't a fight) may be how it works now. You are advocating change, and I am attempting to point you in a more productive direction for that change. That's how this whole discussion thing works, but I guess I was hoping for too much from a short bus rider like yourself.
CCP has far better controls for any and all activities than the toxic playstyle you advocate. Any mechanic that is only fun for half or less of the games population is a poor one that needs revising. They appear to have seen that and made appropriate revision. They changed the risk, they didn't remove it.
They still die. You can't prove they die less, you are attempting to infer that from the assumption of less pvp, which you also can't prove and merely infer because you can't adapt. PvP may not be happening the way you want, but it's still happening. I am sure there is a link to the yearly reports of how many ships of which types die... a little work might prove your claim, but I doubt you have either the acumen or the ambition to actually formulate a real argument. If you did you would find me in complete agreement with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that PvP in EVE is dying would require something monumental.
Farming Anomalies has a substantially higher bar to entry in both skill and raw cost than PvP, especially of the type you are advocating. Perhaps they felt that the situation was unbalanced and decided to balance out the investment required to enter those areas?
I am going to assume you meant not less hunters (you said ratters, which was not at issue) explode, they gave up, and less ships total exploding. Again, you will need to cite something more concrete than your anecdotal hysteria.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1145
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:34:55 -
[325] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later. Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree? I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1. Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh.
LOL that's my goto ship right now. I prefer the sleipnir, but for dual boxing random wh stuff the orthrus is awesome. Throw an XL ASB on it and go go go. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
335
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:53:15 -
[326] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later. Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree? I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1. Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh. LOL that's my goto ship right now. I prefer the sleipnir, but for dual boxing random wh stuff the orthrus is awesome. Throw an XL ASB on it and go go go.
So why do you fly the most op ship in the game and hate on the garmur every single time. Orthrus is way more risk averse. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:01:15 -
[327] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Catching unwilling prey and making a kill (the way you want it isn't a fight) may be how it works now. You are advocating change, and I am attempting to point you in a more productive direction for that change. That's how this whole discussion thing works, but I guess I was hoping for too much from a short bus rider like yourself. what are you talking about? If I catch a buzzard with a sabre it isnt a fight. If I find a ratting carrier and drop with 30 friends on it, it isnt a fight. This is how it works and why people play it, if I want a proper 1 vs. 1 fight I play some FPS game, mkay??
Mike Voidstar wrote: CCP has far better controls for any and all activities than the toxic playstyle you advocate.
I dont advocate it, it is the prevalent eve style, how could you miss THAT, even as mission runner for 6 years of playing, holy batman.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Any mechanic that is only fun for half or less of the games population is a poor one that needs revising. losing is never fun, regardless who, where or why!!! Whats you point?
Mike Voidstar wrote:They appear to have seen that and made appropriate revision. They changed the risk, they didn't remove it. they "changed" it? May I ask in what direction? They certainly didnt increase it, thus they reduced it, completely correct! Question is now, why. There was no reason I am aware of. More safety for ISK farmers is really last thing we needed.
Mike Voidstar wrote: They still die. You can't prove they die less, you are attempting to infer that from the assumption of less pvp, which you also can't prove and merely infer because you can't adapt.
I cant prove it because there is no way to query killboards properly for this type of kills, I can only deduce it from logics, my experience and hear&say.
Raised requirements for taking down a target in anomaly solo -> heavier gear heavier gear means easier to catch by hostiles -> more risk heavier gear also means -> more expensive heavier gear also means -> less chance to catch prey because slower Since there are always players not willing or not able to overcome a higher barrier/hurdle for their playstyle we can safely assume that the only result from "less chance of success" + "more risk and cost" must be "less pvp". All right? I dont think you will be able to argue one of these points. From my experience tons of people have fallen under said barrier, for whom content was removed from the game.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:02:13 -
[328] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: PvP may not be happening the way you want, but it's still happening. I am sure there is a link to the yearly reports of how many ships of which types die... a little work might prove your claim, but I doubt you have either the acumen or the ambition to actually formulate a real argument. If you did you would find me in complete agreement with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that PvP in EVE is dying would require something monumental.
like I said, a real proof would be kill statistics, which is however not possible with killboards, we got.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Farming Anomalies has a substantially higher bar to entry in both skill and raw cost than PvP, especially of the type you are advocating. Perhaps they felt that the situation was unbalanced and decided to balance out the investment required to enter those areas?
what?? This is a blatant lie. Skill, which skill is required exactly? Cost, not at all. You can start farming with a poorly fitted Battleship, since there are small anomalies worth doing.
Mike Voidstar wrote: Again, you will need to cite something more concrete than your anecdotal hysteria.
again, I cant query killboards so no scientific proof possible for me, but I struggle to find good solo kills compared to pre-Retribution when there were plenty of.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
335
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:11:12 -
[329] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: what?? This is a blatant lie. Skill, which skill is required exactly? Cost, not at all. You can start farming with a poorly fitted Battleship, since there are small anomalies worth doing.
You can do them in t1 fitted cruisers or frigates, there is no entry requirement. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
798
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:36:31 -
[330] - Quote
The small ones that can be done in small ships should not also be giving you significant issues.
Bigger ones that make substantial isk require more skill, bigger ships, and are presumably what you guys are complaining about. |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
53
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:44:06 -
[331] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:The small ones that can be done in small ships should not also be giving you significant issues.
Bigger ones that make substantial isk require more skill, bigger ships, and are presumably what you guys are complaining about.
a little pvp requires multiple amount of skill of that, what farming a repetitive plex or anomaly can ever get. Moreover, you dont need a lot of ISK to get into pve, not at all. You can start farming small anomalies, even bigger ones can be done with ishtar or VNI, which is really an entry level drone boat. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:55:46 -
[332] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:The small ones that can be done in small ships should not also be giving you significant issues.
