These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Introducing the soloist module: No fleet? No help? No problem.

Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#41 - 2015-04-15 21:06:09 UTC
FT Cold wrote:

It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP.


First of all, you can take your "sense of equity" and go lose it up a wormhole.

Secondly, your suggestion is terrible because it relies entirely on one particular special kind of people not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Solo players neither deserve nor warrant such special considerations. Nevermind that it breaks several fundamental things about the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#42 - 2015-04-15 21:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
OP...What your idea basically says is...

If you want an advantage...
- fly without a fleet
- fly in a large fleet that can afford an alt and booster.


There is no in-between with your idea.


From a "fairness" standpoint, it is better to get rid of warfare links altogether and deal with the people whining about their now useless booster alts.
At that point, a soloist is has no more or less of an advantage than a small, medium, or large gang does... save numbers.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-04-15 21:18:18 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
ShahFluffers wrote:
What your idea basically says is...

If you want an advantage...
- fly without a fleet
- fly in a large fleet that can afford an alt and booster.


There is no in-between with your idea.


From a "fairness" standpoint, it is better to get rid of warfare links altogether and deal with the people whining about their now useless booster alts.
At that point, a soloist is has no more or less of an advantage than a small, medium, or large gang does... save numbers.


I don't see it quite so linearly. I think ideally the progression might look like:

-Fly without a fleet using the solo module
-Or fly with a booster alt to gain specific advantages or to augment specific ship traits to the maximum degree possible
-Fly in a small gang (2-3) without a fleet, all members using a solo module
-Fly in a small gang, without links, without logi, to gain the benefits of fleet warp and warp to fleet member functions
-Fly in a small gang, with links, without logi
-Fly in a small gang, or solo, in a fleet, without links, but with logi support
-Fly in a small gang, in a fleet, with links, with logi
-Fly in escalating fleet sizes, etc.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-04-15 21:21:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP.


First of all, you can take your "sense of equity" and go lose it up a wormhole.

Secondly, your suggestion is terrible because it relies entirely on one particular special kind of people not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Solo players neither deserve nor warrant such special considerations. Nevermind that it breaks several fundamental things about the game.


Well, I'm sorry you feel so hostile, but you haven't actually provided me with a valid reason that it breaks the game in any way.
Also, it caters to no group of people at all, as all players have equal access to it. It doesn't draw a distinction between group play or not, as it doesn't actually stop people from playing in a group while using it.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#45 - 2015-04-15 23:01:23 UTC
While you didn't really flesh out the idea, i like the idea. I would however not like to see them making catalysts, HACs and bombers any more powerful than they already are so perhaps restrict them to certain hulls like bastion is for marauders.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-04-15 23:23:40 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
While you didn't really flesh out the idea, i like the idea. I would however not like to see them making catalysts, HACs and bombers any more powerful than they already are so perhaps restrict them to certain hulls like bastion is for marauders.


Maybe, the idea here isn't to upset the apple-cart too much in terms of overall ship balance when warfare links are considered. Something like a gank catalyst with this module, or a gank catalyst with links, is still just a DPS platform, and will still be limited to that role. It wouldn't push ships into a realm that they're not already capable of.

It might be that they have to be limited to combat hulls only, or that we might find that it's an acceptable tradeoff to have, as an example, something like an exhumer choosing to use this module instead of receiving mining bonuses.

I just wanted to concentrate on the design philosophy of the module rather than it's exact details and explore the broader ramifications of such a module first.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#47 - 2015-04-16 04:32:30 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Cold wrote:


You would not be using this module for fleet play, that's the point of the module. It prevents you from joining a fleet or receiving remote assistance while it's equipped. In addition, you're not able to equip the module to an active ship while you're a member of a fleet.


so why can't i dock when in a fleet then?


Given that you cannot be in space and in a fleet while this module is equipped, you cannot dock because you will not have undocked in the first place.

So as your question represents an utterly impossible scenario, let it go.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#48 - 2015-04-16 04:35:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP.


First of all, you can take your "sense of equity" and go lose it up a wormhole.

Secondly, your suggestion is terrible because it relies entirely on one particular special kind of people not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Solo players neither deserve nor warrant such special considerations. Nevermind that it breaks several fundamental things about the game.


Such excessive hostility. Why do you have such contempt for solo players? What did they do so wrong?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-04-16 05:01:29 UTC
Let's not make it a module. Everyone should be equally free to be a soloist, so let's discuss ways to make soloing more viable without requiring special soloist gear.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#50 - 2015-04-16 05:04:11 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
What your idea basically says is...

If you want an advantage...
- fly without a fleet
- fly in a large fleet that can afford an alt and booster.


There is no in-between with your idea.


From a "fairness" standpoint, it is better to get rid of warfare links altogether and deal with the people whining about their now useless booster alts.
At that point, a soloist is has no more or less of an advantage than a small, medium, or large gang does... save numbers.


I don't see it quite so linearly. I think ideally the progression might look like:

-Fly without a fleet using the solo module
-Or fly with a booster alt to gain specific advantages or to augment specific ship traits to the maximum degree possible
-Fly in a small gang (2 to 3 20+) without a fleet, all members using a solo module
-Fly in a small gang, without links, without logi, to gain the benefits of fleet warp and warp to fleet member functions
-Fly in a small gang, with links, without logi
-Fly in a small gang, or solo, in a fleet, without links, but with logi support
-Fly in a small gang, in a fleet, with links, with logi
-Fly in escalating fleet sizes, etc.

I fixed your post.

If you are interested in gaining the most advantages over an opponent... the options that I did not cross out are the most optimal.


Yes... warfare links (even at half strength) are THAT powerful! Especially if you are gaining lesser bonuses of EVERYTHING (see: lower sig, higher agility and speed, longer disruptor/scram/web range, higher scan res, higher sensor strength, higher shield/armor resistances, faster and more efficient rep rates).


The only things that keep people from using warfare links everywhere are...
- the cost of maintaining an alt
- the time it takes to train into one
- the hassle of dragging one around as you or your gang/fleet moves around.
- the risk of losing it

Your module doesn't have any of those problems. Only a few MINOR constraints (except for the no-RR part) that can be bypassed with a little tedium and disciplined comms.


Again... either you fly in a fleet with links... or you fly with this module. If your interest is "winning," there is no in-between.


And yes... I do know what I am talking about. I fly in skirmish fleets often and we would use this ALL THE TIME. Because we already operate mostly solo. Fleets just make organizing easier.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2015-04-16 05:23:48 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Let's not make it a module. Everyone should be equally free to be a soloist, so let's discuss ways to make soloing more viable without requiring special soloist gear.


I chose the damage control to replace, i.e. you'd be either able to fit the solo module, the damage control, or neither, because it's nearly always a good choice for PVP fit ships. A few fits that require other choices for low slots might help to keep some variety and retain the usefulness of boosters.

The reason that I've chosen a module is that it increases the viability of solo play sans links without having to overhaul boosting mechanics, fleet size, or any of a hundred other considerations and it does so by leveraging its bonuses with drawbacks. Having to fit a module, instead of it being an intrinsic property of a ship, is one of it's drawbacks.

Right now, I think that everyone is free do be a solo PVPer if they chose; there's nothing to say that you can't and you can certainly derive a good game experience from doing so. I'm not always a solo player, but sometimes it's nice to go it alone. I've got links that I use sometimes and others I choose not to because I think it's fun. For a big subset of the community though, there's a perception, and not just from solo players, that links, gang size, and alts create an oppressive atmosphere for the little guy. I'm not here tell anyone to take those things away, only that the thresh hold for competitiveness between those with lots of resources and those with little, be made a but more traversable. Again, I'm not asking to close the gap completely.

