These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

THE RIDICULOUS FAIL WHICH IS EVE'S PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
#41 - 2012-09-03 02:05:27 UTC
betoli wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.


I'm loving this thread :-)

Navel historians may also recollect Nelsons victory at Trafalgar where he broke the conventional navel engagement rules by sailing up to the enemy in a tiny, yet amazingly fast, rowing boat and throwing an enormous net over the enemy ships of the line, thus preventing them from running away. The battle was long running but eventually he sank all 33 craft by battering them with a tiny oar over a period of 12 years. The massive array of hundreds of guns were not able to sink the rower, with analysts unclear as to whether this was because the tiny boat was actually faster than the cannonballs or somehow didn't do as much damage... for some reason. This changed the landscape of conflict in years to come as ship construction moved from solid planking to cardboard and glue in combination with an army of monkeys continually spreading bitumen over the hull to offset these nasty oar attacks.





So many monkeys perished beneath those oars doing their duty for King and country, tears me up.
Luminus Mallus
Haul Chill And Kill All
#42 - 2012-09-03 06:35:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Luminus Mallus
Let me pick up this garbage bin dump post of yours and tear it apart, since it's obvious that many eve monkeys 'think' like you do.

Weasel Juice wrote:

Funny. I thought pay2win (as in buying bigger more expensive ships) is exactly what you're asking for.

It is not. Failure to understand a simple post should be a hint for staying the **** out. Kthxbye.

Weasel Juice wrote:

I recommend you read that part again, as you seem to have completely missed the point of it.


See above. I perfectly understand what people write, differently than you obviously, you thread derailing drooling fool.

Weasel Juice wrote:
Where did you get that number from exactly? I have a feeling this is just a random number you pulled out of your head. At least demonstrate that you possess the ability to do your research.

I did some very, very, very advanced research, but it's reserved exclusively for non deluded, non pathetic persons. People with HIADDEF (Head Into Ass Delusion Disorder Eve Fanboys) normally don't have access to it, but here's the deal:
log in at different but regular periods of the day, and check that little 'status ok, xxxx players' ticker when you log in, over a long period of time. Those are the xxxx players that are online! Thats' ******* magic dude, if you see that number, you can see how many players are logged in! And most like market orders, you can easily see the tendency. But that's a big secret. Hush hush.

Weasel Juice wrote:
Beyond your so-called tests, have you done any actual PvP? http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=572916 seems to suggest that you have not.

Let me put it like this: only a mentally impaired person can take a bite off a rotten apple, to determine if it's rotten, with the false hope of appreciating its taste nonetheless, when he can without a shadow of a doubt see and confirm that the apple is, by all means, rotten.
Despite eve's perfect transposition from test to 'real' pvp, you obviosly would still play pvp? Clearly then you'd be that guy that tastes the apple nonetheless. GG!

Weasel Juice wrote:
I took a dump on my keyboard and a post came out! Ghghgh! Funny!
Some seriously offtopic and brain damaged ramble about monopoly came out as a bonus!

Yep.

A deluded clown wrote: Dude, if 99% of the player base thinks it isint broken it aint broken.
Yeah. that's why 99% of eve's pop is in lowsec tearing eachother asses apart in pvp right now... NOT.
DELUSION people, you're ridiculous.
Access the star map.
Select 'players active'
By a simple 'sum the bubbles', you can easily see that lowsec nullsec barely amounts to 20%.
That 20% that keeps the servers alive lol, at least you actually pay $$$ for your delusion love.

- PVP It is broken because PVP is a well known term that is universally associated with human skill and efficiency with any controller, with reflexes, with accuracy or precision and intellect. eve's pvp is 'money and intellect'. Skill has absolutely no place.
- pay to win because a 6 month player with max frigate can still not afford what a 7 year character can afford.
If I play battlefield bad company 2 for A DAY I can be as effective as a 6 month old player, and access the same hardware, even.
- I -never- used the term 'realism' in any of my posts. Realism has nothing to do with the necessary fix to eve's pvp. What eve needs is an actual categorization of combat. People who don't want to PVP are -forced- to, and usually have no means to defend themselves, or are outnumbered. Seriously only an imbecile can agree with this approach in the year 2012.
Additionally, even if people would want to PVP, they usually don't have a proper fitting, or the fitting that they'd want.
Another fix? Let people equip a PVP and a PVE fitting AT THE SAME TIME and swap them on the fly, I for one would IMMEDIATELY start running missions in lowsec.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-09-03 06:52:53 UTC
Wait, 20% of the games population is propping up the other 80%? that's an interesting idea.
Many would say that Jita keeps eve alive. sheer numbers.
A 2 day old player can access (though not use) the same equipment as a 8 year veteran. A bought character, can use what ever it is skilled to.
a max frigate skilled player, is on equal level except for personal skill with any other max skilled frigate pilot. many of them can indeed afford what they want or the same fittings as a much older player. even without selling plex. I am assuming that even you are not advocating the complete revocation of the skill progression setup that they have. or are you? what is a better system?

what exactly is the necessary fix?
why should people not be forced into pvp in some way? (human interaction is a goal of EVE devs, regardles of how it happens)
which approach? that people ought to be social in a mmo? or something else?
what are the proper fittings? are they not completely situational? is it not realistic nee~ factual that you will not always have the "correct" fittings?

Were you running a battleship in lowsec and were destroyed by a frigate in a mission area?
what benefit would being able to have two fittings at one time have and what are the drawbacks?

why should a frigate not be able to destroy a battleship?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#44 - 2012-09-03 06:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Luminus Mallus wrote:
Let people equip a PVP and a PVE fitting AT THE SAME TIME and swap them on the fly, I for one would IMMEDIATELY start running missions in lowsec.[/b]

Or you can PvE in a PvP fit and pay attention to your surroundings. It requires some fineness and may not be "optimal"... but it is certainly doable and, if done right, you rarely every get caught.

Hell... with the rewards offered for level 5 missions you can afford to bring a buddy in a specially fit ship (like a HIC) to tank everything while you gank everything else.
I've even seen a corpie run a level 5 with an alt and/or friend in RR-cap transferring Dominixes. No one ever screws with him.

edit:
Quote:
People who don't want to PVP are -forced- to, and usually have no means to defend themselves, or are outnumbered.

Great news. Whatever advantage an enemy uses against you can also be used against your enemy. The trick in learning to stack the advantages in your favor.

Quote:
PVP It is broken because PVP is a well known term that is universally associated with human skill and efficiency with any controller, with reflexes, with accuracy or precision and intellect. eve's pvp is 'money and intellect'. Skill has absolutely no place.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I consider "intellect" to be a rare skill that few ever master.
I personally can't wrap my head around industry and can't command a group of people to save my life. So I'll always be at a disadvantage against people who can do either of those things well.


OP... I must ask... if you disagree with the fundamentals of a game which we play BECAUSE of its fundamentals... why are you still here? What do you hope to achieve by criticizing everything?
It's not like CCP is going to say, "wow... you know... he's right. Guess we better scrap the game entirely and start from square one."

How did you Veterans start?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-09-03 07:16:37 UTC
Luminus Mallus wrote:
- pay to win because a 6 month player with max frigate can still not afford what a 7 year character can afford.


ISK and longevity do not guarantee success in this game. Asymmetrical warfare exists in this game and if you just want one ship that can dominate all the others with no contest, entirely on its own, try a different game.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#46 - 2012-09-03 07:58:31 UTC
Vakr Onzo wrote:
Looking at some autocannons and lasers, you see indications of lower 'calibre' weapons being grouped together in a single turret. Usually they have better tracking or smaller fitting needs.


True, but I'd say that those weapons, using medium ammunition and having worse tracking, while being grouped together are a poor representation of the earlier idea. Ii think, while It will never show up, I'll post something more fully developed in the F&I forum about what I was talking about.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2012-09-03 08:08:58 UTC
Welcome to game balance and paper-scissors-rock design.
Working as intended and working perfectly without the fail design idea that bigger or more expensive must be better.
Colonel Xaven
Perkone
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-09-03 09:59:01 UTC
Luminus Mallus wrote:
My point is easy, and everybody learned it the hard way after their first ship losses in each category.
NOTE: frigates are used as example of the smallest ship accessible to 100% of the playerbase, and battleships as the biggest, accessible to 60% of the playerbase [the others being trials and new accounts])

frigates. less than circa 50 meter long ships: can fit small high slots, up to 8 in number (counting destroyers in the category, by size)
battlecruisers, up to TEN TIMES bigger than frigates: can fit medium slots, up to 8 in number. can fit small, too... but only in the medium high slot.
Medium size weapons fail to properly defend the ship against a frigate, unless the ship is equipped to fight frigates only.
FAIL.
battleships, up to FIFTY TIMES BIGGER THAN FRIGATES (counting dreadnoughts and carriers): can fit large high slots, up to 8 in number.
Large size weapons fail to properly defend the ship against battlecruisers, unless the ship is specifically equipped to fight battlecruisers. FAIL 2.
Large size weapons are completely unable to defend the battleship against frigates. specific fittings are only barely efficient.
FAIL 3.
If the battleship is specifically equipped to fight against frigates or battlecruisers, it becomes completely useless as a battleship.
FAIL 4.

FIX: In all of history, the bigger the vessel, the more weapons it carried.
Battleships SHOULD have additional medium and small slots, that should obviously only fit THOSE specific weapons in them, but they don't have them.
A battleship, 1000+ meters long, has at maximum 8 weapons systems.
EVE IS A FAILURE, where a battleship (eve's name could not be more sorely misused) has as little weapons systems as a frigate.

FIX: Basically, the bigger the ship class, the more additional lower class weapon systems it should have.
Even without the bonuses, it would suffice.

To the miserable ccp team idiot that thought about misusing the 'battleship' term to identify the actual joke that the ship represents: how a battleship armament present itself (armament section on the right column)

Gotta love how much low sec null sec whiners there are, and how they cry their pussies out about the fact that lowsecnullsec is 'nerfed' or 'has no love',
you idiots obviously expect that a highsec player that can raise 20 million isk and more an hour risk his billion isk ships going to a place where not only he will be outnumbered, but where even his biggest ships can offer no sufficient deal of confidence or security or protection.

Additionally, what about SCRAMBLERS and WEBBERS?
a frigate scrambling and webbing power is COMPLETELY unaffected by target ship size difference.
frigate vs battleship scramble/ web? no problem, 100% efficiency. whichever the excuse you elaborate for this retardedness, in your deluded and idiotic mind, it would not stand, even under the scrutiny of the most ******** of the sci-fi loving fans. no electronics, no physics, no magic could, would and should allow this. FAIL 5.
FIX: introduce ship size based web and scramble efficiency

Anyhow since it's obvious that eve is lasting because of a small number of 'white whales' that dump their salaries into cpp's pockets, to fuel such fail,
I gloat at the fact that dust's smoldering wreckage of fail will associate ccp to the actual fail that is eve, so that eventually the hordes of trials that are brought in by the banners will stop coming, to fuel the pathetic idea that's behind eve's PVP:
you don't need real human skill when you have isk (and/ or just dumped four real time years of real cash into training your character)

The '$ replaces human skill' phylosophy should never have existed in the first place in an online game, and time has come for it to die, possibly with its physical creators and supporters, to never come back.


I am sorry, but it looks like that EvE is the very wrong game for you. There are so much terrible misunderstandings in there, which you are aware of but unwilling to understand, that any attempt to explain those things to you is a waste of time.

Please quit.

www.facebook.com/RazorAlliance
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-09-03 16:00:09 UTC
Gunnlaugur wrote:
Dude, if 99% of the player base thinks it isint broken it aint broken.


Did you know that 72% of statistics are made up arbitrarily?

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-09-03 21:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vakr Onzo
Jax Bederen wrote:
betoli wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.


I'm loving this thread :-)

Navel historians may also recollect Nelsons victory at Trafalgar where he broke the conventional navel engagement rules by sailing up to the enemy in a tiny, yet amazingly fast, rowing boat and throwing an enormous net over the enemy ships of the line, thus preventing them from running away. The battle was long running but eventually he sank all 33 craft by battering them with a tiny oar over a period of 12 years. The massive array of hundreds of guns were not able to sink the rower, with analysts unclear as to whether this was because the tiny boat was actually faster than the cannonballs or somehow didn't do as much damage... for some reason. This changed the landscape of conflict in years to come as ship construction moved from solid planking to cardboard and glue in combination with an army of monkeys continually spreading bitumen over the hull to offset these nasty oar attacks.





So many monkeys perished beneath those oars doing their duty for King and country, tears me up.
I should point out the pirates in the Golden Age of Pirates could evade the cannon fires enough to board bigger ships from tiny boats. So many masts turned into monkey trees.....
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-09-03 22:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Yes, in the future things will not make sense to you, because people will fallow a different philosophic path...

If we had only minmatar you would complain: Why in the future they still uses projectiles and not lasers... The answer is because they want...

Maybe Telockan built theyr ships this way... with mixed guns... and they all got raped and extinct. now...

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Plaude Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-09-04 08:46:49 UTC
Why are you still playing, if you're so dissatisfied with the game?

New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of _**your **_choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#53 - 2012-09-04 16:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Morgan North wrote:
I'm seeing that after reading all of this, the main point of the OP's can be summed up as:

"Why, on earth, when I fit a lower sized gun to a larger class vessel, I fit only one when realistically, including by scale and relative size, there's plenty of room for more than one turret?"

Disregarding the fact that the weapons are bonused in each hull in terms of being small/medium/large and extra large, thusly by design giving the players a good and strong suggestion that "they should fit these and as many as they can possibly can" when using that hull, the reality of the thing is that you often gain no bonuses (practically speaking) if you do fit smaller sized guns.

Ironically, this could be solved with basically introducing new weapons, that would consist of just lower classed weapons grouped together. with no difference in stats from the smaller guns otherthan being doubled up.

For instance:

You get yourself a Rokh. It can have, say, 8 rail guns. But you want 4 rail guns and you really want to be a anti frigate brawler, for some reason. Lelts assume that you don't simply do the obvious which is replace all guns with Blasters, and then slapping possibly a Haavy Neutralizer, and webs on your mid slots, and target painters and you know, the things that will make you hit a frigate.

Lets assume you go and start by fitting cruiser sized weaponery to your Rokh. Your turrets look silly and small, but you could potentially have two on tht slot, either by CCP allowing you to purchase and slap on two guns per slot, or but CCP making a "new" turret that consisted of "dual heavy electron blasters" which was in essence a turret with two electron blasters side by side, with all stats doubled except for tracking. Now lets assume you want even more tracking, and you fit say... Quad Light electron Blasters.

While the idea sound nice, and you get to scale up the DPS, you'd still make no bonuses, and there's the whole fact that you might never use those guns since you lack the speed to approach a frigate. But then there's another which is, the number of possible combinations fit. And there's also the annoying detail that they wouldnt' be covered by the battleship's bonuses.

I'd liketo see somethign like this, but I don't think it'll ever show up.


Pay attention OP, this is how it's done. Rather than acting like an idiot and replying to your detractors with nothing but bile and condescension, this guy offers up ideas for how to fix it.

Now I understand that you don't like the notion that the battleship is limited to large guns. In reality, a combat spaceship WOULD be fitted out with defenses against smaller ships. But this isn't reality. This is a game that needs to be balanced. Part of balance is making it so that "bigger and more epensive" isn't a trump for everything smaller.

edit: posting in a stealth "I lost my battleship to a well-flown frigate" thread.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#54 - 2012-09-04 18:57:12 UTC

There are several design concepts EvE developers purposely maintain:

1.) Bigger does not mean better... As you increase your ships class, you gain several advantages (long range on your dps, more tank, more gank) and you gain several disadvantages (slower, poorer tracking, etc).

2.) Fitting matters.... If you "optimize" your fit to kill NPC's, you almost always create a weakness that can be exploited. You can optimize a BS to kill frigates, but then it becomes much less effective at killing other BS's....

why create weaknesses in bigger ships?

To create a Rochambeau game... Rock beats scissors which beats paper which beats rock .. ... ... If you didn't have this, then a fleet of supers would be the ultimate fleet.... which couldn't be countered except by another bigger fleet of supers.... If you understood this game, you'd realize that the players here DEMAND that bigger doesn't mean I WIN!!!!!! (ok, supers have design problems, but if you paid attention CCP has been nerfing and chaning for the last year to bring them into line). Standard BS's lose to AHACS which lose to BC's which lose to BS's.....

As for dual setups, no, no, no.... this creates a ton of problems you have to be blind not to see....
Luminus Mallus
Haul Chill And Kill All
#55 - 2012-09-05 06:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Luminus Mallus
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

There are several design concepts EvE developers purposely maintain:

1.) Bigger does not mean better... As you increase your ships class, you gain several advantages (long range on your dps, more tank, more gank) and you gain several disadvantages (slower, poorer tracking, etc).

2.) Fitting matters.... If you "optimize" your fit to kill NPC's, you almost always create a weakness that can be exploited. You can optimize a BS to kill frigates, but then it becomes much less effective at killing other BS's....

why create weaknesses in bigger ships?

To create a Rochambeau game... Rock beats scissors which beats paper which beats rock .. ... ... If you didn't have this, then a fleet of supers would be the ultimate fleet.... which couldn't be countered except by another bigger fleet of supers.... If you understood this game, you'd realize that the players here DEMAND that bigger doesn't mean I WIN!!!!!! (ok, supers have design problems, but if you paid attention CCP has been nerfing and chaning for the last year to bring them into line). Standard BS's lose to AHACS which lose to BC's which lose to BS's.....

As for dual setups, no, no, no.... this creates a ton of problems you have to be blind not to see....


You're not the only one mentioning this 'feature' as the origin of the failure, but you're WRONG.
And not wrong as in "mistaken", but wrong as "I'm too ******* stupid to understand that I am deluded to the point I don't WANT to see the failure"!

"perfect imbalance" lol.

It is quite obvious and clear that eve is pay to win, so we can let that discussion aside for now, but what matters is that THAT's the actual only reason.
No perfect imbalance bullshit or delusion: frigates, and their level II equipment, are the most accessible WIN hardware for 1+ year characters, and are the most inaccessible hardware for 1- year characters, which fits appropriately because of the RIDICULOUS playerbase turnover in this game (if I remember correctly, 6 new players out of 10 never play again after just 6 months).
Simply put, eve's miserable and ******** 'pvp' revolves around intentional digital division, as a matter of fact, that's fortunately killing the game slowly. And that will hopefully receive the final blow after dust's atomic crash & burn mushroom.

Especially since, as I wrote already, there's very simple, perfect examples that even a rotten-cabbage-for-brain fanboy can understand and concieve:
- take a battlecruiser with rate of fire and falloff bonus for medium turrets, with 6 high slots
- FIX: add, say, 4 high SMALL slots
- limit the number of concurrent firing weapons to SIX (see the magix?)
No seriously -think - about this, dimwits.
You have a total of 10 (TEN) weapon systems, but you can only fire 6 (SIX) concurrently.
- don't apply bonuses to the new small slots

In comparison to a dedicated, 4 high slots cruiser or frigate, this battlecruiser performs very, very poorly, but at least it has a 'hope' of defending itself.
This is not aimed at 'unigank fit' or whatever other pathetic failure some brain damaged deluded fanboys conclude, but it's aimed at giving -all- ships a chance against -all- ships.
SO THAT PVP BECOMES VIABLE FOR ANYONE.

Not take a battleship, but with 8 high slots
- It receives 6 new medium slots, and receives 4 new small slots, for example, but can only fire EIGHT concurrently

By all means, lack of bonuses and maximum concurrent firing weapon limitations would create a
JUST imbalance
that'd give the smaller ship a very good chance of survival. Certainly to the extent in which 'skill' is involved in eve, without depriving the bigger ship of its currently lacking means of survival.


If these FIXES weren't necessary:
- why you're playing reacharounds between yourselves in low and nullsec, and CONSTANTLY and INCESSANTLY whining about the lack of people there? Because eve's PVP is ****.
- why the playerbase keeps shrinking despite the major, important and awesome updates? Because eve's PVP is ****.
- why the factional warfare is a complete, utter and steaming pile of smoldering ****? Because eve's PVP is ****.
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#56 - 2012-09-05 07:42:31 UTC
Basically, here's a summary of what OP said thus far.

Luminus Mallus wrote:



  1. Waaa Waaa Waaa [crying baby sound], I lost one too many ships!
  2. I'm going to blame game mechanics, semantics and bad terminology
  3. I'm going to link spaceships to naval warfare
  4. I'm going to use no structure or decent grammar (excuse my own mistakes btw) whatsoever in my posts
  5. I'm going to include a rant about nullsec, webbing/scrambling, shipsizes, gunsizes, see how much constructice posts that will generate...
  6. "CCP 'team', f**k you!"
  7. EVE is pay to win
  8. Everyone here is stupid


Let me answer to all those points in order. And someone pls, CCP or whoever else, lock this afterwards as nothing constructive will come from this.

  1. You fail at simple survival in EVE, obviously, or you wouldn't rage on forums this hard.
  2. If you are serious, find another game to play as this is obviously too hard for you. Don't blame the mechanics.
  3. Real lifenaval warfare has nothing to do with this.
  4. Some structure in your posts or at least some courtesy to be friendly to the people trying to explain stuff to you might help you achieve whatever it is you came here for.
  5. Go to nullsec unprepared and expect to die. Webbing, scramblin, shipsizes, gun signatures are all fine the way they are.
  6. CCP gave most of us a very wonderous and addictive game for the past 7 years (in my case). So f**k you!
  7. I may have spent a lot of € on EVE (three subscribed accounts for at least 4 years and some plex codes), but EVE is certainly not pay to win. You can't buy contacts (well, good contacts I mean), can't buy pvp or pve experience, can't buy SP and you definetly can't buy reputation (which is probably the most important aspect of EVE imho, aside from the whole pvp experience)
  8. You might want to look at this here: linky
Luminus Mallus
Haul Chill And Kill All
#57 - 2012-09-05 11:42:49 UTC
Ellariona wrote:
I am a pathetic, deluded and desperate fanboy that found the need to maintain multiple accounts over several years, to compensate for eve's shortcomings and miserable pvp, which is obviously pay2win (otherwise why the multiple accounts, heh),
and I so wish that people like the OP would not come here to burst my delusion bubble.


You are, truly and true. Your post is so moronic and so shallow, that I'm not even tempted to tear it apart word by word.

Eve's PVP is very obviously broken.

FIX:
- unify pve and pvp fittings in some manner. of course introducing ewar in pve should require a serious finetune in rewards if you don't want to hemorrage carebears out of the game (this already happens at a steady, increasing pace).
- allow secondary on-the-fly fitting swap. add a timer, a skill, whatever.
- introduce additional weapon bays to accomodate medium and small weapons in increasing ship tiers.
=
Welcome to low sec
=
WIN
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2012-09-05 12:05:28 UTC
Luminus Mallus wrote:
You're not the only one mentioning this 'feature' as the origin of the failure, but you're WRONG.
No, he really isn't. The “problem” you're trying to solve doesn't exist and the limitations you want to remove are there for game-balancing reason — removing those limits causes the problem you are trying to “solve”.

Quote:
It is quite obvious and clear that eve is pay to win
No, it really isn't. What you're asking for kind of is, though.

Quote:
Especially since, as I wrote already, there's very simple, perfect examples that even a rotten-cabbage-for-brain fanboy can understand and concieve:
- take a battlecruiser with rate of fire and falloff bonus for medium turrets, with 6 high slots
- FIX: add, say, 4 high SMALL slots
- limit the number of concurrent firing weapons to SIX (see the magix?)
No seriously -think - about this, dimwits.
You have a total of 10 (TEN) weapon systems, but you can only fire 6 (SIX) concurrently.
- don't apply bonuses to the new small slots
This already exists.

Quote:
If these FIXES weren't necessary:
- why you're playing reacharounds between yourselves in low and nullsec, and CONSTANTLY and INCESSANTLY whining about the lack of people there? Because eve's PVP is ****.
- why the playerbase keeps shrinking despite the major, important and awesome updates? Because eve's PVP is ****.
- why the factional warfare is a complete, utter and steaming pile of smoldering ****? Because eve's PVP is ****.
You might be interested in knowing that none of those are actually true. Two of them have no basis and one is a blatant lie — objectively untrue. Lies and baseless screaming is not an argument, nor is it a good cover for the fundamental lack of understanding of the game you've just displayed.
Luminus Mallus
Haul Chill And Kill All
#59 - 2012-09-05 12:33:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Luminus Mallus
Tippia wrote:
I'm a desperate non-player that spends such ridiculous amounts of time in the forums, that I mistake real life for eve, and viceversa.


Given that you're so eager for attention, I give you the honor of a reply. from me.
It shouldn't be necessary, but your post count OBVIOUSLY reflects the kind of 'player' and 'person' at the keyboard.
As a hint: you're identical to the HORDES of BEYOND HOPE DELUDED fanboys that plague these forums, just a lot worse.

Tippia wrote:
No, he really isn't. The “problem” you're trying to solve doesn't exist and the limitations you want to remove are there for game-balancing reason — removing those limits causes the problem you are trying to “solve”.

Oh yeah, because pvpers don't whine about nullsec and lowsec deserts.
Get a ******* reality check.
The problem exists.
Quite obviously your delusion blocks you from witnessing it.
That, and the ridiculous amount of time you spend on the forums obviously discussing things you know **** about.

Tippia wrote:
No, it really isn't. What you're asking for kind of is, though.

Ok I'll explain it as if it were explaining it to a ****** 4 year old:
Skill points depend on time.
Time depends on subscription money.
Skill = money.
Welcome to eve.
Hopefully, even you can understand it now.
The fix on the other hand has NOTHING to do with pay2win.
It simply gives bigger ships a chance against smaller ships, without denying their role as BIGGER.

Tippia wrote:
This already exists

Dude... are you subnormal?
You make me remember one guy Tippis in planetside. He was an imbecile through and through, that would not understand the simplest of concepts, with a seriously unhealthy postcount.
This DOES NOT EXIST.
Ships currently don't have ADDITIONAL, dedicated medium and small weapon slots.
FIX: ADD -EXTRA- dedicated medium and small weapon slots to ships = WIN. Limit the maximum amount of concurrent firing weapons = WIN.

Tippia wrote:
You might be interested in knowing that none of those are actually true. Two of them have no basis and one is a blatant lie — objectively untrue. Lies and baseless screaming is not an argument, nor is it a good cover for the fundamental lack of understanding of the game you've just displayed.

Your delusion would be laughable, if it weren't pathetic.
1- check the game
2- check the game
3- check the game
All true.
Yours are just negations and deluded frustrations of somebody who's too blind to admit that the game he loves is a failure in terms of the universally acknowledged meaning of 'pvp', where skill is involved.
For many aspects eve is a good game, certainly, but obviously not because of its pvp. Don't even get me started on the **** which is factional warfare lol.
This fix can easily put things straight though. Don't fear.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2012-09-05 12:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Luminus Mallus wrote:
The problem exists.
No, it really doesn't. Larger ships are meant to be weak to smaller ships. It's what ensures that new players stand a chance against older ones and part of what keeps the game from being P2W. What you call a problem is an intentional design to balance ship sizes and to remove advantages from older players.

Quote:
Skill points depend on time.
…and SP doesn't make you win. In particular, by exploiting the inevitable gaps in the other guy's fittings and ship choices (not to mention applicability of all those SP) a younger player can take out an older player surprisingly easy. What you're asking for is the ability to dynamically remove those gaps, thereby removing this options from the new player.

Quote:
This DOES NOT EXIST.
Yes it does. If you want to engage a smaller ship, you fit equipment tailored to get rid of smaller ships. If you want to engage a larger ship, you fit equipment tailored to get rid of larger ships. This pre-existing ability does exactly what you want, with the added bonus that it retains the required gaps in fittings to allow a ship you didn't expect to come along and ruin your day.

Quote:
1- check the game
2- check the game
3- check the game
1. No. People aren't complaining about the lack of of people in lowsec because PvP is crap — they complain that there aren't enough incentives for people to overcome their desire not to be shot at. Those not going there don't care about the quality of PvP — they don't want it to begin with.

2. The playerbase is growing.

3. The problems of FW has very little to do with the state of PvP and a whole lot to do with the state of PvE (imbalance of rats) and of exploitable mechanics.

So yeah, 3 out of 3 wrong, two of which might be somewhat open to interpretation depending on your subjective view and one of which is simply objectively wrong because it tries to contradict facts.

The fact that you cannot argue this without ad hominems also show that you don't really have much in the way of actual arguments to support your case. The fact that you don't understand how the game works shows that you don't understand why your supposed problem doesn't exist. The fact that you rely on fabrications and lies shows that you don't really know what you're talking about and should go educate yourself before making an even bigger fool of yourself.