Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 12:55:23 -
[151] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Lucky for you matey, someone who does know a little about links has already suggested a solution to this, its in the very first post in this very thread.
And it has already been explained why that solution won't work. Suspect timer so anyone anywhere can fire on a ship whether they were involved in the fight or not is bad mechanics, a weapons timer would make way more sense. Even in the case of a weapons timer it is not necessarily logical for some random guy in system to put a weapons timer on an alt just by firing on the main.
It makes much more sense for the links ship to have a spool up or a timer like cyno or entosis. Weapons aggro timers would cause issues for the pilot even under circumstances where the ship is being used for its intended purpose which is obviously not ideal. Although I would be OK with a weapons timer.
TLDR may proposed the most workable solution. Activating links modules should anchor the ship where it is for a set length of time. |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:59:51 -
[152] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:I think you will find that the vast majority of boosts are used at a gang/fleet level.
Fixing boosts to be 'fairer' for the small number of trusoloers out there to the detriment of a much larger number of people seems like a stupid proposition.
Sure, I'm not wanting a fix that doesn't work for fleets too. It's better if alpha fleets or large gangs can't volley smaller gangs off field.
But there is definately a better solution than what we have now where it works for fleets and not much thought has been given to smaller gangs and solo, particularly in low-sec. I don't know why you seem to think it has to be one extreme or the other?
Even if you were to force them on grid which I'm not expecting it doesn't hurt as many people as you're suggesting. Most fleets would be fine with that as long as everybody was bound by the same restriction.
It's just a pity in my opinion that if you want to compete in lowsec that you are required to have them now because so many of the people you will be fighting have them and that there's no counter to them.
Maybe in the future we could see areas of the game where they don't work or something so noobs/people that don't like them/ those that want to single box can still play. Maybe FW complex's being immune from link support or something which isn't unreasonable anyway considering some sites are supposed to be frig and destroyer hulls only. |
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:10:20 -
[153] - Quote
El Taron wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:I think you will find that the vast majority of boosts are used at a gang/fleet level.
Fixing boosts to be 'fairer' for the small number of trusoloers out there to the detriment of a much larger number of people seems like a stupid proposition. Sure, I'm not wanting a fix that doesn't work for fleets too. It's better if alpha fleets or large gangs can't volley smaller gangs off field. But there is definately a better solution than what we have now where it works for fleets and not much thought has been given to smaller gangs and solo, particularly in low-sec. I don't know why you seem to think it has to be one extreme or the other? Even if you were to force them on grid which I'm not expecting it doesn't hurt as many people as you're suggesting. Most fleets would be fine with that as long as everybody was bound by the same restriction. It's just a pity in my opinion that if you want to compete in lowsec that you are required to have them now because so many of the people you will be fighting have them and that there's no counter to them. Maybe in the future we could see areas of the game where they don't work or something so noobs/people that don't like them/ those that want to single box can still play. Maybe FW complex's being immune from link support or something which isn't unreasonable anyway considering some sites are supposed to be frig and destroyer hulls only.
Well requiring links to be on grid would already solve this for fw since the hulls can't get into smalls and novices.
It would still be an issue in non-fw areas though |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:22:12 -
[154] - Quote
Lots of fleet tactics require links to be effective even in a FW plex.
And having links on grid will certainly always favor the stronger side. Killing links would be like taking the bottom card from a card pyramid.
What you will end up with is an increase in the number of logistics, alpha fleets and blue balling the larger entities who will be in even less danger on field than they are now.
All so you can fix pvp for a few dozen whiney pilots who make an arbitrary decision to solo and yet feel entitled to fairness rather than any responsibility to make things fairer through their actions. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
662
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:52:53 -
[155] - Quote
Expecting solo fights in an MMO, is like expecting players not to scam in Jita. |
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:07:04 -
[156] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Lots of fleet tactics require links to be effective even in a FW plex.
And having links on grid will certainly always favor the stronger side. Killing links would be like taking the bottom card from a card pyramid.
What you will end up with is an increase in the number of logistics, alpha fleets and blue balling the larger entities who will be in even less danger on field than they are now.
All so you can fix pvp for a few dozen whiney pilots who make an arbitrary decision to solo and yet feel entitled to fairness rather than any responsibility to make things fairer through their actions.
So links will always favor the stronger side, but larger fleets without them will be in less danger somehow. And removing them would invalidate fleet compositions, but we would see more logi and more high alpha comps.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but contradicting yourself from sentence to sentence doesn't help you make your case.
Moreover all fleet comps would still be viable exactly as they are now. Only difference is the links would have to be on grid and/or at risk, depending on the solution used. They aren't being removed. |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:10:50 -
[157] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Lots of fleet tactics require links to be effective even in a FW plex.
And having links on grid will certainly always favor the stronger side. Killing links would be like taking the bottom card from a card pyramid.
What you will end up with is an increase in the number of logistics, alpha fleets and blue balling the larger entities who will be in even less danger on field than they are now.