I think this deserves a light touch and a creative approach, I've come here to show you mine and defend it from or appreciate criticism where appropriate.

If you have a suggestion on how you'd like to see the experience of solo PVP improved, I'd love to hear it.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#52 - 2015-04-16 05:27:49 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Let's not make it a module. Everyone should be equally free to be a soloist, so let's discuss ways to make soloing more viable without requiring special soloist gear.


Removal of O-GB would be a start. The bestest start there is. Blink
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-04-16 05:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
ShahFluffers wrote:

Yes... warfare links (even at half strength) are THAT powerful! Especially if you are gaining lesser bonuses of EVERYTHING (see: lower sig, higher agility and speed, longer disruptor/scram/web range, higher scan res, higher sensor strength, higher shield/armor resistances, faster and more efficient rep rates).


The only things that keep people from using warfare links everywhere are...
- the cost of maintaining an alt
- the time it takes to train into one
- the hassle of dragging one around as you or your gang/fleet moves around.
- the risk of losing it

Your module doesn't have any of those problems. Only a few MINOR constraints (except for the no-RR part) that can be bypassed with a little tedium and disciplined comms.


Again... either you fly in a fleet with links... or you fly with this module. If your interest is "winning," there is no in-between.


And yes... I do know what I am talking about. I fly in skirmish fleets often and we would use this ALL THE TIME. Because we already operate mostly solo. Fleets just make organizing easier.


I've only made a suggestion of what I think the bonuses on the module might look like; that they should look like more general command bonuses, but they certainly don't have to take that form, as I indicated in my original post.

The module doesn't address changes to links because it's not intended to fix the hardships of players who already use them.

Fleet warp is considered to be a strong enough mechanic that CCP has thought about removing it. It's a major feature of what makes certain compositions work well, and it allows (for certain groups) the most competent and experienced individuals to make the right decisions for the gang. Moreover, if you're a skirmish PVPer that operates on the edge of a fight, as you say, you'll find yourself often warping off to save your self only to warp back in on a fleet member, or pulling range to warp to a mate; they're not trivial features, and they're not easily replicated by other mechanics.

Tedium and disciplined comms aren't going to give you back the time you lose by having to warp to a wreck, or back to a gate, and then to a can, or just burning back out to a fight. It will never give you the power of on grid probing. These features are mundane enough that it's easy to forget how strong they are, but they're not going to be things that everyone is going to be willing to give up, particularly if the right balance is struck.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#54 - 2015-04-16 09:24:00 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Let's not make it a module. Everyone should be equally free to be a soloist, so let's discuss ways to make soloing more viable without requiring special soloist gear.


Confirming this should be the point.

Solo play, as it is discussed, is supposed to be an exhibition of skill and resourcefulness. This module negates the need for both, as do other mechanics to provide an "equalizer" to counter fleet mechanics for solo pilots.

Also, see the law of unintended consequences for why this sort of thing is bad.
If it is better than being in a fleet, you will have gangs without being in fleets by the score.
If it is not, it will see use only by those who feel they are willing to do space bushido, and anti-social folks.
If it is on par with it, it will be used for PVE and/or otherwise well outside it's intended purpose.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

El Geo
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#55 - 2015-04-16 11:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: El Geo
I do enjoy solo PvP and the challenge it brings, replacing the isk I lose is my biggest issue but I do feel Eve would be a better place if there was a modifier regarding the amount of ships shooting at a target and their relative distance (and sig radius).

For instance if a frigate is surrounded by titans then any incoming damage from range realistically should be mitigated somewhat and spread to the surrounding targets as they are blocking the intended victim, a mechanic like this wouldn't remove the blob but it could provide a new angle of gameplay especially for those that enjoy solo brawling large gangs, both in terms of the soloists skill at surrounding themselves with enemy ships at close range and the gangs ability to make sure their intended target is free from mitigating any 'splash' damage.

Of course the math isn't something I'd personally be any use at, let alone the programming :P

Additional: The removal of off grid boosts will only affect small gang warfare and hand the blobs a huge advantage over smaller fleets, is that the direction people really want?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#56 - 2015-04-16 12:16:30 UTC
OP, I do not really care for your idea, but I am curious. Did you purchase your account? A good friend of mine used to own that account.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#57 - 2015-04-16 15:29:59 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP.


First of all, you can take your "sense of equity" and go lose it up a wormhole.

Secondly, your suggestion is terrible because it relies entirely on one particular special kind of people not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Solo players neither deserve nor warrant such special considerations. Nevermind that it breaks several fundamental things about the game.


Such excessive hostility. Why do you have such contempt for solo players? What did they do so wrong?


Well, ask for special treatment like this, for starters.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2015-04-16 18:33:56 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Let's not make it a module. Everyone should be equally free to be a soloist, so let's discuss ways to make soloing more viable without requiring special soloist gear.


Confirming this should be the point.

Solo play, as it is discussed, is supposed to be an exhibition of skill and resourcefulness. This module negates the need for both, as do other mechanics to provide an "equalizer" to counter fleet mechanics for solo pilots.

Also, see the law of unintended consequences for why this sort of thing is bad.
If it is better than being in a fleet, you will have gangs without being in fleets by the score.
If it is not, it will see use only by those who feel they are willing to do space bushido, and anti-social folks.
If it is on par with it, it will be used for PVE and/or otherwise well outside it's intended purpose.


I disagree. I'm not sure if you've ever flown with links before, but you still need skill and resourcefulness when fighting outnumbered even when you're using them. If the enemy gang doesn't have them, you're certainly more powerful on an individual basis, but it doesn't absolve you of the requirement for skill as you're saying. I'm not proposing an I win button that turns your boat into a solo pwn mobile, but a reasonable and measured buff.

Quote:

Also, see the law of unintended consequences for why this sort of thing is bad.
If it is better than being in a fleet, you will have gangs without being in fleets by the score.
If it is not, it will see use only by those who feel they are willing to do space bushido, and anti-social folks.


Part of this is an intentional consequence of the module. Over a certain size group, or to fit specific needs people will still want to band together for a fleet. I've gone over the reasons why already, but this mechanic only serves to expand the potential gang types you might face.

It's got less to do with space bushido than it does choice/consequences and reducing the impact of links on the small scale player.

Quote:
If it is on par with it, it will be used for PVE and/or otherwise well outside it's intended purpose.


Let them. If they have to sacrifice DPS for more tank to complete a mission, that's their choice. If it doesn't help people complete missions or sites faster it's not going to help at all. That's why few people use links for mission running outside of incursions. If they're a miner, well, they can go without their mining foreman links to be a little tougher, they'll just mine a little less.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-04-16 18:36:48 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
OP, I do not really care for your idea, but I am curious. Did you purchase your account? A good friend of mine used to own that account.


Yes, I purchased this one along with a few others about a year and a half ago, maybe a little sooner. I don't think I got it from your friend though, I'm relatively sure that it changed hands at least once before it got to me. I've seen your posts before and looked up your corp history and it made me wonder if they originated from the same person, I guess I know now.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-04-16 18:39:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP.


First of all, you can take your "sense of equity" and go lose it up a wormhole.

Secondly, your suggestion is terrible because it relies entirely on one particular special kind of people not playing by the same rules as everyone else. Solo players neither deserve nor warrant such special considerations. Nevermind that it breaks several fundamental things about the game.


Such excessive hostility. Why do you have such contempt for solo players? What did they do so wrong?


Well, ask for special treatment like this, for starters.


I'll go back and edit the original post for easier understanding, as I think you may be having a hard time relating the current state of affairs to my proposal and it's built in concept complementary strengths and weaknesses. I think you'll come around eventually. Big smile