Bigger ones that make substantial isk require more skill, bigger ships, and are presumably what you guys are complaining about.
Its not limited to them, its all around ********, be it clone soldiers that cant be kited or besieged sites that isntapop frigates. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
354
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 19:08:13 -
[333] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:you still failed to provide any argument why making PvE safer would make sense from CCPs perspective, apart of "because they put it there", which is obviously a fallacy as I explained above. OK just taking a wild shot in the dark since I have no inside information about why CCP does the things they do but one rather important possibility that comes to mind is CASH. Please tell me that you know about CASH, the stuff a company needs to pay rent/mortgage, payroll, payroll taxes(if they have any in Iceland), equipment replacement and repair, electricity and the list goes on but I hope you get the point. And so there remains the possibility that CCP changed the rat AI simply to protect one of it's major sources of Cash. Remember I said I have no inside information, since there is no way for any of us to speak for CCP in this matter all we can do is speculate about something that MIGHT have been.
You look at the AI change and call foul and that it is stupid beyond belief and that it must be an unintended consequence because it makes no sense to you. However there is NO evidence that you can link to to prove your side of the debate because there is none, it is all personal opinion.
On the other side we have no hard evidence that we can link to prove that the outcomes of this change were intended. As in a court of law we do have circumstantial evidence on our side though. The rat AI change was brought forth to the test servers and the complaints began immediately from the gankers. CCP made so adjustments and put it back up on the test servers and the complaints continued. And so this cycle went for awhile and then choosing to completely ignore the complaints and the whining from the gankers CCP makes this AI a thing on Tranquility. Now fast forward more than a year and agin the complaints from some ganlers arises and puts us where we are at this moment.
Do I have evidence that proves beyond doubt that CCP intended the rat AI to work out the way it has - No I do not. But I do have the a fore mentioned circumstantial evidence and that is a far stronger indicator of what was intended than your personal opinions.
Can you complain about this, please be my guest I am having a lot of fun tilting at windmills. In fact I find the lyrics to this Gordon Lightfoot song and the words from the Cervantes novel coming to mind every time I read this topic. The story in the song and the book could be told about both sides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJB0nCv0qxk |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
798
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 19:11:02 -
[334] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:The small ones that can be done in small ships should not also be giving you significant issues.
Bigger ones that make substantial isk require more skill, bigger ships, and are presumably what you guys are complaining about. a little pvp requires multiple amount of skill from what farming a repetitive plex or anomaly can ever get. Moreover, you dont need a lot of ISK to get into pve, not at all. You can start farming small anomalies, even bigger ones can be done with ishtar or VNI, which is really an entry level drone boat.
While technically accurate, using lighter hulls on heavier content requires a much larger investment of training than just sitting in the hull.
You can get into PvP with a newbie frigate and a scram too, but that does not mean you will be wildly successful at it. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
54
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 19:27:54 -
[335] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: OK just taking a wild shot in the dark since I have no inside information about why CCP does the things they do but one rather important possibility that comes to mind is CASH. Please tell me that you know about CASH, the stuff a company needs to pay rent/mortgage, payroll, payroll taxes(if they have any in Iceland), equipment replacement and repair, electricity and the list goes on but I hope you get the point. And so there remains the possibility that CCP changed the rat AI simply to protect one of it's major sources of Cash. Remember I said I have no inside information, since there is no way for any of us to speak for CCP in this matter all we can do is speculate about something that MIGHT have been.
You look at the AI change and call foul and that it is stupid beyond belief and that it must be an unintended consequence because it makes no sense to you. However there is NO evidence that you can link to to prove your side of the debate because there is none, it is all personal opinion.
On the other side we have no hard evidence that we can link to prove that the outcomes of this change were intended. As in a court of law we do have circumstantial evidence on our side though. The rat AI change was brought forth to the test servers and the complaints began immediately from the gankers. CCP made so adjustments and put it back up on the test servers and the complaints continued. And so this cycle went for awhile and then choosing to completely ignore the complaints and the whining from the gankers CCP makes this AI a thing on Tranquility. Now fast forward more than a year and agin the complaints from some ganlers arises and puts us where we are at this moment.
Do I have evidence that proves beyond doubt that CCP intended the rat AI to work out the way it has - No I do not. But I do have the a fore mentioned circumstantial evidence and that is a far stronger indicator of what was intended than your personal opinions.
you might be onto something that they did it for money. But in case their strategy to attract ratters into 0.0 worked out, shouldnt they have nerfed ratting payouts somehow? Just for not screwing up eve economy by inflation completely? Theory which I doubt anyways, because ratters were doing great even pre-Retribution. I've seen these golden times, before they nerfed anomaly upgrades, null was full of ratters, even in every NPC null in venal was a (botter) ratting raven. |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
177
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 16:11:51 -
[336] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Because you are dying to that 1 target, togetther you have a chance. And sorry but that answer alone disqualifies you in my mind from beeing taken seriously in any pvp related topic.
Confirming you are just whining that you can't get easier kills on ratters.
Thanks for clarifying that for us. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1984
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 17:18:39 -
[337] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: On the other side we have no hard evidence that we can link to prove that the outcomes of this change were intended.
Sure having some offensive module (E-war) trigger hard swap while the rest does not happened by accident. The only way you can see it as not being intended is if you think there is a problem with how the code interpret in a wildly different way the application of a gun and the application of a scram for the reaction of the rats.
If it was not intended, the code sure is a huge mess even after being re-written to use the new AI.
Even letting aside if it was a good change or not, pretending it could be un-intended is a rather harsh evaluation of the coding capabilities of CCP... |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 17:55:00 -
[338] - Quote
Bah... It was dead. On something like page 3.
But yeah, unless for some reason every single effect that isn't dps but does affect another ship is somehow lumped all into a single catagory then it's pretty clear that certain effects were picked out for special rat love.
