These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Flagged for solo
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-11-06 04:20:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
I understand the nature of EVE better than most. However, I have thought of something that might improve the solo pvp environment in a limited capacity. I call it flagging for solo. Instead of flagging for PVP, like themepark games, you flag for solo. How would this work to improve solo PVP content while staying true to the nature of EVE without being exploitable? Well, I've given it some thought, but naturally I can't think of everything myself, so I'm opening this up to some brainstorming. Here's how it would work.

1. The first thing flagging yourself for solo PVP makes you is unable to be in a fleet. To flag yourself for solo PVP, if you are in a fleet, you must leave it.

2. When flagged for solo PVP, you are only able to lock one target at a time, and you will only be able to be locked by one target at a time. Essentially, being locked by something makes you unlockable by anything else. Now you might be thinking, what if a friend locks you to prevent an opponent from locking you? Well, it doesn't work that way because if an opponent can't lock you, they can't shoot you, and as a result, there would be no legal way for you to shoot the guy you're trying to kill by doing this. (I just realised why this won't work so well in low or nullsec, but I'll think of a fix). This, however, can also be adjustable. If you wish, as a solo pvp'er, if you are looking for a challenge, you can set the number of targets capable of locking you to more than one, and you'll be able to lock the same number of targets.

3. When flagged for solo PVP, you essentially automatically consent to duels without the need for a duel invite. Someone only need lock you up and start shooting, and can do so without being concorded. Ie, it'll be like being flagged GCC but you won't be GCC. So it would work in highsec as well but, you wouldn't be able to shoot someone that wasn't flagged themselves until they started shooting you.

There were a few other rules I was going to lay down here but I've been drinking and forgot them. If I remember, I'll update. Please feel free to contribute thoughts to the above rules, or suggest your own, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. Basically, what I want out of this is to be able to give a bit more power to the solo pvp'er, especially against multiboxers and blobs. I'm always keen on a good fight, even when I'm outnumbered and outgunned I'll still give it a go most of the time, and don't get me wrong, I've been blobbed and been in blobs plenty of times as well, and I don't want to nerf that at all, so please, I don't want anyone thinking this is a bitter 'nerf multiboxing/blobbing' thread. I'm genuinely trying to think of ways to make solo PVP more viable - to give the individual pilot more of an opportunity to more confidently test him- or herself.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#2 - 2014-11-06 04:25:14 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I understand the nature of EVE better than most. However, I have thought of something that might improve the solo pvp environment in a limited capacity. I call it flagging for solo. Instead of flagging for PVP, like themepark games, you flag for solo. How would this work to improve solo PVP content while staying true to the nature of EVE without being exploitable? Well, I've given it some thought, but naturally I can't think of everything myself, so I'm opening this up to some brainstorming. Here's how it would work.

1. The first thing flagging yourself for solo PVP makes you is unable to be in a fleet. To flag yourself for solo PVP, if you are in a fleet, you must leave it.

2. When flagged for solo PVP, you are only able to lock one target at a time, and you will only be able to be locked by one target at a time. Essentially, being locked by something makes you unlockable by anything else. Now you might be thinking, what if a friend locks you to prevent an opponent from locking you? Well, it doesn't work that way because if an opponent can't lock you, they can't shoot you, and as a result, there would be no legal way for you to shoot the guy you're trying to kill by doing this. This, however, can also be adjustable. If you wish, as a solo pvp'er, if you are looking for a challenge, you can set the number of targets capable of locking you to more than one, and you'll be able to lock the same number of targets.

3. When flagged for solo PVP, you essentially automatically consent to duels without the need for a duel invite. Someone only need lock you up and start shooting, and can do so without being concorded. Ie, it'll be like being flagged GCC but you won't be GCC. So it would work in highsec as well but, you wouldn't be able to shoot someone that wasn't flagged themselves until they started shooting you.

There were a few other rules I was going to lay down here but I've been drinking and forgot them. If I remember, I'll update. Please feel free to contribute thoughts to the above rules, or suggest your own, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. Basically, what I want out of this is to be able to give a bit more power to the solo pvp'er, especially against multiboxers and blobs. I'm always keen on a good fight, even when I'm outnumbered and outgunned I'll still give it a go most of the time, and don't get me wrong, I've been blobbed and been in blobs plenty of times as well, and I don't want to nerf that at all, so please, I don't want anyone thinking this is a bitter 'nerf multiboxing/blobbing' thread. I'm genuinely trying to think of ways to make solo PVP more viable - to give the individual pilot more of an opportunity to more confidently test him- or herself.


It's an interesting idea...although I only see it being viable in high sec since in low/null you can be attacked by anyone anyways.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-11-06 04:28:25 UTC
Kaely Tanniss wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I understand the nature of EVE better than most. However, I have thought of something that might improve the solo pvp environment in a limited capacity. I call it flagging for solo. Instead of flagging for PVP, like themepark games, you flag for solo. How would this work to improve solo PVP content while staying true to the nature of EVE without being exploitable? Well, I've given it some thought, but naturally I can't think of everything myself, so I'm opening this up to some brainstorming. Here's how it would work.

1. The first thing flagging yourself for solo PVP makes you is unable to be in a fleet. To flag yourself for solo PVP, if you are in a fleet, you must leave it.

2. When flagged for solo PVP, you are only able to lock one target at a time, and you will only be able to be locked by one target at a time. Essentially, being locked by something makes you unlockable by anything else. Now you might be thinking, what if a friend locks you to prevent an opponent from locking you? Well, it doesn't work that way because if an opponent can't lock you, they can't shoot you, and as a result, there would be no legal way for you to shoot the guy you're trying to kill by doing this. This, however, can also be adjustable. If you wish, as a solo pvp'er, if you are looking for a challenge, you can set the number of targets capable of locking you to more than one, and you'll be able to lock the same number of targets.

3. When flagged for solo PVP, you essentially automatically consent to duels without the need for a duel invite. Someone only need lock you up and start shooting, and can do so without being concorded. Ie, it'll be like being flagged GCC but you won't be GCC. So it would work in highsec as well but, you wouldn't be able to shoot someone that wasn't flagged themselves until they started shooting you.

There were a few other rules I was going to lay down here but I've been drinking and forgot them. If I remember, I'll update. Please feel free to contribute thoughts to the above rules, or suggest your own, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. Basically, what I want out of this is to be able to give a bit more power to the solo pvp'er, especially against multiboxers and blobs. I'm always keen on a good fight, even when I'm outnumbered and outgunned I'll still give it a go most of the time, and don't get me wrong, I've been blobbed and been in blobs plenty of times as well, and I don't want to nerf that at all, so please, I don't want anyone thinking this is a bitter 'nerf multiboxing/blobbing' thread. I'm genuinely trying to think of ways to make solo PVP more viable - to give the individual pilot more of an opportunity to more confidently test him- or herself.


It's an interesting idea...although I only see it being viable in high sec since in low/null you can be attacked by anyone anyways.


By virtue of being flagged for solo, you'll only be lockable by as many people as you want to be able to lock, so you can set it to just one if you want. Although, I do see the problem of having a friend on gatecamps, having you locked while you're flagged, and someone jumping in being unable to lock you up. They wouldn't even have to be in a fleet for this. It's a flaw with my idea, for sure.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Sina Myop
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-11-06 04:36:51 UTC
Unshootible smartbombers are the best kind.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-11-06 04:40:55 UTC
Sina Myop wrote:
Unshootible smartbombers are the best kind.


Good point. You could also add a rule that you can't be fit with smartbombs to flag for solo I guess.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2014-11-06 04:51:36 UTC
Neutral Logi. Whoops, they locked the person they are repping so now they can't be shot.
This is silly. If you are in space, people should be able to shoot you. Solo does not mean everyone else is obliged to honour duel you, they can blob you as much as they want.
The only thing 'flagging for solo' should do is announce that you aren't in a fleet so you don't have a command ship boosting you hidden somewhere in a safe. So people might decide to engage you where as normally they would assume you have boosts so run away.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#7 - 2014-11-06 05:49:20 UTC
This idea has more merit if you say that being in a duel you get set "can receive remote assistance = 0"
Therefore no boost, no links, no reps

just pure 1v1 fun. You can still be shot though.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2014-11-06 06:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Smacks of instancing. I don't like instancing. Not in a "sandbox."

Also...

- if you can adjust the number of targets you wish to engage, and be engaged by, then you put the power of an engagement at the mercy of a single pilot.
Too many targets? Limit to one at a time (actually... why wouldn't one keep it at this setting at all times?). Then see next point.

- you if are set for "solo mode" and engage a single person in a group... does that mean that the group can't defend their comrade? If so, then your idea essentially gives a player an "IWIN" scenario because a player will simply engage the ship they know they can win against.

Example 1: Isolating and engaging the battleship you know your single frigate can kill. Ignore all the point defense ships that the battleship brought to specifically counter you.

Example 2: In the middle of a battle, leave your fleet (or arrive on-grid without joining a fleet) and set yourself to "solo mode." When an Ewar ship engages you (either to save itself and/or support its allies) it will effectively become "removed" from the entire battle (because it now locked in a "1v1" with you). And Ewar ships will have few options other than retreating because very few of them have any defensive or offensive power.


tldr: The idea places too much arbitrary power in the hands of a single individual and will allow said pilot to (more or less) completely dictate the terms of who and what they wish to engage.

Not Supported.

How did you Veterans start?
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#9 - 2014-11-06 06:33:35 UTC
Terrible and disgusting. This is a sandbox game, no flags.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-11-06 06:45:04 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Terrible and disgusting. This is a sandbox game, no flags.


We already have flags, so cry more.

Shah is right though about it being closer to instancing, but I disagree that it breaks the game if it can be fleshed out more. I get that people just like expatiating their hate over new ideas, that's why so many people still reject evolution after all, but I don't care if you think it's 'terrible and disgusting' unless you tell me what makes it so, which you didn't. Shah did. Shah provided criticism. You provided hot air.

Shah, on the other hand, took the effort to outline what was wrong with my idea, which I took the effort to outline with as much detail as possible. If you can't be bothered with effort, then EVE isn't for you anyway, so why do you even care?

Shah, you're right, but I'm gonna spend some time still thinking about how to flesh this out more based on your criticisms. Trust me, I'm the last person that wants to break the sandbox, and I have nothing against blobs or gangs at all - flying with your friends is a core element of EVE that can't be dismissed so lightly.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#11 - 2014-11-06 06:53:22 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Shah is right though about it being closer to instancing, but I disagree that it breaks the game if it can be fleshed out more. I get that people just like expatiating their hate over new ideas, that's why so many people still reject evolution after all, but I don't care if you think it's 'terrible and disgusting' unless you tell me what makes it so, which you didn't. Shah did. Shah provided criticism. You provided hot air.

It's not that it's a new idea. It's that the idea of a flag you can set being able to stop someone else performing a hostile action on you is against the basic principle of the sand box.
If the flag only affects what 'you' personally can do, and what help you can receive, that's fine.

Imagine the following.
Solo flag: Can not join fleets, Can not receive remote assistance. <--- That's it, no limits on targeting, or any of the rest. But now you can prove you are a solo PvP'er and don't have command ship boosts or neutral logi.
Honour Flag: Can not target pods. <---- That's it, doesn't stop them from shooting your pods, but you can now prove that you won't kill someones pod before you fight them.

Neither of these flags affect what someone hostile can do to you. They only affect what you can do and what friendly actions you can receive. And of course you wouldn't be able to change these flags with any combat timer or criminal/suspect flag active on you.

If these flags existed, I'm quite sure a lot more duels would happen in high sec, and I'm also quite sure people would do Samurai roams, where you set both flags on, and then go out in a gaggle, using team speak to move systems together, but without any boosts, remote reps and the like your only defence is what you can carry in your own hold. People might then engage you with less numbers thinking their remote reps and assistance to each other will be enough to balance numbers.

These are good flags.
Bad flags would be ones that protect you from hostile actions when normally you wouldn't be.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2014-11-06 07:20:48 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Shah is right though about it being closer to instancing, but I disagree that it breaks the game if it can be fleshed out more. I get that people just like expatiating their hate over new ideas, that's why so many people still reject evolution after all, but I don't care if you think it's 'terrible and disgusting' unless you tell me what makes it so, which you didn't. Shah did. Shah provided criticism. You provided hot air.

It's not that it's a new idea. It's that the idea of a flag you can set being able to stop someone else performing a hostile action on you is against the basic principle of the sand box.
If the flag only affects what 'you' personally can do, and what help you can receive, that's fine.

Imagine the following.
Solo flag: Can not join fleets, Can not receive remote assistance. <--- That's it, no limits on targeting, or any of the rest. But now you can prove you are a solo PvP'er and don't have command ship boosts or neutral logi.
Honour Flag: Can not target pods. <---- That's it, doesn't stop them from shooting your pods, but you can now prove that you won't kill someones pod before you fight them.

Neither of these flags affect what someone hostile can do to you. They only affect what you can do and what friendly actions you can receive. And of course you wouldn't be able to change these flags with any combat timer or criminal/suspect flag active on you.

If these flags existed, I'm quite sure a lot more duels would happen in high sec, and I'm also quite sure people would do Samurai roams, where you set both flags on, and then go out in a gaggle, using team speak to move systems together, but without any boosts, remote reps and the like your only defence is what you can carry in your own hold. People might then engage you with less numbers thinking their remote reps and assistance to each other will be enough to balance numbers.

These are good flags.
Bad flags would be ones that protect you from hostile actions when normally you wouldn't be.


I like this, yes, and you're absolutely right. The limits on targeting would break the ideal of the sandbox, but a solo flag that shows you're not in a fleet and can't receive boosts or reps would show people that you might be a good fight instead of assuming 'trap' and moving on. I would be flagged with that almost always if it were available.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#13 - 2014-11-06 11:32:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Terrible and disgusting. This is a sandbox game, no flags.


We already have flags, so cry more.

Shah is right though about it being closer to instancing, but I disagree that it breaks the game if it can be fleshed out more. I get that people just like expatiating their hate over new ideas, that's why so many people still reject evolution after all, but I don't care if you think it's 'terrible and disgusting' unless you tell me what makes it so, which you didn't. Shah did. Shah provided criticism. You provided hot air.

Shah, on the other hand, took the effort to outline what was wrong with my idea, which I took the effort to outline with as much detail as possible. If you can't be bothered with effort, then EVE isn't for you anyway, so why do you even care?

Shah, you're right, but I'm gonna spend some time still thinking about how to flesh this out more based on your criticisms. Trust me, I'm the last person that wants to break the sandbox, and I have nothing against blobs or gangs at all - flying with your friends is a core element of EVE that can't be dismissed so lightly.


We don't have any flags, only conditions resulting from your actions.

Outlining the obvious fault in your batshit ******** idea, which you put no effort behind, just brainfarted something on the forums?

First of all, you start from the false assumption that solo PVP needs some kind of magic dust to make it better, and think it would be possible to alter open world MMO PVP ruleset to allow a single player to decide ROE in a balanced way. It's not just closer to instancing, it is instancing but in a way that still allows you to interact with the sandbox however you feel like.

Your suggestion would simply break the whole game and ruin PVP completely for everyone, and there's nothing in it worth developing further.

Your mechanism allows the solo player to decide when and who can lock him.

Every ship that can tank more than a single ship outputs DPS becomes unkillable. You can get out of any fight by warping in your solo-flagged alt, and you lock each others. Fleet fights would be decided by who has the most pimped out supercapitals.

If you really are too thick to see why this is massively broken, then EVE isn't for you anyway.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-11-06 11:41:21 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
2. When flagged for solo PVP, you are only able to lock one target at a time.


What if I want to blap their drones, or web one and shoot the other?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#15 - 2014-11-06 11:50:58 UTC
sorry remi -1 from me, it would prevent awesome stuff like this happening.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#16 - 2014-11-06 11:54:59 UTC
ok here is an exploit on point 2 you say can only lock one target and be locked by one target so in a large fight you can fly in some ships that are not in the fleet but know what to do (say webbing or painting or something in that nature) they fly into the system one person on their side locks him and he can lock targets called on TS and web or paint them without being able to be locked by enemy fleet

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#17 - 2014-11-06 12:42:43 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sina Myop wrote:
Unshootible smartbombers are the best kind.


Good point. You could also add a rule that you can't be fit with smartbombs to flag for solo I guess.


I fly a solo Prophecy with smart bombs and drones. Why am I not allowed to use this fitting for a flagged solo fight?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#18 - 2014-11-06 13:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sina Myop wrote:
Unshootible smartbombers are the best kind.


Good point. You could also add a rule that you can't be fit with smartbombs to flag for solo I guess.

What about the reverse? Where I setup a trap such that I web you down and maintain a 10km gap while my corpmates burn to us and start smartbombing you.

Most useful as a tactic in low but can be used in high as well. A smartbombing Coercer can deal 1,500 damage before CONCORD arrives for the price of 2m ISK.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#19 - 2014-11-06 13:10:50 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sina Myop wrote:
Unshootible smartbombers are the best kind.


Good point. You could also add a rule that you can't be fit with smartbombs to flag for solo I guess.

What about the reverse? Where I setup a trap such that I web you down and maintain a 10km gap while my corpmates burn to us and start smartbombing you.


My point is that this whole idea is flawed to the core.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#20 - 2014-11-06 13:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I understand the nature of EVE better than most. However, I have thought of something that might improve the solo pvp environment in a limited capacity. I call it flagging for solo. Instead of flagging for PVP, like themepark games, you flag for solo. How would this work to improve solo PVP content while staying true to the nature of EVE without being exploitable? Well, I've given it some thought, but naturally I can't think of everything myself, so I'm opening this up to some brainstorming. Here's how it would work.

1. The first thing flagging yourself for solo PVP makes you is unable to be in a fleet. To flag yourself for solo PVP, if you are in a fleet, you must leave it.

2. When flagged for solo PVP, you are only able to lock one target at a time, and you will only be able to be locked by one target at a time. Essentially, being locked by something makes you unlockable by anything else. Now you might be thinking, what if a friend locks you to prevent an opponent from locking you? Well, it doesn't work that way because if an opponent can't lock you, they can't shoot you, and as a result, there would be no legal way for you to shoot the guy you're trying to kill by doing this. (I just realised why this won't work so well in low or nullsec, but I'll think of a fix). This, however, can also be adjustable. If you wish, as a solo pvp'er, if you are looking for a challenge, you can set the number of targets capable of locking you to more than one, and you'll be able to lock the same number of targets.

3. When flagged for solo PVP, you essentially automatically consent to duels without the need for a duel invite. Someone only need lock you up and start shooting, and can do so without being concorded. Ie, it'll be like being flagged GCC but you won't be GCC. So it would work in highsec as well but, you wouldn't be able to shoot someone that wasn't flagged themselves until they started shooting you.

There were a few other rules I was going to lay down here but I've been drinking and forgot them. If I remember, I'll update. Please feel free to contribute thoughts to the above rules, or suggest your own, I'd really like to have a discussion about this. Basically, what I want out of this is to be able to give a bit more power to the solo pvp'er, especially against multiboxers and blobs. I'm always keen on a good fight, even when I'm outnumbered and outgunned I'll still give it a go most of the time, and don't get me wrong, I've been blobbed and been in blobs plenty of times as well, and I don't want to nerf that at all, so please, I don't want anyone thinking this is a bitter 'nerf multiboxing/blobbing' thread. I'm genuinely trying to think of ways to make solo PVP more viable - to give the individual pilot more of an opportunity to more confidently test him- or herself.





My exploit to this:

Fly a Supercarrier, Flag for Solo, only roam lowsec.
Only one HIC at a Time can hit you (read: Tackle you), and with recent Fighter changes you're going to WRECK him. Now you can decide to either stay and blap the next one, or jump out the second he goes down.
Remember, only one guy can lock you, so no neuting pressure - and no damage either!


Generalized Exploit:

Only 1 Target, then fly a wtf-pwn mobile. Vindicator, Bhaalgorn, Barghest, Orthrus, you choose it.
Now, only 1 guy can tackle you. You're able to either blap him because of your insane dmg projection potential, or you neut him down.

Here comes the clue: you're being aligned!
Tackle goes down, others need a few sec to get new point going (remember, they have to lock you first!), and by that time you have already moonwalked out or start ******* up the next guy.
12Next page