| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
181
   |
Posted - 2016.08.23 06:10:39 -
[1] - Quote
IMHO one of the problems is the short reaction time of Concord. This will almost always prohibit any player interaction because the target or the ganker is dead before someone even notices what's going on. So you have to prolong the timer. To compensate this for the target they needs additional defenses. Give E-War and slots to freighters. Give weapons and slots to miners. At the moment the whole thing of ganking is to know your target and your timeframe. You can predict very accurately how much Cats you need. Normal fights have a much greater element of surprise. If you can really fit a ship you might fit it for max cargo/yield or tank or even gank: who knows. Maybe they have ewar?
Good luck with the round table. Maybe you should include someone from the mining community to get the whole picture. |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
182
|
Posted - 2016.08.26 08:45:58 -
[2] - Quote
The Problem is the design of the mining ships and freighters. They are designed to be passive in conflicts. This way of tanking is easily overcome when you know what you have to do because there is no variation. IMHO the ganking culture deserves to die, because it is bad for the game, and be replaced by a fighting culture. There should be no easy ganks but fights. There should be another way for players that don't actively search PvP then just running. Maybe miners can dig in with weapons and some one use shield restoring sentry drones which don't show on the d-scan. Or a freighter can actively Ewar atackers to keep them at bay. Cloaking disruptures that reveal cloakers but need to ankered to asteroids (nope, not for gate camps, sorry  ) |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
184
|
Posted - 2016.08.27 06:00:59 -
[3] - Quote
Irregular Apocalypse wrote:
However, the existence of other bump interactions outside freighter ganking means that the natural solution of making bump-tacklers go suspect might have too widespread an impact (even if it was technically feasible to decide who is the bumper and who is the bumpee).
An alternative change might be to make freighters more heavy, so that the effect of a bump on the freighter's speed and alignment would be lower, and it would take less time to recover from bumps. As this change only affects the a parameter of freighters, it may not have much effect on other parts of the game, which is an appealing property. However it wouldn't address the issue of tacklers being protected by Concord so the solution is flawed in the same way as the one that CCP has presented.
It is not very difficult to decide who is bumping, cause his movement vector is directed at the other ship. If you go suspect after the third bump there will be no problem with accidentally bumping into another ship. Or you can even use the bumping timer that the bumper gets the flag after 30 seconds.Other bumping actions take place in low or Null against capitals where a suspect flag is irrelevant.
Making freighters heavier will prevent bumping as a game mechanic for ganking, which is IMHO bad. A suspect flag for bumpers opens up opportunities for player action which is the better choice
|
| |
|