I can say from experience that nothing I can project from my ship that actually works on rats will keep me aggro for long, nor will things like reps and remote sensor boosting or tracking enhancing. I am not convinced it's that bad from scrams either, or you would see common PvE fits with them for use on drone boats. Plenty of guys would toss their girlfriends out an airlock if it would distract the AI from the drones. |
Big Cyc
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 22:14:59 -
[339] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/character/1640069201/ https://zkillboard.com/character/231585667/
Cry, Close, L2P both sides |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 13:48:12 -
[340] - Quote
What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1987
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 13:51:20 -
[341] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue.
How much is it outclassing and Ishtar or a VNI to use a Stratios? |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:00:33 -
[342] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue. How much is it outclassing and Ishtar or a VNI to use a Stratios?
Its a free win. A even fight vs a pvefit ishtar or vni would be a svipul/confessor or a slicer or crow. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:00:42 -
[343] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue.
WUT?
You are Outclassing a PvEr by bringing the same class? That's what we over in logic land call 'matching', not outclassing.
You realize you look worse and worse with every passing post? The bottom line here is that you are kicking up dust on a non-issue, because you want to be able to do everything with anything, no matter how little sense that makes and despite the fact that when you play a game with other live people you need balance or those other people won't play with you. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:05:02 -
[344] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue. WUT? You are Outclassing a PvEr by bringing the same class? That's what we over in logic land call 'matching', not outclassing. You realize you look worse and worse with every passing post? The bottom line here is that you are kicking up dust on a non-issue, because you want to be able to do everything with anything, no matter how little sense that makes and despite the fact that when you play a game with other live people you need balance or those other people won't play with you.
It just shows that you know nothing of pvp, a even fight is a 50/50 fight, a 100/0 fight isnt even. If you bring a ship that wins almost 100% of the time you outclass him, pvers suck a pvp and a normal stratios can easily wreck a pve ishtar or vni. Its orbit at 500 and go afk easy. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 14:43:20 -
[345] - Quote
we should stop argueing about PvP topics with mission runners like Mike. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1987
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:21:46 -
[346] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue. WUT? You are Outclassing a PvEr by bringing the same class? That's what we over in logic land call 'matching', not outclassing. You realize you look worse and worse with every passing post? The bottom line here is that you are kicking up dust on a non-issue, because you want to be able to do everything with anything, no matter how little sense that makes and despite the fact that when you play a game with other live people you need balance or those other people won't play with you. It just shows that you know nothing of pvp, a even fight is a 50/50 fight, a 100/0 fight isnt even. If you bring a ship that wins almost 100% of the time you outclass him, pvers suck a pvp and a normal stratios can easily wreck a pve ishtar or vni. Its orbit at 500 and go afk easy.
Heavy drones from an AFKtar would deal with a 500m orbitting stratios unless you tanked against his damage type which somehow also happen to be the one you need to tank to survive the rat in this site too. I wonder if those 2 fact are linked...
Fact is, someone just showed it was possible for a solo PvPer to hunt and kill ratters in sites which mean the rat aggro swap is not what has killed this gameplay. It reduced it by prevented paper fit from doing it but it's not impossible at all. I'm sure you can adapt if you get your fun out of hunting ratters. The options are there. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:26:42 -
[347] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue. WUT? You are Outclassing a PvEr by bringing the same class? That's what we over in logic land call 'matching', not outclassing. You realize you look worse and worse with every passing post? The bottom line here is that you are kicking up dust on a non-issue, because you want to be able to do everything with anything, no matter how little sense that makes and despite the fact that when you play a game with other live people you need balance or those other people won't play with you. It just shows that you know nothing of pvp, a even fight is a 50/50 fight, a 100/0 fight isnt even. If you bring a ship that wins almost 100% of the time you outclass him, pvers suck a pvp and a normal stratios can easily wreck a pve ishtar or vni. Its orbit at 500 and go afk easy. Heavy drones from an AFKtar would deal with a 500m orbitting stratios unless you tanked against his damage type which somehow also happen to be the one you need to tank to survive the rat in this site too. I wonder if those 2 fact are linked... Fact is, someone just showed it was possible for a solo PvPer to hunt and kill ratters in sites which mean the rat aggro swap is not what has killed this gameplay. It reduced it by prevented paper fit from doing it but it's not impossible at all. I'm sure you can adapt if you get your fun out of hunting ratters. The options are there.
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1987
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:44:37 -
[348] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant.
Your T1 ship is not the right tool for the job. It's a damn nice tool but not the right one.
Sorry but if the situation was reversed back to what it used to be, you would get a free kill if your participation was enough to tip over his tank or nothing because you would warp off when losing.
If you do a more random approach where rat can swap but without the hard swap from E-WAR, then you will be dealing with casino effect where it will sometime work and other you will get wrecked which will just lead to what it is now. You won't go because sometime, the whole damn thing is out of your control.
You either get in a situation where they don't react at all or one where you T1 fig gets wrecked because they will swap at some point or another. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:51:46 -
[349] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant.
The stupid in that statement really burns.
It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine.
Your entire threadnaught was about being unable to kill ratters because heavier ships could not make the trip and catch them, and lighter ships were shredded by the rats. Except that it's been shown that you can catch and kill in heavier hulls, and your own words talk about how there are t1 frigate ratters out there you could engage in lighter hulls.
Basically, you have nothing to cry about, because you can hunt in the hulls you want, so long as your targets are similar and you can survive the same space they are in, or you can hunt heavier prey in heavier ships. Diminishing Returns ensures that your investment need not match their investment at the upper end... I mean how much more can you want? |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:04:30 -
[350] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The stupid in that statement really burns.
It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine.
you have no clue about pvp, you gotta nothign to tell about - get out. Go back to Motsu missioning. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:44:39 -
[351] - Quote
Then why cry so hard?
If you can kill in a frigate, it should be all the easier in something heavier. If you can't catch a ratter, catch his defense. Or whatever.