All so you can fix pvp for a few dozen whiney pilots who make an arbitrary decision to solo and yet feel entitled to fairness rather than any responsibility to make things fairer through their actions.
I don't agree with a single bit of that but I'm getting tired of discussing this. We're not going to agree, this thread is meaningless anyway because CCP will do what they want and I don't even have faith in them bringing about the basic changes nearly everybody rational agrees is necessary. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:10:10 -
[158] - Quote
Im not sure what you disagree with, but on the basis that you have 2 kills in your eve life i can only assure you that these projections are very likely. |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:30:54 -
[159] - Quote
Haha you can't help yourself can you, if you're as clever as you seem to be trying to convince everybody you are, you would realise this is a forum alt. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
662
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:35:12 -
[160] - Quote
El Taron wrote:Haha you can't help yourself can you, if you're as clever as you seem to be trying to convince everybody you are, you would realise this is a forum alt.
Ironic. Using a forum alt to complain about a booster alt. |
|
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:36:53 -
[161] - Quote
Very, I'm gaining a massive advantage ingame .... |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:37:59 -
[162] - Quote
El Twokills Notanalt wrote:Haha you can't help yourself can you, if you're as clever as you seem to be trying to convince everybody you are, you would realise this is a forum alt.
Why hide your game identity then ask people to take you seriously? |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:49:39 -
[163] - Quote
What's my identity got to do with what I'm saying, either my points are valid or they're not. I can't even believe we're having this conversation considering how many people use alts on the forums. Whether I'm Garmon, Shadoo or a 1 day old noob, if the point is valid the point is valid.
Why should anybody who has so little confidence in what they're saying they feel to try and attack the credability of everybody with a different opinion be taken seriously either? |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:52:19 -
[164] - Quote
Points can be valid but still ill informed. I would suggest yours are the latter. Therefor your experience and perspective is actually important. |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:53:58 -
[165] - Quote
Well let's leave it it at I've got considerably more experience than your posting character, if you really want to go down that route. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:59:07 -
[166] - Quote
Dont see any evidence of that. |
El Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:59:55 -
[167] - Quote
That's fine, since it isn't important it doesn't matter. |
HiSecAlt
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:15:29 -
[168] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Dont see any evidence of that.
And I don't see any evidence that your "perceptions are very likely" either, since you are contradicting yourself from one sentence to another. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1479
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 21:48:24 -
[169] - Quote
HiSecAlt wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Dont see any evidence of that. And I don't see any evidence that your "perceptions are very likely" either, since you are contradicting yourself from one sentence to another.
For example? |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
662
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:49:33 -
[170] - Quote
Let me lay this out for you El Taron. You are complaining about people using OGBs and being risk adverse, yet by using a forum alt you are also being risk adverse. And before you ask, or make some remark about me doing the same; this is my main. |
|
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:41:50 -
[171] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Let me lay this out for you El Taron. You are complaining about people using OGBs and being risk adverse, yet by using a forum alt you are also being risk adverse. And before you ask, or make some remark about me doing the same; this is my main.
So just for clarification, you have run out of actual points/arguments to make for your case in keeping the system as it is and have defaulted to attacking the poster and/or his credibility as a last resort, right? |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1481
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 17:38:46 -
[172] - Quote
I dont think anyone in this thread has argued for keeping the system as it is. Not a single person afaik.
You seem to have the reading comprehension of a cabbage. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
535
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 19:01:55 -
[173] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Because getting beaten by 1 person with 2 accounts is totally different to getting beaten by 2 people with 1 account.
CCP have conducted a horrible bait and switch, getting people to play their game based on endless stories of fairness, kindness, honesty and balance then dropping mechanics like this on us.
Its just so unfair, UNFAIR!?!?!, IN MY EVE?!?!?!
IF YOU WANT TO MOVE YOUR DAMN SUPERCAP SOMEWHERE TO HYPERDUNK SOME GUY THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE A FRIEND WITH A 'CYNO MAIN'. You're still confusing the validity of ingame choices and tactics, including engaging in deceit and skullduggery, with a meta of "I am willing to spend more money on the game ergo I win." I don't care about you using a cyno alt to move your cap. There's really no way to get around some necessity of alts to do certain things in the game. But for me as a relatively new player to be told my choices, skill and knowledge ingame don't matter unless I participate in the arms race of alts; that's pretty ******. How many people do you think would not even pick up a 14 day trial if you told them they have to have minimum of two accounts to compete IN 1v1'S? FTFY. I think all newish players already do and always have realised that they will struggle against a much older player on a 1v1 level. Hopefully people join eve for the larger fights where even an atron can make a difference as per recent CCP marketing.
Of course newish players will struggle against older but they can attain near-parity as far as small ship SP goes in 6 months or so. And the SP system while different from other MMOs' progression schemes fits into people's general expectations of how an MMORPG works. Multiboxing a second/third account solely to provide a trump card in small scale engagements is something totally different and pretty alien to most people that are new to EVE because as far as I know it isn't permitted anywhere else.
My fundamental argument is that a proliferation of risk-averse multiboxing "solo" pvp'ers in lowsec inevitably leads to fewer small scale encounters. And it's those 1v1 and small scale fights that bring NEW players to lowsec.
This attitude of that some "elite pvp'ers" have that EVE is about cheating however you can to explode someone else's spaceship, is quite stupid when taken to extremes. It works exactly once per player on those who understand what's happening. You rely on the new and the dumb for your content. When the day comes that you can't find someone willing to undock and chase your 10k m/s garmur around, will you unsub? Or just retire to the 4-4 undock with an insta-loki?
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1481
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 19:06:06 -
[174] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Of course newish players will struggle against older
Then lets just abolish skillpoints? |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
535
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:26:34 -
[175] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Of course newish players will struggle against older
Let's not create/incentivize additional barriers of entry based on how much money a player is willing to invest in multiboxing
Makes alot more sense now, I think you'll find.
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1481
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:10:08 -
[176] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Of course newish players will struggle against older
Let's not create/incentivize additional barriers of entry based on how much money a player is willing to invest in multiboxing I abuse pigs.
Why? because you arbitrarily decided which barriers are ok and which arnt?
EVE is marketed as a multiplayer game. Most new players dont join and expect to be able to compete alone. Saddo purists who think that 'solo' is the holy grail do more to damage new players by giving them the impression that the game is unbalanced. When in reality, its just unfair, until you make it unfair in your favor. |
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 14:20:45 -
[177] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Of course newish players will struggle against older
Let's not create/incentivize additional barriers of entry based on how much money a player is willing to invest in multiboxing I abuse pigs. Why? because you arbitrarily decided which barriers are ok and which arnt? EVE is marketed as a multiplayer game. Most new players dont join and expect to be able to compete alone. Saddo purists who think that 'solo' is the holy grail do more to damage new players by giving them the impression that the game is unbalanced. When in reality, its just unfair, until you make it unfair in your favor.
Which is fine up until the point where the game becomes pay to win. Which having a second account does in fact perform the pay to win function rather well. |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
407
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 14:58:55 -
[178] - Quote
Legatus1982 wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Of course newish players will struggle against older
Let's not create/incentivize additional barriers of entry based on how much money a player is willing to invest in multiboxing I abuse pigs. Why? because you arbitrarily decided which barriers are ok and which arnt? EVE is marketed as a multiplayer game. Most new players dont join and expect to be able to compete alone. Saddo purists who think that 'solo' is the holy grail do more to damage new players by giving them the impression that the game is unbalanced. When in reality, its just unfair, until you make it unfair in your favor. Which is fine up until the point where the game becomes pay to win. Which having a second account does in fact perform the pay to win function rather well.
Multiple accounts is not pay to win. Pay to win implies paying real life money to make your in-game character more powerful than otherwise possible. It puts the play to win player on a different playing field. Nothing in Eve does that today. Buying ISK with PLEX and multiple accounts does give a player an advantage in that they have a built in wingman and don't have to grind isk as much. However, that advantage is easily overcome by anybody in the game who puts forward the effort to make friends or put in the time to grind isk.
There is a limit to how many accounts a multiboxer can handle (w/o something like isboxer). If I am running two accounts vs your 1, then I have the advantage. If you have 2 people vs my 2 accounts, then you have the advantage since you can fly better since my attention is split between 2 ships.
IMHO, the only problem with boosters is that people are using them as a hidden advantage to claim they are "better" when they crush your ship "solo" with the hidden fact that they are using drugs, have high grade implants, and a booster. With two relatively simple fixes, we probably solve 90% of the problem links impose at the solo/micro gang level.
1. Putting the booster on a killmail as doing 0 damage against anybody that is shot by a fleet member who has active links on them. 2. Transfer flags from activating a link module, just as is done for remote repair modules (ie reuse the same code applied to remote reps for links and assume the links "hit" every player in the fleet below them)
Elite "solo" pvpers will have their killboards shattered and links will be forced into safe spots where certain individuals enjoy probing and murdering boosters. I am probably the prime candidate for it. I hated links because I was tired of losing "solo" fights to people with links. So, I got my own links with the intention of not using them unless the other person had links or I was fighting outnumbered. Instead, I "cheated". I tried to not use them, but I tend to turn them on if I am losing the fight. This is the same problem I ran into when I started dual boxing characters. My intention was to have two characters looking for fights, but I ended up warping the second character into fights I was losing. This wasn't as bad for the losing party, because at least they knew they lost because they fought outnumbered. They can even be happy about it, because they knew they were winning and the other side had to call in "the blob". The same thing will happen if links go on the killmail.
.
|
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:47:02 -
[179] - Quote
Eve online is the only game I can think of where people can openly multi box and literally purchase in game currency with usd and it isn't considered pay to win. I don't even know how that is considered logical.
The fleet bonuses and off grid boosts ate the biggest offenders, but they aren't the only ones. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1481
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 16:06:12 -
[180] - Quote
In game currency cannot be bought with real life cash.
It seems you misunderstand every term you use. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |