| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
373
   |
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires. Hear that? That's the sound of neutral RR alts being sold in a few months.
People who field single or small numbers of non-chaining logistics ships like Oneiros and Scimitars to save their asses when they get themselves into stupid fights are going to scream bloody murder. However people who routinely field large numbers of chaining logistics ships as part of fleets aren't going to be affected at all.
Because of the limit number of involved parties and the lack of escalation highsec wars are going to be minimally affected. However, carriers on stations and gangs on gates in lowsec are going to be totally screwed. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
374
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:The logistics thing: About. *******. Time. Someone mentioned that this probably won't effect the outfits that use a large gang of logi, but I disagree. It won't effect them as much, certainly, but it's definatly a help. And besides, a large gang of logi is a numerical advantage, which is a pretty core concept in gaining advantage in eve.
Like I said, the people it will effect are the stupid people who use logistics as a get out of jail free card for when they misjudge the strength of their opposition rather than as an integral part of their fleet composition.
So obviously God Squad are going to get utterly destroyed, constantly. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
I consistently get the impression that changes to highsec gameplay are made without anyone in the process having the foggiest idea about what actually happens in highsec. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
That's called setting your drones to passive. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:That's called setting your drones to passive. Yes, because missions and PvP should have the same settings. That's logical.
Heaven forfend that you should ever manually do anything while carebearing. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge.
You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that, right?
Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you probably wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
When someone suicide ganks a miner they get a GCC timer and can be shot by everyone in system without penalty already. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
384
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
385
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
I wasn't discounting that at all, it's been since the GM announcement about the change in policy regarding dec shield mechanics that whatever changes get made to wars that they aren't going to offer the defender some kind of get out clause. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
385
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down  How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions.
CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?
The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which is the last thing highsec needs. |
| |
|