Every argument you have made thus far just went up in smoke |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
185
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:12:12 -
[352] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:you have no clue about pvp, you gotta nothign to tell about what burns and what not.
you can kill a battleship with a frigate or destroyer under normal circumstances if caught, nbd - in a mission or anomaly you cant because of fking NPC which are quasi protecting it.. thats not right.
You have yet to say why it isn't right other than "I want easier kills flying cheap ships"
In the infamous words of video game history
"QQ" |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:23:31 -
[353] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Then why cry so hard?
If you can kill in a frigate, it should be all the easier in something heavier. If you can't catch a ratter, catch his defense. Or whatever.
Every argument you have made thus far just went up in smoke
a pvp advice from a mission runner with 0 kills on KB, always welcome. If I want a best raven L4 fit, I'd ask you.
your heavier stuff argument got covered 15 times already. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:12:20 -
[354] - Quote
Except you are so elite you can kill anything in a frigate without effort if no rats are there. There are kills proving that heavier stuff can catch prey, and I am sure with your elite skills you can either continue with your frigate of doom or be just as effective with a heavier hull.
You can't have it both ways, with rats not mattering and that they be utterly destroying your game at the same time. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:34:56 -
[355] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You can't have it both ways, with rats not mattering and that they be utterly destroying your game at the same time.
thats why we are asking for a change, to stop rats defending the farmers. |
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
668
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:56:05 -
[356] - Quote
I have removed a post with ASCII art.
Quote:13. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to "insert other game nameGÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:01:30 -
[357] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:
You can't have it both ways, with rats not mattering and that they be utterly destroying your game at the same time.
thats why we are asking for a change, to stop rats defending the farmers.
You have no justification. You can kill anything in a frigate already. You just said so.
Between your last few posts, and Wolf's last few posts, you have completely undermined every point you ever tried to make. |
Petre en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
185
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:03:08 -
[358] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:thats why we are asking for a change, to stop rats defending the farmers.
ISD, apologies for my ASCII facepalm. It seemed like the only intelligent response.
Mark - it is working as intended. Either get a ship or gang that can handle taking some damage from rats if you are hunting miners, grab a stealthy ship and wait for the rats to all die, or hunt somewhere else. All you are doing is trying to hunt people where you can get extra DPS from NPCs.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:10:46 -
[359] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You have no justification. You can kill anything in a frigate already. You just said so.
stop acting stupid or learn reading whole post. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:43:15 -
[360] - Quote
Of the two of us, at least I am only acting.
I read the whole post. All of them. I understand them completely.
You are just wrong. It's not your fault, you're just deficient. It's Ok. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 22:37:50 -
[361] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant.
The stupid in that statement really burns. It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine. Your entire threadnaught was about being unable to kill ratters because heavier ships could not make the trip and catch them, and lighter ships were shredded by the rats. Except that it's been shown that you can catch and kill in heavier hulls, and your own words talk about how there are t1 frigate ratters out there you could engage in lighter hulls. Basically, you have nothing to cry about, because you can hunt in the hulls you want, so long as your targets are similar and you can survive the same space they are in, or you can hunt heavier prey in heavier ships. Diminishing Returns ensures that your investment need not match their investment at the upper end... I mean how much more can you want?
No my entire thread was about how rat agressions swap make no sense and favor big ships way more then small ones. Also stop the retardation about investement, or you end up in the my tracking titan should roflstomp everything cause i risk so much. Isk inn that is irrelevant.
My issue with this is purely that if i undock in my home system and see a ratter in an anomaly in a ishtar (which has happened very often) i cant give him a gf in a svipul but that i have to gank him and that sites protect the ones running the sites which makes no sense. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 23:22:41 -
[362] - Quote
So you were lying about having to travel as well? You can't undock in your home system and get a kill from a guy already there without NPC help? You can't be bothered to bring an appropriate hull out of your hanger?
Eve may be a little too hard for you. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 23:29:16 -
[363] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:So you were lying about having to travel as well? You can't undock in your home system and get a kill from a guy already there without NPC help? You can't be bothered to bring an appropriate hull out of your hanger?
Eve may be a little too hard for you.
No that was never my point, although it is a valid one. Eve isnt to hard, it is to easy. I want to be able to have a hard fight and not a easy afk win, but i cant. But thats my personal problem with the system, it in itself is ********. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 06:12:10 -
[364] - Quote
Your logic does not follow.
Eve is too easy, so you want the rats to help you to make it harder?
These aren't the changes you need to accomplish your goal. Think objectively about what it really means to have a harder fight and you will realize that many things can change to give you more game, but getting help from the rats isn't one of them. If anything it makes your ganking harder and you should welcome that rat agro. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
907
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 06:30:15 -
[365] - Quote
Having more options is hardly what makes anything harder. If somehow you had to use "weaker" ship with no option to bring big and scary one, then that would be something... Arguably, this is how it works with ability to catch people though.
But then that would be making stuff easier for another side. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 07:13:34 -
[366] - Quote
mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them. |
Iain Cariaba
1608
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 08:54:40 -
[367] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them. Just as it's pointless to argue with Mark "give me easier ratter kills" Hadden.
You're both pointless to this discussion.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:56:01 -
[368] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them. Just as it's pointless to argue with Mark "give me easier ratter kills" Hadden. You're both pointless to this discussion.
no kill is easy, the most work/skill/risk is in the hunt itself. Just asking for rats not defending the ratter.
You should try that and come back here with some killmail links. |
Iain Cariaba
1608
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:21:04 -
[369] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them. Just as it's pointless to argue with Mark "give me easier ratter kills" Hadden. You're both pointless to this discussion. no kill is easy, the most work/skill/risk is in the hunt itself. Just asking for rats not defending the ratter. You should try that and come back here with some killmail links. Nah, when I PvP, I prefer hunting things that can actually fight back.
Oooh, you killed some poor sap who was tanked for a specific damage, and therefore stood zero chance at all against you. Big whoop. Puts you on the same rung as highsec suicide gankers.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1187
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:28:51 -
[370] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Nah, when I PvP, I prefer hunting things that can actually fight back.
I prefer hunting things that look like verified faction spawns dropping loot accordingly. If his ship is fit for fighting or no, that's entirely the other pilot's choice. Killing a ratting Gnosis with a tristan in his homesystem is still honourabru enough. (Couldn't have done that in guristas space, but drones go easy on your sensors) |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:44:41 -
[371] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: Nah, when I PvP, I prefer hunting things that can actually fight back.
in theory you prefer? Because basically all of your 315 total kills are from blob-pvp. Nothing wrong with it, I just wouldnt call them "hunting".
Or are you talking about targets who actually can fight back 1v20 like those? lmao, you are a true honorabru pvper https://zkillboard.com/kill/45145497/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/45615241/ or maybe this; 3v1 https://zkillboard.com/kill/45100693/ tru warrior
If you have no clue then stop making claims about easy kills.
Iain Cariaba wrote: Oooh, you killed some poor sap who was tanked for a specific damage, and therefore stood zero chance at all against you. Big whoop. Puts you on the same rung as highsec suicide gankers.
again, most effort is in the hunt itself, in not getting (w)reckt and finding/catching targets. But how would you know about that. |
Iain Cariaba
1608
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:56:01 -
[372] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: Nah, when I PvP, I prefer hunting things that can actually fight back.
in theory you prefer? Because basically all of your 315 total kills are from blob-pvp. Nothing wrong with it, I just wouldnt call them "hunting". Or are you talking about targets who actually can fight back 1v20 like those? lmao, you are a true honorabru pvper https://zkillboard.com/kill/45145497/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/45615241/ or maybe this; 3v1 https://zkillboard.com/kill/45100693/ tru warrior If you have no clue then stop making claims about easy kills. Iain Cariaba wrote: Oooh, you killed some poor sap who was tanked for a specific damage, and therefore stood zero chance at all against you. Big whoop. Puts you on the same rung as highsec suicide gankers.
again, most effort is in the hunt itself, in not getting (w)reckt and finding/catching targets. But how would you know about that. Oh look, more of your same old "you don't play exactly like I do, so your argument is invalid." Then again, when you can't put together a single coherent argument, I suppose you fall back on whatever works.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 11:04:23 -
[373] - Quote
no just negating your tru honorable pvp bullcr.. excuses, obviously. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
801
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 12:02:36 -
[374] - Quote
Confirming if it's not in the same place, same hull, with the same weapon, against the same enemy that Mark wants to cherry pick then nothing you present will be good enough. Unless you agree with him, then it's fine. If you don't agree him then you are obviously (sarcasm alert) trolling, ignorant, or stupid- no matter what.
If it's all about the hunt and not the kill, why worry about Npc damage? Right, because it's totally about the kill.
If it's about disrupting ratter income then why is disrupting ratter income not good enough? Right, because it's totally about the kill.
Everything comes back to cheap kills assisted by rat damage. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 12:15:39 -
[375] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Confirming if it's not in the same place, same hull, with the same weapon, against the same enemy that Mark wants to cherry pick then nothing you present will be good enough. Unless you agree with him, then it's fine. If you don't agree him then you are obviously (sarcasm alert) trolling, ignorant, or stupid- no matter what. no, its more like if you pretend to do honor pvp, your kill stats better be not mostly blob-pvp and ganks.
Mike Voidstar wrote: If it's all about the hunt and not the kill, why worry about Npc damage? Right, because it's totally about the kill.
If it's about disrupting ratter income then why is disrupting ratter income not good enough? Right, because it's totally about the kill.
yet again you fail to understand a basic 2 liner. I never wrote "its about the hunt", what I wrote was the most effort/skill/risk is in the hunt - but I guess you rather "misinterpret" it on purpose for another nonsense reply in lack of a better counter.
Mike Voidstar wrote: If it's about disrupting ratter income then why is disrupting ratter income not good enough? Right, because it's totally about the kill.
yes it is about the kill (never claimed anything else), otherwise we wouldnt talk about NPC aggro, obviously.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Everything comes back to cheap kills assisted by rat damage. yet again you have to show how those kills are "cheap kills" (they are not), you cant back up anything by yourself since this thread is not about high sec missions. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
359
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:30:38 -
[376] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:we should stop argueing about PvP topics with mission runners like Mike. And it is useless to try and debate with whiners who want to be handed easy kills "because I want them".
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:43:56 -
[377] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:we should stop argueing about PvP topics with mission runners like Mike. And it is useless to try and debate with whiners who want to be handed easy kills "because I want them".
oh, another PvEer shitposting about "easy kills". |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1991
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:45:14 -
[378] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant.
The stupid in that statement really burns. It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine. Your entire threadnaught was about being unable to kill ratters because heavier ships could not make the trip and catch them, and lighter ships were shredded by the rats. Except that it's been shown that you can catch and kill in heavier hulls, and your own words talk about how there are t1 frigate ratters out there you could engage in lighter hulls. Basically, you have nothing to cry about, because you can hunt in the hulls you want, so long as your targets are similar and you can survive the same space they are in, or you can hunt heavier prey in heavier ships. Diminishing Returns ensures that your investment need not match their investment at the upper end... I mean how much more can you want? No my entire thread was about how rat agressions swap make no sense and favor big ships way more then small ones. Also stop the retardation about investement, or you end up in the my tracking titan should roflstomp everything cause i risk so much. Isk inn that is irrelevant. My issue with this is purely that if i undock in my home system and see a ratter in an anomaly in a ishtar (which has happened very often) i cant give him a gf in a svipul but that i have to gank him and that sites protect the ones running the sites which makes no sense.
OMG, large ship have an advantage somewhere in this speed crazed game. This is obvioulsy game breaking.
Right tool for the job, stop trying to do everything in small ship, they are not the right tool for everything. They are pretty damn good tool but still not the right one for this one job of killing ships in anomaly. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:13:05 -
[379] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
And a startios easily tanks that, but nobodie ever doubted that pver/ratter can be killed. Thats not the issue, if i see a 2 month old caracal do a warpable anomaly i could take my curse and get a free kill with 0 issue, but i dont want that, thats boring is ****. What i want to to bring a t1 frigate and have a even fight, but due to how rats work i cant.
The stupid in that statement really burns. It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine. Your entire threadnaught was about being unable to kill ratters because heavier ships could not make the trip and catch them, and lighter ships were shredded by the rats. Except that it's been shown that you can catch and kill in heavier hulls, and your own words talk about how there are t1 frigate ratters out there you could engage in lighter hulls. Basically, you have nothing to cry about, because you can hunt in the hulls you want, so long as your targets are similar and you can survive the same space they are in, or you can hunt heavier prey in heavier ships. Diminishing Returns ensures that your investment need not match their investment at the upper end... I mean how much more can you want? No my entire thread was about how rat agressions swap make no sense and favor big ships way more then small ones. Also stop the retardation about investement, or you end up in the my tracking titan should roflstomp everything cause i risk so much. Isk inn that is irrelevant. My issue with this is purely that if i undock in my home system and see a ratter in an anomaly in a ishtar (which has happened very often) i cant give him a gf in a svipul but that i have to gank him and that sites protect the ones running the sites which makes no sense. OMG, large ship have an advantage somewhere in this speed crazed game. This is obvioulsy game breaking. Right tool for the job, stop trying to do everything in small ship, they are not the right tool for everything. They are pretty damn good tool but still not the right one for this one job of killing ships in anomaly.
And i disagree with that. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:24:26 -
[380] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: OMG, large ship have an advantage somewhere in this speed crazed game. This is obvioulsy game breaking.
Like W0lf pointed out, tracking **** were a thing too but were nerfed into the ground for a good reason.
Frostys Virpio wrote: Right tool for the job, stop trying to do everything in small ship, they are not the right tool for everything.
argumentation by self-evidence, hm? "Because small ship isn't the right tool for the job, its not right tool for the job."
This is exactly where we disagree and asking for change, to allow smaller ships to meaningful threaten isk farmers in backwaters, because small and covert ships are the only realistic "tool" we are able to field in said areas. Like it was for 10 years, prior CCPs catastrophic PvE AI "upgrade".
Frostys Virpio wrote:They are pretty damn good tool but still not the right one for this one job of killing ships in anomaly. thats exactly what we want to get fixed. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1992
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:56:28 -
[381] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: OMG, large ship have an advantage somewhere in this speed crazed game. This is obvioulsy game breaking.
Like W0lf pointed out, tracking **** were a thing too but were nerfed into the ground for a good reason. Frostys Virpio wrote: Right tool for the job, stop trying to do everything in small ship, they are not the right tool for everything.
argumentation by self-evidence, hm? "Because small ship isn't the right tool for the job, its not right tool for the job." This is exactly where we disagree and asking for change, to allow smaller ships to meaningful threaten isk farmers in backwaters, because small and covert ships are the only realistic "tool" we are able to field in said areas, especially after WH nerf in Aegis. Change it to something like it was functioning well for pretty much 10 years, prior CCPs catastrophic PvE AI "upgrade". Frostys Virpio wrote:They are pretty damn good tool but still not the right one for this one job of killing ships in anomaly. thats exactly what we want to get fixed.
You want to operate behind enemy line but think asking for a covert ship is asking too much. Sorry but I can't support this. Like I said before, it would require the change to a never swapping AI which is what CCP didn't like in the first place.
The issue is you can't say "we'll strike in the middle" on this change because your T3D and frigs will always die to an aggro-swap no matter if it's a hard one or a random one (ship change target at random for example so you can't only supertank one ship and the rest never get targetted). Your ship is not designed to survive in an enviroment with that much DPS on the field that could get applied to it. For it to "work" and let you use small ships, it absolutely has to work FOR YOU all the time. This is just plain stupid. The kill of course won't be free but I really don't think CCP want you to be able to just shrug off the presence of other ships on site beside your target.
Either both side of the PvP engagement has to be aware of what is included in his current environment or one side can entirely ignore it. It it start mattering for the hunter, I'm sorry but you have to have more tank than a frig or a T3D and CCP seem to want it to matter to the hunter too. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 15:20:43 -
[382] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:For it to "work" and let you use small ships, it absolutely has to work FOR YOU all the time. like it worked for over 10 years. "For me", maybe, but well everything else in a hostile area works against me, so I think its a fair deal to ask for at least NPC not to work against me too.
Frostys Virpio wrote:This is just plain stupid. The kill of course won't be free but I really don't think CCP want you to be able to just shrug off the presence of other ships on site beside your target. "shrug off" is a wrong expression IMO, better like "not have to bother about", at least until next spawn (like it was in old AI). Since I'm not the one who farms them all day I think its a fair deal. You farm them, you should get rekt by them at the first chance of help from a 3rd party.
Frostys Virpio wrote: Either both side of the PvP engagement has to be aware of what is included in his current environment or one side can entirely ignore it. It it start mattering for the hunter, I'm sorry but you have to have more tank than a frig or a T3D and CCP seem to want it to matter to the hunter too.
Thats I disagree with. Its simply too unrealistic to think that the hunter can bring a ship into deep ass enemy space, which is able to tank the site + be pvp fit on top, when hunting solo. Sure, here and there some few people in fact manage to survive in a heavy ship and even score a kill or two, but thats not a significant amount to say solo hunting is a viable thing post Retribution. You always need a gang, let alone because of gurista rats pretty safely jamming any solo ship coming into site, which is insanely ********. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 15:37:28 -
[383] - Quote
So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?
From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.
Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.
The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals. |
Iain Cariaba
1613
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:00:22 -
[384] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:no just negating your tru honorable pvp bullcr.. excuses, obviously.
I`m sure that TFI was totally fighting you back like a boss, in the first 2 seconds before it died. He's in a fleet, I'm in a fleet. I had just as much chance of being called primary by their FC as he did being called primary by my FC.
Oh, nevermind. My opinion on anything is invalid to you because I don't fly around in 5mil isk frigates looking to kill carriers.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
336
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:04:03 -
[385] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?
From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.
Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.
The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.
Agree. Rats should prioritize by threat, so remote reps>damage done to them>dangeous mods (mods that do nothing to them like scram/points should be ignored)>people on grid in general. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:11:27 -
[386] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: He's in a fleet, I'm in a fleet. I had just as much chance of being called primary by their FC as he did being called primary by my FC.
The TFI kill was a blackops gank judging from KB. Where is your "I seek targets which can fight back" honor pvp you mentioned earlier?
Iain Cariaba wrote:Oh, nevermind. My opinion on anything is invalid to you because I don't fly around in 5mil isk frigates looking to kill carriers. maybe you should just stop shitposting.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1992
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:24:26 -
[387] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?
From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.
Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.
The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.
The problem is if they still want to try in a frig and the rats has at least a chance of targetting him, he will get removed off the field and be unhappy because the odds randomly stacked against him. Frigate and T3D would not be any more viable since you could still get erased from grid anyway if you have a chance of triggering an aggro swap even if not a complete swap from a point.
Either the rats always keep shooting the PvEer or they don't which mean either the PvPer can ignore the rats as long as I don't get a trigger down or he can be effortlessly erased from the grid because his frig can't tank the site. There is no half choice since he want to do it with paper ships hence why I tell them that one way or another, the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with. Changing the trigger won't matter to hunter in frigs and dessies unless the trigger are made to never get touched by them and at that point, they might as well not exist. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:33:43 -
[388] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with.
we dont know, since CCP's AI upgrade was focused on PvE according to the devblog. |
Iain Cariaba
1614
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:36:14 -
[389] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote: The TFI kill was a blackops gank judging from KB. Where is your "I seek targets which can fight back" honor pvp you mentioned earlier?
Oh, I remember that one now. We dirty renters attacked a lone TFI in a belt when the group of us get hotdropped. Maybe you should look deeper into the battle report than just the single killmail, like how my corpmate died to the hotdroppers.
Mark Hadden wrote:maybe you should just stop shitposting and derailing. Noone asks for a frigate killing a carrier, exaggeration wont make your non-argument look better. Oh, you mean like this post?
Mark Hadden wrote:mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them. Or maybe this one?
Mark Hadden wrote:oh, another PvEer shitposting about "easy kills". Or how about this one?
Mark Hadden wrote:we should stop argueing about PvP topics with mission runners like Mike. I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1992
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:38:59 -
[390] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with. we dont know, since CCP's AI upgrade was focused on PvE according to the devblog.
They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess... |
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:42:45 -
[391] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?
From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.
Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.
The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals. The problem is if they still want to try in a frig and the rats has at least a chance of targetting him, he will get removed off the field and be unhappy because the odds randomly stacked against him. Frigate and T3D would not be any more viable since you could still get erased from grid anyway if you have a chance of triggering an aggro swap even if not a complete swap from a point. Either the rats always keep shooting the PvEer or they don't which mean either the PvPer can ignore the rats as long as I don't get a trigger down or he can be effortlessly erased from the grid because his frig can't tank the site. There is no half choice since he want to do it with paper ships hence why I tell them that one way or another, the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with. Changing the trigger won't matter to hunter in frigs and dessies unless the trigger are made to never get touched by them and at that point, they might as well not exist.
I think the view from certain people here is that they can't use their frigates / dessies because their point/scram is almost guaranteed to cause an aggro swap. If points didn't cause this then there's a chance they wouldn't get primaried but then again it is still only a chance. I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites. Most PvEers won't fit a point so if the rats do switch and your tank is failing nothing stops you from simply leaving and saying to yourself "hmm guess that won't work".
Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
328
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:49:18 -
[392] - Quote
I love the way the rats behave.
Back in Venal I used to love setting traps in the unrated plex 'Gurista Military Complex'. It's the only site I would actively let someone probe me down in.
I would ignore almost all rats in the first room, get near the next acceleration gate, hit the trigger and activate the gate immediately (before the scramming frigs get you).
Then I'd wait far from the entry beacon in the next room.
I had countless recon and t3 ships warp in to that first room, only to see a wreck show up on d-scan moments later rofl (first room bm'd for extra loot collection hehe).
And on the rare occasion someone did make it into the second room successfully, Boom. Used my other alt to hit the station and trigger an EMP bomb that usually instantly popped anything smaller than a cruiser.
Good times. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:01:29 -
[393] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.
no its not shitposting, just saying how pointless a pvp discussion is with a mission runner - its like you wanted to argue about fking with a virgin, you wouldn't really, would you?
Frostys Virpio wrote: They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...
they made ALL ewar to hard switch. All I can tell you is that you cant conclude intention solely from its presence.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860167#post5860167 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860410#post5860410
for the same idiotic "it must be right because its there"-narrative |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1992
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:03:44 -
[394] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1. no its not shitposting, just saying how pointless a pvp discussion is with a mission runner - its like you wanted to argue about fking with a virgin, you wouldn't really, would you? Frostys Virpio wrote: They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...
they made ALL ewar to hard switch. All I can tell you is that you cant conclude intention solely from its presence. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860167#post5860167 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860410#post5860410 for the same idiotic "it must be right because its there"-narrative
It must be wrong because I dislike it is such a great argument too...
At least I have the damn code supporting my point while all you have is your own crying. |
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:04:25 -
[395] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites. doesnt surprise me that a guy with 0 KB record agrees Mike and "others".
Mr Mieyli wrote:Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way. that would be a start |
Iain Cariaba
1614
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:13:09 -
[396] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:no, I presented arguments and reasons why I think its wrong and why I want a change. 1) it adds huge chunk of unneccessary safety to farmers 2) it removes pvp content my making it lots harder 3) rats defending the farmer doesnt make sense You presented arguments and reasons for these where, exactly? All you've provided is that you think it should be different, which is zero justification for it being changed back to the way it used to be.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:17 -
[397] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: You presented arguments and reasons for these where, exactly?
in this thread, where otherwise?
Iain Cariaba wrote: All you've provided is that you think it should be different, which is zero justification for it being changed back to the way it used to be. yes, I presented those reasons why I think it should get changed back. Like everyone else posting his opinion for changing game mechanics, is this new to you?
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:35:43 -
[398] - Quote
Mark Hadden wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites. doesnt surprise me that a guy with 0 KB record agrees Mike and "others". Mr Mieyli wrote:Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way. that would be a start Frostys Virpio wrote: It must be wrong because I dislike it is such a great argument too...
At least I have the damn code supporting my point while all you have is your own crying.
no, I presented arguments and reasons why I think its wrong and why I want a change. 1) it adds huge chunk of unneccessary safety to farmers for no real reason 2) it removes (solo) pvp content which very many of us enjoyed, my making it such harder and pushing it onto the brink of time waste (if not even far beyond that) 3) rats defending the farmer doesnt make sense
If you weren't so busy cherry-picking pieces of people's posts you might have noticed I have been supporting in this thread changes to make ratter hunting easier for you and others like you. This is obviously an alt of mine as I don't believe my name should affect how people see my posts however for the record I've lived in every type of space there is in eve and have done content from ratting to incursions to low-sec camps to null-sec fleets and hunting in WHs.
I agree with Mike but only to an extent; you can't expect to bring a frigate to everything and have success but making points not generate aggro would mean that you have a chance to get your solo kills. You can't argue for the old mechanics as they were broken for numerous other reasons and had to be changed. I do think that the PvP consequences may have been unintended but the old mechanics would now be 12 years old and as other people have said it was hilariously broken even PvE-wise, the new system is an improvement but not perfect as it might be limiting choice of ship for PvP too much.
PvE-ers would be happiest with the mechanics as they are now, several people in this thread would be happy with the old system. Would removing aggro from points be a compromise you'd be able to accept?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3038
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:39:57 -
[399] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote: Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.
Agreed, like a force recon which is supposed to be able to sneak behind enemy lines and disrupt things and look at the Arazu, one of its bonuses is for point range.
Complaining that you canGÇÖt warp in and an tackle a ratter in a T1 frig and let the rats do the bulk of your work for you is rather whiney, IMO. I could see changing the AI so the rats put smaller ships at a higher priority in their targeting AI.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:46:34 -
[400] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote: If you weren't so busy cherry-picking pieces of people's posts you might have noticed I have been supporting in this thread changes to make ratter hunting easier for you and others like you. This is obviously an alt of mine as I don't believe my name should affect how people see my posts however for the record I've lived in every type of space there is in eve and have done content from ratting to incursions to low-sec camps to null-sec fleets and hunting in WHs.
I'm not cherrypicking but try to focus my response to key parts of someones text.
for me, knowing if I argue with a pure mission runner like Mike or someone with a clue about the matter has a very big value for reasons I already stated many times here, thats why I check killboards.
Mr Mieyli wrote: I do think that the PvP consequences may have been unintended but the old mechanics would now be 12 years old and as other people have said it was hilariously broken even PvE-wise
fully agree, PvE wise. PvP-wise they were fine. If you farm red crosses all day long, you should expect a full load from them - not something totally unintuitive and ******** like protection, like it is now defacto.
Mr Mieyli wrote: PvE-ers would be happiest with the mechanics as they are now, several people in this thread would be happy with the old system. Would removing aggro from points be a compromise you'd be able to accept?
removing aggro switch from points would be a huge help, yes.
Teckos Pech wrote: Complaining that you canGÇÖt warp in and an tackle a ratter in a T1 frig and let the rats do the bulk of your work for you is rather whiney, IMO. I could see changing the AI so the rats put smaller ships at a higher priority in their targeting AI.
tbh, if 1) your alliance allows T1 frigate to spread terror in your space uncontested 2) you die to a T1 frigate disrupting you
you deserved that loss for being a clueless idiot. dont you think so? Such kills are one thing of many, which made this game so great initially! |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3038
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:03:03 -
[401] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Mark Hadden wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.
its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences. Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog. How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
Oh, I can call it unforeseen consequence. Look at how they initially introduced T2 into the game. Anybody with half a brain could see that it would cause prices for T2 to skyrocket and give people lucky enough to get a T2 BPC to have an isk printing machine. It was a huge advantage. And the results were as obvious as the text on this page because when you introduce something in a very limited supply to people then youGÇÖll get pricing that is way, way, way above (marginal) cost. It isnGÇÖt quite as bad as monopoly, but itGÇÖs the next worst thing. Further, depending on the number of T2 BPCs creating a cartel to mimic monopoly pricing is also possible.
Also look at technetium, IIRC, one player crunched the numbers and posted that it would become a bottleneck in production and the prices would spike. And look it did. And several coalitions did create a cartel very much like the real life OPEC (the in game cartel was named OTEC to bludgeon people over the head with the parallels).
By calling it unforeseen consequence I am being charitableGǪ.especially given that CCP had an economist working for them that could have told them these outcomes.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6095
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:28:08 -
[402] - Quote
Quote:Forum rules23. Post constructively.Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Closed.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |