Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenshae Chiroptera
296
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Anyone else getting tired of the disparity between the fits? When some weak mined individual comes along and wants to attack you, the only option is to warp away if you can. As a group, they can warp out any time they like if they are in trouble, so they will take you down.
My suggestion is that we have two fits per ship and I know it doesn't make much sense in terms of story but at least when you get attacked, you can hit the emergency button and fight back a bit. You would drop more loot but at least you might take one of them down with you.
Obviously there would need to be some penalties for this, such as maybe you can't switch back for an hour or you have to go back to a station and take everything off again. Maybe it destroys your PVE rigs too?
All I want is the opportunity to fight back instead of being slaughtered or having to run away. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Epofhis
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Personally, if I rat in null, I do so in a fully pvp ready ship (or one with a point at the very least). You' be surprised how nobody looking for easy ganks expects this. As for mining barges et al, that's what a support fleet is for. Or concord. You can survive, you just might have to sacrifice being at the "top of your game" to do so. Again, risk vs reward. You're at risk every time you undock, so what are YOU doing to mitigate or manage that risk?
Adding new mechanics to combat player laxity will not change anything.
-1. Not supported. Before posting in Features and Ideas, please remember that Eve is in no way obligated to change based on your stupidity, ineptitude, or well honed sense of personal butthurt. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
296
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 15:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ever tried doing Sleepers in a PVP ship? Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would not support this. It essentially removes a large component of the strategy associated with fitting a ship GÇô weighing the tradeoffs of a particular fit. Other MMOs have implemented multiple-spec options and while itGÇÖs convenient I believe it also dilutes the gameplay by making it less strategically interesting.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Ever tried doing Sleepers in a PVP ship?
It can be done with either multiple ships or with logi support. Also you don't have to go with a full PvP fit, there are a bunch of hybrid options that are still viable. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Elindreal
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
3 ships running sleepers 1 fits point 1 fits web 1 fits ______ ecm/painter/moar web
if you're running sleepers solo and yet still want the option to have an emergency pvp fit switch button, you've missed part of the game's core concept. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
100
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 17:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Anyone else getting tired of the disparity between the fits? When some weak mined individual comes along and wants to attack you, the only option is to warp away if you can. As a group, they can warp out any time they like if they are in trouble, so they will take you down.
My suggestion is that we have two fits per ship and I know it doesn't make much sense in terms of story but at least when you get attacked, you can hit the emergency button and fight back a bit. You would drop more loot but at least you might take one of them down with you.
Obviously there would need to be some penalties for this, such as maybe you can't switch back for an hour or you have to go back to a station and take everything off again. Maybe it destroys your PVE rigs too?
All I want is the opportunity to fight back instead of being slaughtered or having to run away.
The differences between a PvE and a PvP fit are:
- presence of scram/disruptor. If you want to fight back when people ambush you, fit one. Or don't, but they can warp away then.
- active/passive tank vs buffer tank. Against NPCs, the largest possible active/passive tank is the best. Against other players, a hybrid buffer/active tank (for armor) or just plain buffer is better. Consider this when making your fits and your PvE ships will be better for PvP too.
Regardless, even if you were in a PvP-fit ship, there is not much to do if you get ganked by multiple people. It comes down to choosing your engagements, and choosing not to be there for a fight you won't win.
As for your idea: heard of the Pantheon Carrier setup, Where 2+ carriers swap fits off each other to best fit who the enemy picked as primary? It is gimmicky, weird, and perhaps a little bit game-breaking. We don't need to facilitate that across all ships. |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 18:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't like the disparity between PvP and PvE ship setups. A combat ship should be a combat ship. But I think the main problem is the disparity between PvP and PvE playstyles. If you want PvE and PvP ship setups to be similar then you have to make a flavour of PvE that is more like PvP.
In PvE you've got hoards of stupid and pathetically weak enemies filing into your guns for you. You know what you're going to be up against, there's the eve-survival website which documents in great detail every possible PvE situation and what you need to fit to deal with it, because they're all predetermined and predictable. So you set up your cap-stable officer fit golem with the hardeners you need to deal with the rats you know you'll be facing, and you undock.
it's really pathetic to even call PvE in this game combat, I'd rather reclassify ratting as a form of mining.
Then there's PvP, where you are facing an unknown enemy, committed (tackled) in a situation that can rapidly change, and you're going to need to use good judgement, skill, and 100% of your (replacable) ship's resources to come out on top.
Instead of sending the player to singlehandedly destroy a pirate deadspace superfortress and invasion fleet consisting of utterly pathetic enemies, send them into feasible situations that might actually arise in PvP. "A pirate has been spotted in this system, go find him and kill him, he's in a cruiser" then you get there and you have a fight with an NPC that is as close to player strength as possible... or you get hotdropped by NPC stealth bombers and get completely ****** up, which to be fair can happen.
Aggressive sleeper/incursion AI is a step in the right direction, but it's still not enough to fix the differences between PvP and PvE setups. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
296
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 18:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
There was a thread on here about how to fix active tanking. I think that would be one step.
The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
111
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 18:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:There was a thread on here about how to fix active tanking. I think that would be one step.
The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players.
Your idea is creative but I'm doubt it would help much.
I think you would find people using 2 pvp fits. One pvp fit and one gtfo fit when things go bad.
The other problem is you would still have all the npcs doing damage to you. So even if you switch out to a fit that for example is not tanked for their damage you are still screwed.
Pve and pvp just do not mix in this game. CCP has tried to force this mix several times and everytime it fails. We should just accept this. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Elindreal wrote:3 ships running sleepers 1 fits point 1 fits web 1 fits ______ ecm/painter/moar web
if you're running sleepers solo and yet still want the option to have an emergency pvp fit switch button, you've missed part of the game's core concept.
Furthermore sleepers are a bad example has they will switch target anyway, so those attackers have to be cable as well to deal with those sleepers. |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
I think the idea of two fits in one is terrible.
I would not be against some other ideas of making NPCs more like players so that a PvP ship isn't really different from a PvE one in most cases. AI should change in strategy, and choices... Run away when their losing for instance. It's also always bothered me in particular that Pirate NPCs will attack anyone equally, when really those that have good standings with them and don't do anything hostile should be treated as allies. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
296
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Hmm how about a one or two module swop that destroys the original module? Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
101
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Hmm how about a one or two module swop that destroys the original module?
Instant abuse: on a frigate, hotswap a 1MN Afterburner II for the original mod of a Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters after getting the tackle. You give up a 30k ISK mod, and overall you gain the advantage of having a dual-prop fit. This would break every single close-range frigate; in particular, ships that already use dualprop to great efficiency: Dramiel, Daredevil, Taranis, Firetail. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
296
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
Make a case function then so that only some modules can do it.... brb shooting something, damn fleet warps. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 08:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:There was a thread on here about how to fix active tanking. I think that would be one step.
The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players. Your idea is creative but I'm doubt it would help much. I think you would find people using 2 pvp fits. One pvp fit and one gtfo fit when things go bad. The other problem is you would still have all the npcs doing damage to you. So even if you switch out to a fit that for example is not tanked for their damage you are still screwed. Pve and pvp just do not mix in this game. CCP has tried to force this mix several times and everytime it fails. We should just accept this.
There are easy ways around that, like making rats do omni-damage and be omni-tanked. And pvp and pve mix actually well, as in low/null you have to pve in pvp capable ship. |
el alasar
The Scope Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
while i agree completely with the symptom, 2 exchangable fits would be the wrong way to treat it. the root cause is a) the nature of pve content and b) which fits work good for pvp. pve and pvp both need to blend. give active fits a larger chance if pvp compared to buffer fits.
to consider: - make basic web + scram functionality built-in to the ship (no more module required) - make scrambling chance-based (like ECM) - overall increase of HP of ALL ships, mostly to hull HP.
otherwise this is a great summary:
Jafit McJafitson wrote:I don't like the disparity between PvP and PvE ship setups. A combat ship should be a combat ship. But I think the main problem is the disparity between PvP and PvE playstyles. If you want PvE and PvP ship setups to be similar then you have to make a flavour of PvE that is more like PvP.
In PvE you've got hoards of stupid and pathetically weak enemies filing into your guns for you. You know what you're going to be up against, there's the eve-survival website which documents in great detail every possible PvE situation and what you need to fit to deal with it, because they're all predetermined and predictable. So you set up your cap-stable officer fit golem with the hardeners you need to deal with the rats you know you'll be facing, and you undock.
it's really pathetic to even call PvE in this game combat, I'd rather reclassify ratting as a form of mining.
Then there's PvP, where you are facing an unknown enemy, committed (tackled) in a situation that can rapidly change, and you're going to need to use good judgement, skill, and 100% of your (replacable) ship's resources to come out on top.
Instead of sending the player to singlehandedly destroy a pirate deadspace superfortress and invasion fleet consisting of utterly pathetic enemies, send them into feasible situations that might actually arise in PvP. "A pirate has been spotted in this system, go find him and kill him, he's in a cruiser" then you get there and you have a fight with an NPC that is as close to player strength as possible... or you get hotdropped by NPC stealth bombers and get completely ****** up, which to be fair can happen.
Aggressive sleeper/incursion AI is a step in the right direction, but it's still not enough to fix the differences between PvP and PvE setups.
check the moderated little ideas/10000 papercuts/low hanging fruit article! comment, bump(!) and like what you like: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts |
Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 17:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:There was a thread on here about how to fix active tanking. I think that would be one step.
The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players.
Nothing will fix active tanking, it cant counter the alpha. Just deluded think its fixable at all, just like bounty hunting. And even with ehp increase solution would be just more alpha.
I think a hundred man strong welpfleet will destroy a titan in few minutes, so without supercap amount of HP active tanking just isnt viable, and just by mentioning it you lose your credibility. And artillery alphafleet will do even more damage.
Two fits per ship, no. It just ruins the game immersion, dumbs the game down and makes player choice less relevant. |
el alasar
The Scope Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 17:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:Nothing will fix active tanking, it cant counter the alpha. Just deluded think its fixable at all, just like bounty hunting. And even with ehp increase solution would be just more alpha. very true. thats why i would like to see a new first counter to alpha. 2 ideas which need refinement are here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=257094#post257094 new logistics: provide remote resistances
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=264835#post264835 Chaff (reducing signature radius)
Nestara Aldent wrote:Just deluded think its fixable at all, just like bounty hunting. actually bounty hunting could be fixed - key point is that you must not pay out more than what got destroyed. there have been lots of threads with several good ideas. in time i will post on it. check the moderated little ideas/10000 papercuts/low hanging fruit article! comment, bump(!) and like what you like: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts |
Jenshae Chiroptera
397
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 14:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Make a case function then so that only some modules can do it.... brb shooting something, damn fleet warps.
... Edit: i.e. not complete two fits but only one or two modules (in total) that can be swopped and you can only swop certain modules for other ones, such as ... - shield passive resist can be swopped for a scrambler or a web, - amplifier can be swopped for a disruptor - armour repairs can be swopped for a plate
However, extenders, boosters, hardeners and propulsion modules can't be swopped at all nor would any of those that do swop, work in reverse.
*(Examples are not suggestions for actual changes, just to help describe the idea.) Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
136
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 15:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Make a case function then so that only some modules can do it.... brb shooting something, damn fleet warps. ... Edit: i.e. not complete two fits but only one or two modules (in total) that can be swopped and you can only swop certain modules for other ones, such as ... - shield passive resist can be swopped for a scrambler or a web, - amplifier can be swopped for a disruptor - armour repairs can be swopped for a plate However, extenders, boosters, hardeners and propulsion modules can't be swopped at all nor would any of those that do swop, work in reverse. *(Examples are not suggestions for actual changes, just to help describe the idea.)
if you have to put a ton of conditions on something like this, odds are it was a bad idea in the first place and cannot be saved. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
398
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 19:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:... if you have to put a ton of conditions on something like this, odds are it was a bad idea in the first place and cannot be saved.
... or it is part of a refined system. All games are a "ton of conditions." Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 19:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
Epofhis wrote:Personally, if I rat in null, I do so in a fully pvp ready ship
Is the correct answer.
If you don't want to be ganked in your hilariously vulnerable PvE-optimised fit, don't use a hilariously vulnerable PvE-optimised fit.
Of course then you risk losing a few percent off your ISK/hr efficiency rating, almost as though this game had a notion of risk vs reward or something. |
el alasar
The Scope Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 19:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
isnt the correct question, why does pve allow you to use other than current pvp fits? check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 19:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players.
So NPCs would stay docked until they have sufficient numbers and then blob players, followed by GF spam and trolling in local?
Personally I don't see a whole lot that is inherently broken in the game with this respect since fits and fleet composition can be tailored to the situation. This proposed change just seems to run counter to one of the core mechanics in EVE that makes the game interesting, that is, there always should be tradeoffs to any choice in the game.
ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Jenshae Chiroptera
398
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 20:26:00 -
[25] - Quote
Key example is worm holes. You either PVE fit or you can't tank them. Try to do them with PVP fits and logistics then you quickly have so many people it isn't worth doing them at all.
How broken is it that it is better to solo or small team them and just absorb the loss of the ship(s) than to try and prepare them for any PVP? Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 23:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Fidelium Mortis wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The second would be more AI changes so that NPCs behaved more like players.
So NPCs would stay docked until they have sufficient numbers and then blob players, followed by GF spam and trolling in local? Hahaha, epic.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Key example is worm holes. You either PVE fit or you can't tank them. Try to do them with PVP fits and logistics then you quickly have so many people it isn't worth doing them at all.
How broken is it that it is better to solo or small team them and just absorb the loss of the ship(s) than to try and prepare them for any PVP? Have an alt in the wh with you cloaked up in a falcon. There, now you're prepared for PvP.
Or, just do what other players do. When you're making money, don't kill people. You're running a wh site and you see combats out? Get the hell out of the site. Then when you're safe go swap in to a PvP ship and try and bait them again if you want to. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
398
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 00:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:... Have an alt in the wh with you cloaked up in a falcon. There, now you're prepared for PvP.
Or, just do what other players do. When you're making money, don't kill people. You're running a wh site and you see combats out? Get the hell out of the site. Then when you're safe go swap in to a PvP ship and try and bait them again if you want to.
... umm ... you do know that:
- There is no announcement when a new worm hole opens into your system.
- Covert ships can warp up cloaked then fly nice and close to you as "Warp To" points.
- Due to API changes people can no longer track jumping in or out of a worm hole system.
- You don't need probes to find combat sites.
Right? Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 00:48:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:... Have an alt in the wh with you cloaked up in a falcon. There, now you're prepared for PvP.
Or, just do what other players do. When you're making money, don't kill people. You're running a wh site and you see combats out? Get the hell out of the site. Then when you're safe go swap in to a PvP ship and try and bait them again if you want to. ... umm ... you do know that:
- There is no announcement when a new worm hole opens into your system.
- Covert ships can warp up cloaked then fly nice and close to you as "Warp To" points.
- Due to API changes people can no longer track jumping in or out of a worm hole system.
- You don't need probes to find combat sites.
Right? Covert ships can warp up cloaked then fly nice and close to you as "Warp To" points.
Really, I'd never heard of this tactic being used before. It must be new
Keep your ship moving and they won't be able to slow boat over to get a warp in. Besides, most players do end up popping combats, it's pretty rare that they find you with d-scan unless they're good. And even then, if you're hitting d-scan regularly like you should chances are you or your alt will pick them up on d-scan as one of them enter the wh.
Between that, keeping a few e-war drones in your drone bay, and just not semi-afk running the sites you're pretty safe. And besides, even if you could pve in a fit that could fight back, people would just bring more ships to kill you. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
398
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 01:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:... Besides, most players do end up popping combats, it's pretty rare that they find you with d-scan unless they're good. ...
Forget D-scan. Without probes out, try hitting the scan button and see what happens. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 02:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Forget D-scan. Without probes out, try hitting the scan button and see what happens. Herpin your derp, first thing you do when entering a system is use d-scan. You don't randomly warp site to site blindly hoping to find something unless you're a complete moron. The whole idea is to find people quickly.
Anyway, since how they find you (whether warping randomly or by sensibly d-scanning) has nothing to do with the points I made i'll reiterate them for you:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
- Keep your ship moving and they won't be able to slow boat over to get a warp in.
- If you're hitting d-scan regularly like you should chances are you or your alt will pick them up on d-scan as one of them enter the wh.
- Keep a few e-war drones in your drone bay
- Don't semi-afk run sites.
- Even if you could pve in a fit that could fight back, people would just bring more ships to kill you.
There, made it easier for you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |