| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Plutonian
Plutonian Shore
   |
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:17:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Le Skunk
Ok so first we didnt have sentry guns.
CAREBEARS WHINED
So we get sentry guns. But they had 50km range
CAREBEARS WHINED
So they increased the range. But they could be popped and respawned slowly
CAREBEARS WHINED
So they became unkillable. But they could be easeily tanked
CAREBEARS WHINED
So its now difficult to tank for sustained period for any lenght of time - impossible in the best tacklers (frigates)
CAREBEARS WHINED
So Aggro timers were brought in so people were aggrod for 15 mins. But ships could still be caught if they warped to 15
CAREBEARS WHINED
So the introduced warp to zero. But ships were still getting killed
CAREBEARS WHINED
so ship got a HP boost and many got agility boosts so it is very difficult to tackle tranpsort ships
....
I think we are about here right now. And oh look -- the OP is whining.
SKUNK
(apologies for slight chronological order errors)
^^^ This.
For god sake... why don't we just remove weapons from the game alltogether, eh? It can be a game where people just fly around and mine and buy more stuff. That way no one ever loses a ship.
Wonder if the OP thought how his suggestion would alter defending territory in 0.0. 
|
Plutonian
Plutonian Shore
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:34:00 -
[2]
Your suggestions seem unbalanced. The changes you suggest make it more difficult for pirates to engage targets, but it makes low-sec safer for non-pirates.
I'm not a pirate. I'm neither pro- or anti- pirate. But you know that little tingle you get when you enter low-sec? That sharpening of the senses when you're planning a route and see that huge orange globe on the map dead in the middle of your route? That's because low-sec is dangerous.
As it should be.
Without the risk of failure, nothing is worth a damn. All the riches of low-sec and 0.0 sitting in your hangar, alongside every ship type and module in the game, mean nothing if there was no risk in taking them.
Easier? Safer? Screw that... That's what Hello Kitty Online is for. Give me a harder, colder, uncaring Eve anytime.
Give me a challenge.
|
Plutonian
Plutonian Shore
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Righteous Deeds
Oh stop sobbing and offer a comment on the game mechanics. How do YOU think it would alter 0,0? More difficult to defend a wide area, or offset by the need to coordinate the offensive fleet's assembly after the jump? Or maybe the Gods of gaming would actually allow gates to work differently in different areas of space based on who controlled them!
You can't roll your eyes unless you're thinking it through yourself. 
Your suggestion forces combat in low-sec to be limited to stations and asteroids belts. Engagement at gates would become nearly impossible.
Of course, fighting on stations isn't really considered glamorous in this game, is it? Any large ship just docks when his tank is about to fail. And is heckled by the aggressors.
So now, only in asteroid belts can any real combat occur.
Do you honestly think this will make low-sec 'better'?
|
Plutonian
Plutonian Shore
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:47:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Righteous Deeds
I'm hearing more angst than objective appraisal from many though. So I guess that's a way of saying attracting more traffic to lowsec is a bad thing?
Actually, no... many objective appraisals and observations were put forth from veteran and new players alike. You choose to ignore them.
I will admit an air of angst exists in the replies though... and it's there for a reason. CCP has, in the past, responded to one-sided complaints (in that the change will benefit one side while harming another) by bringing out the dreaded nerfbat.
I think it's safe to say that those players who enjoy a challenge tend to rail against any proposed change which makes the game easier (safer).
You've stated what you feel would fix low-sec. Given the ratio of negative replies, do you feel it would be welcomed by the majority of Eve players? Now here's the important question: would you go ahead with it anyway even if it didn't?
You feel low-sec would be benefited by making it safer. I, personally, feel it would benefit by becoming more necessary. Wanna hear my solution? Only Veld and Plag in high sec; move omber and scordite to low-sec. Move all Lvl 3 and 4 agents to low-sec. Reduce the number of manufacturing and research slots in Empire to half their current number; relocate the others to low-sec. Move many exploration and complex sites from Empire to low-sec.
Bet you liked my plan as little as I liked yours, eh?  It suits me... but doesn't necessarily cater to everyone... right? Therefore I can hardly take offense to any resistance to my ideas.
|
Plutonian
Plutonian Shore
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:13:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ackaroth
Pluto, those are actually fantastic ideas. Make a thread, I'm sure you will get some good feedback, if you haven't already.
I get the feeling such a post wouldn't win me any popularity contests within Empire.
Still... might be interesting to see the responses. I'll type up a proposal and submit it tomorrow.
Done correctly, I believe the ore-shift would hamper macro-miners, ease overpopulation in Empire, and create a new economic dynamic in the mineral market. Low-sec would become more populated... yes... but I believe the action would most likely shift towards small-gang warfare.
But you know CCP will never move level 3 and 4 missions to low-sec.
|
| |
|