| 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) |
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
   |
Posted - 2008.11.19 18:19:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Captain Thunk on 19/11/2008 18:21:21
Edited by: Captain Thunk on 19/11/2008 18:20:36
While people are complaining about the missiles, nano and web nerfs, I've encountered an even more earth shattering problem. A problem that changes everything Eve-Online ever was and sets a precedent for what it will become.
To try and explain this problem in depth, I'd like to take a moment first to explain what Eve-Online is advertised as - mainly because certain key phrases are often used, which in future will simply no longer apply as it simply isn't the case as the situation stands now.
Eve-Online is a brutal and harsh alternate reality, driven by player content and player actions - for good or for bad. It is a game centered on consequence, where a players actions can be brought to account through ingame mechanics. A game that revolves around the principle of 'Risk vs Reward'.
PvP has many forms, I personally divide the groups into "0.0, Empire and Low Sec" each having particular nuances and tactics that apply. Each has its own place in the game and serves to sate the desires of a wide range of people who have different tastes and ambitions in the game. For 5+ years CCP has resisted the call to obliterate one of these groups in favour of the others, allowing for a balance that suits many different playstyles. While many agree low sec warfare has seen a decline over the years as the equation of risk vs reward went against the pirates, with the Quantum Rise patch we can wave goodbye completely to both low sec and Empire warfare.
Why?
---
Agility.
Ships in the game are now too agile. Coupled with 'background lag' that guarantees warp disruptor activation a couple of seconds after the lock is gained it simply isn't possible to lock ships of your own class in a normal situation. Even worse, it's not possible to lock at all someone who is fitted for travel. This last patch has seen the arrival of the CCP Golden Get Out of Jail For Free travel pass that allows safe travel with absolute immunity because there is no counter, no tactic that can be devised that can catch them.
Lern2Takle
----------
In the past couple of days, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that when fitted correctly there is no "Learn to tackle" that can possibly catch a ship. Here are some examples of what we in my corp have experienced:
The I-Stabbed Eagle: We utilized a crow (Interceptor) for the tackle as he came through the gate. Knowing an interceptor would not be able to lock an Eagle if he was fitted correctly we had him remote sensor boosted....a lot. The Crows scan resolution exceeded 6000mm. It wasn't enough, the Eagle was able to warp - not to station, he knew he didn't need to, he carried on with his journey as he knew nothing could touch him.
The Interceptor vs the Tier 3 Battleship: My personal favourite, it demonstrates the absurdity of the problem I'm describing. Chased an Abaddon using I-stabs and a cloak from Jita to Amarr - again, he never stopped his journey as he knew nothing could ever be done. Each gate, he'd cloak - align and warp. He only needed to cloak a second or two as he aligned so fast. The interceptor was rendered utterly useless as it stood no chance of intercepting anything and didn't have time to decloak him.
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 18:20:00 -
[2]
Conclusion
----------
There's absolutely nothing that can be used to counter this, which renders all wars irrelevent and piracy something that we tell the Grandkids we used to be able to do. The only people who need fear anything are the ones who aren't aware what you can do to render yourself totally immune - Ironically, those CCP wish most to protect are now the only victims left.
The warp scrambler and disruptor is now a defunct module, a relic from the past that has no actual function remaining in the game - superceded by it's big brother, the Mobile Warp Disruptor - which can only be used in 0.0. The Warp Core Stabiliser serves only to fool the unwary as it does not offer the protection that it's cousin, the I-Stab offers. I'm specifically not commenting on the changes to webs as it's rather irrelevent to me as I'm more concerned with the preceeding steps first.
It used to be that with a ship of the same class or below you could be pretty certain of gaining a lock and module activation on your target without a sensor booster - now it's a case of the smallest class cannot even scramble anything below a freighter that is setup correctly. I won't go into the logistical nightmare of what it takes to scramble a freighter - the hard part being, keeping the player in the game once he realises he's about to be attacked of course.
Naturally, the problem will become ever more apparent as people catch on, much like Nano ships, Ctrl+Qing and anything else that swept through the playerbase like wildfire.
I do not know if this has been CCPs intention or if it's the result of unforseen consequences, it seems strange to keep mechanics such as "war declarations" if the real intention is to see its removal. While I appreciate many people prefer to divide the Eve universe into the very simplistic "Empire is Safe, 0.0 is where the PvP is at", I never realised that CCP had started subscribing to the same narrow line of thought. I believe the "Risk vs Reward" is meaningless if 0.0 survivability is sustained on an individual basis through Empire activity on an alt which enjoys 100% immunity from all actions. I would certainly like clarification from CCP, is this the intent? To render Empire totally safe as a haven for empire building? As it stands, Empire ganking and can flagging would seem to be more attractive as now it is of absolute importance that if you wish to attack someone, they need to be the last guy in the game to know it's coming.
Some form of acknowledgement that this was unintended or admission that PvP is now designated to 0.0 alone would be nice.
Captain Thunk |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 18:22:00 -
[3]
wall of taxt no thx |
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 18:37:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Kalintos Tyl
wall of taxt no thx
He raises a good point.
Can I please ask all window lickers to please not attempt to read this thread. People only capable of standardised replies and meme's aren't really the people this thread is aimed at.
This isn't to say people like Kalintos Tyl aren't welcome in the game, I think it's fantastic that CCP open their game to a wide variety of people. It's marvellous that we're all playing the same game, whether able bodied or sitting in a chair dribbling down their own chin gibbering softly to themselves.
Captain Thunk
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 19:13:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 19/11/2008 19:15:30
(a) I didn't get the memo on PVP outside of 0.0 being impossible. Gatecamping? Yeah, it's much more trivial to escape gatecamps, in travel fit ships (which is a big but however). Travel fits in general were always successful (although pre-QR that meant MWD+cloak, but it was fairly easy for even a plated BS to evade a camp this way short of a very capable decloaker - and pirates don't get to use ceptors, remember).
(b) Yes, larger ships - meaning, larger then cruiser sized - do need to be somewhat less agile. However, the agility boost WAS instituted so ships could accelerate within a reasonable timeframe; so, basically, with good reason when it comes to actual combat. The first iteration of SISI felt so incredibly slow-paced, with the speed and all nerfs, that it was about as fun to play as watching slugs mate.
(c) Given the now de-facto impossibility of reapproaching gates with anything short of a Vagabond or a interceptor (where you can just warpoff) thanks to the sheer idiocy of 9km (or, rather, 10.8km) scramblers stopping MWD instantly and deaccelerating you extremely fast, the agility buff is probably sadly needed. It would be, in fact, rather re-tarded if a HAC would be guaranteed to die in the first semi-competent gatecamp, because it would heard any kind of roaming in PVP fits without a covops alt a bit too much.
Summary: without undoing a big part of the QR idiocy, I see the agility buff as sadly needed.
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 19:32:00 -
[6]
I appreciate your response and see where you're coming from Cpt Branko.
But my point stands that PvP in low sec or Empire is effectively consensual - you can no longer force it upon somebody and this changes the tone of the game, it's no longer a harsh and brutal reality. You can live in 0.0 and take risks for great rewards or you can keep an alt in empire and have absolutely no risk for slightly less rewards.
As for HACs I appreciate they are expensive, but in the example I gave, I disagree. Just because someone paid a fair amount of ISK, it doesn't mean that it should be immune to PvP unless he chooses it. An Inty with remote sensor boosing to 6000mm scan resolution should not be watching a cruiser class ship happily warping away. As it stands, I don't see why anyone need worry about warp scramblers unless they're in 0.0. There's no need to be locked at all, which is going to become increasingly apparent as more and more people catch on.
While I appreciate the agility buff is to compensate for other problems, I'm still trying to highlight that this issue still needs further attention. Low sec or empire PvP is often newer players first experience and introduction, not to mention Fleet warfare (blob) and alarm clocks at 4am for a POS takedown isn't everyones cup of tea as not everyone finds 0.0 PvP that attractive. To kill of low sec and empire PvP entirely, save for that which catches the unwary (suicide ganks, flipping and the like) I don't think is in the best long term interets for anyone.
Captain Thunk |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 19:52:00 -
[7]
I think that the scan res for all cruiser and larger ships should be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the agility increase. Frigs and destroyers still lock plenty fast. Everything else needs to be buffed.
Heck, I even started a thread in Ships/Modules right before QR hit about how sensor boosters needed to be buffed, as it was too easy *pre* QR for defenders to escape from solo attackers. It's only gotten worse.
Anyway, I concur, the agility increase has really messed things up, but I've been saying this for over a month.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Hunduran
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 20:00:00 -
[8]
i just want you to know that you are calling gatecamping from high to lowsec pvp. it's not. get over it
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 20:07:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I think that the scan res for all cruiser and larger ships should be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the agility increase. Frigs and destroyers still lock plenty fast. Everything else needs to be buffed.
Heck, I even started a thread in Ships/Modules right before QR hit about how sensor boosters needed to be buffed, as it was too easy *pre* QR for defenders to escape from solo attackers. It's only gotten worse.
Anyway, I concur, the agility increase has really messed things up, but I've been saying this for over a month.
This would help IF background lag was dealt with (in my opinion at least). I don't feel it would help now as I think part of the problem is that ships align to warp so fast that by the time you see it on your screen and react they're already in warp - it doesn't matter actually what your scan resolution is - if lag is between 1 and 2 seconds and they align in 2 or more then it really won't help any. In addition, I think Inertial Stabilizers need to be adjusted to take into account the already overly high align time.
Captain Thunk
|
Uhr Zylex
Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille
Blade.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 20:19:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I think that the scan res for all cruiser and larger ships should be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the agility increase.
This. |
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 20:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hunduran
i just want you to know that you are calling gatecamping from high to lowsec pvp. it's not. get over it
Cheers for your comment, despite it's erroneous nature. I don't gatecamp lowsec entrances.
With respect, I'm not really interested in anyones opinion on "PvP". I took the liberty of looking your character up on your own killboard and confirmed my initial suspicions (it's usually a window licker that likes to post little more than a line on a topic they have no real comprehension of with something they're hoping their friends will think looks cool) you've been in your alliance for over 7 months and your killboard reports 45 kills and 27 losses. No doubt you're on your "forum posting alt", however until you have the balls to post with your main, you're hardly in any condition to comment on "PvP" of any kind.
Thanks anyway.
Captain Thunk |
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 20:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Uhr Zylex
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I think that the scan res for all cruiser and larger ships should be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the agility increase.
This.
A corpmate attempted to scramble a Navy Mega in his Sensor Boosted Dominix today - the Mega was mission fit and didn't have additional inertial stabilisers for travel yet the Dominix still failed to lock in time. I think ALL ships should have higher Scan res - a ship of the same class should be able to lock in time - with a sensor booster there should be no doubt.
Captain Thunk |
Hunduran
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 21:14:00 -
[13]
visit a couple lowsec belts. as for killboards.. i don't even use em. But thanks for checking up on me :)
i checked you killboard and found out you use standard missiles on your malediction
all cred lost
aside from our childish duel. I do agree that a remote sensor boosted inty should be able to catch even the most travel fit standard ships (i.e. cruiser sized and up)
however, only a fraction of alignment time is required to warp to a planet you're already facing and even with 100rsb on any ship the fastest you can lock any other ship is 1 second. and then there is the inherent lag you are talking about, which is made even worse by the added 1 second to 'guns are hot' or whatever. now you have to click the button and because it takes a second for you UI to tell you you've got him targetted you lose another second.
|
Hoshi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 21:49:00 -
[14]
There is a fairly simple way to fix the problem without resorting to increased scan res (which due to lag might not even work). Just increase the speed needed to warp from the current 75% to say maybe 85%. That would increase the time to warp for all ships by 37%.
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 21:50:00 -
[15]
This change has a good side that you fail to see. As it's less easy to lock someone, it's becomming harder to build up an effective gatecamp. There might be a point when the people start to realize that, and there will be more and more people wander off to lowsec and nosec. It seems like that was an intended sideeffect with the agility raise. You will always need a frigate (that's most likely doomed if the enemy decides to fight back) to tackle someone effectively. The only other option would be a heavy interdictor or a mobile warp disruptor.
---
"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
Dave Tehsulei
Atomic Battle Penguins
The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 00:49:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Dave Tehsulei on 20/11/2008 00:50:40
At the very least we need to see a boost to scan resolution of all ships proportionate to the agility boost the different classes have received.
I grew up in an eve where a ships of the same class could tackle each other without the need for any increase in standard scan resolution.
Today the QR agility changes put one more nail in the coffin of solo pvp and moves us a large step closer to an eve where all pvp is consensual in empire.
Thunk has already talked about the background lag which can add an extra second or two to any tackling attempt is it possible to have an eve without background lag? im not sure changing the agility of ships again is a way to correct the situation.
I do believe increased scan resolution of cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship hulls so they are capable of tackling their own class without the need of sensor boosting would be a partial quick fix.
-------
Atomic Battle Penguins
Forum | Website
ABP is available for contract work |
Avaricia
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 02:35:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dave Tehsulei
Edited by: Dave Tehsulei on 20/11/2008 00:50:40
At the very least we need to see a boost to scan resolution of all ships proportionate to the agility boost the different classes have received.
I grew up in an eve where a ships of the same class could tackle each other without the need for any increase in standard scan resolution.
Today the QR agility changes put one more nail in the coffin of solo pvp and moves us a large step closer to an eve where all pvp is consensual in empire.
Thunk has already talked about the background lag which can add an extra second or two to any tackling attempt is it possible to have an eve without background lag? im not sure changing the agility of ships again is a way to correct the situation.
I do believe increased scan resolution of cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship hulls so they are capable of tackling their own class without the need of sensor boosting would be a partial quick fix.
i've said it once and i'll say it again, CCP is actively looking to make pvp both consensual and blob-oriented.
remember kids, eve is a cold harsh world*
*unless you don't consent to coldness and/or harshness
griefmatic 2
reign of terror
griefmatic |
Vanthropy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:57:00 -
[18]
so... you guys fail.. nerfing gatecamps is a boost to solo pvp not a nerf. Looks like its time to leave the gaycamps and the stationhumping and get out there in the belts where lowsec pvp belongs.
"SPEED + GANK = SPANK... Spank that ***** up" |
Neth'Rae
Gallente
Decorum Inc
Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 05:51:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Neth''Rae on 20/11/2008 05:53:41
Originally by: Uhr Zylex
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I think that the scan res for all cruiser and larger ships should be increased by 20-30% to compensate for the agility increase.
This.
No!
This screws cloakers and jammers/dampeners (faster to lock and send drones).
If you want higher scan res use remote sensor boosters and/or sensor boosters.
Originally by: Hoshi
There is a fairly simple way to fix the problem without resorting to increased scan res (which due to lag might not even work). Just increase the speed needed to warp from the current 75% to say maybe 85%. That would increase the time to warp for all ships by 37%.
Sounds like a much better idea and doesn't mess up actual combat like faster locking times would.
I do Sigs, Banners and other Graphics for ISK. |
juduzz
Amarr
Atomic Battle Penguins
The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 06:33:00 -
[20]
Definately the speed needed over the scan res tbh can see it adding to many problems when sensor boosters are added into the mix.
Damn atm with 3 nerfed nanos my vaga warps like a frig some that pre QR took 2 polies and 2 istabs or pre rigs 5 un-nerfed nanofibres. |
FlameGlow
Legio Octae
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:08:00 -
[21]
Nerf to gatecamps is good - ease of gatecamping is one of reasons lowsec became nearly empty.
Originally by: "Captain Thunk"
A game that revolves around the principle of 'Risk vs Reward'.
Tell me now of those horrible risks you face while gatecamping  |
Marlona Sky
Caldari
Astroglide X
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:43:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Captain Thunk
I don't want to fit a sensor booster!
Fit a sensor booster! |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:47:00 -
[23]
Yes there is a problem with ships warping too fast at gates. On the other hand the ship agility is fine. The problem is also not solved by increasing scan res because of server lag. The solution is a whole new mechanic.
Like it takes 2 secs to activate warp drive engines after you decloak and you can't use the same gate within a certain amount of time.
This would eliminate the warp off problem because of the new agilities but still maintaining agility for all ships for general pvp purposes.
It also would make it impossible to run back through gates with faster mwd ships.
Problem solved. Too bad ccp never will give in to the carebear whines this would stir up.
-----------------------------------------
[Video] The Cruise |
Diziet Montoya
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:17:00 -
[24]
It's simple to fix, just add a 5 second "you cannot warp while your cloaking field dissipates" timer. Cloak was NOT supposed to used for instawarp gatecamp avoidance. |
Vanthropy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:22:00 -
[25]
wow. so any smaller gang would automatically die to a bigger gang? awesome.. |
sliver 0xD
exiles.
The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:49:00 -
[26]
i kinda agree with OP about ships being to agile.
but not all ships are to agile. the OP probably does not have a clear view on who is biger then who. next to that it is a tacklers job to tackle, a bs with a point is most of the time useless. and you must accept that.
what i do agree with is the ships that have 2 much agility.
like the t2 haulers that warp before you ever get the server to understand that you pressed 5 times on the scrambler.
and the hac's need adjustments. most are turning to fast for a ceptor to get them and i dont think that is correct.
---
Somebody needs a hug! |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:58:00 -
[27]
I think a combination of changes would have a good result: increase the base warp speed by a small amount, say up to 80 or 85%, and also boost scan res by a small amount, and it might be enough from both directions to put things right.
As it is now, solo/small gang players suffer and large blobs aren't affected by the problems. So far pretty much every change in QR has pushed combat away from solo/small gang PVP and into massive blobs. Not cool CCP. Not cool at all.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 09:29:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Captain Thunk
I think ALL ships should have higher Scan res - a ship of the same class should be able to lock in time - with a sensor booster there should be no doubt.
This is how it was pre-QR with nano-hacs being the exception. In QR all ships got huge agility increases, like 1.5 pre-QR istabs for free, fit a few istab IIs and you warp absurdly fast.
To all the dum dums that think this boosts solo play, how the **** is a solo player supposed to tackle anything if everything warps off so fast? You need to bring at least one dedicated super sensor boosted ship to catch a lot of ships, then a ship to scramble/web/turn off MWD THEN ships to deal damage, ewar, cap warfare. So you NEED to blob to catch anyone and force a fight.
Increase scan resolution, change the formula (<---winner) or change the gate mechanic. Trying to solo in a BC in QR is pretty frustrating and pointless.
Who's up for putting a thread in AH and we all spam it?  |
Ricky Baby
Atomic Battle Penguins
The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 09:56:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ricky Baby on 20/11/2008 10:05:11
Edited by: Ricky Baby on 20/11/2008 09:57:40
Originally by: Vanthropy
so... you guys fail.. nerfing gatecamps is a boost to solo pvp not a nerf. Looks like its time to leave the gaycamps and the stationhumping and get out there in the belts where lowsec pvp belongs.
How does increasing the agility to the point of being unable to lock most ships in perfect conditions (i.e. waiting in the jump in, with a interceptor, that's been sensor boosted) - something that's very hard to do in a roaming gang and kinda impossible solo. and it still being totally ineffective at being able to catch a target?
as for belts - i really wish people would goto belts. make my life better.
Originally by: FlameGlow
Nerf to gatecamps is good - ease of gatecamping is one of reasons lowsec became nearly empty.
Originally by: "Captain Thunk"
A game that revolves around the principle of 'Risk vs Reward'.
Tell me now of those horrible risks you face while gatecamping
quite a lot when we are a small corp facing 1000 man alliances. er are out numbered almost daily when our targets care to show up. but i don't complain about the blobs.
Low-sec was quite good pre-QR with the faction warfare, lots of people in low-sec, lots of stuff to shoot - if you took the time to look for it and not camp one spot all week (thou i've heard that's a good way as well). the problem now is pre-QR only "nano" ships and cloaking/mwd trick had the immunity that were now seeing with all ship classes by default. this is not a cry to nerf gate0camping or blobbing, or even solo pvp, its a cry to make it possible to force a confrontation onto people without the use of a bubble, something that cannot be used in empire or low-sec. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 10:23:00 -
[30]
The OP has a point, but he is arguing the wrong part. Trying to catch people emerging from gate cloak will always be influenced by lag. There is nothing that can be done about this.
You already have HICs that can use their warp field on the gate to catch all ships and provide ample time to lock.
Empire is a problem. I think the best solution is to increase the warp velocity. However one has to look at the special cases (SB and BO ships) where velocities change. |
| |
|
| 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 |