These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Grow some extremely durable genitalia.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#641 - 2012-05-31 09:39:38 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system.

Oh? What's this then?
Quote:
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
-Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs


Frying Doom wrote:
I am aware of that plus you left out mining ratting and with the alterations scouting and patrolling. And No I have no set Idea of what space I believe any alliance would be capable of holding. Assumptions like that are just allways wrong.

If you're going to make SOV costs scale up as distance from your capital system increases, then you have to have some sort of "optimum alliance size" in mind, anything above that would cost too much. Which in my mind isn't very sandboxy, since it puts limits on things, but vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
Quite possibly but they would stand alot better chance with the changes than they do now.

Have said this before on the other post. the amounts mined, ratted plexes patrols ect.. with the average activity of lets say 20-30 people per system per day.

First of all, no, they wouldn't stand a greater chance with the changes than they do now. To rat or to mine, you need safe space. To have safe space, you need border systems which gives some semblance of warning beforehand so people have a modicum of chance of getting safe so they don't bankrupt themselves to keep the SOV. So, all we'd have to do (and it wouldn't be hard to do) is camp them in for whatever time it takes for the ticker to tick down.

Frying Doom wrote:
Well most of them relied on cloaks suddenly becoming overpowered and gate campers strangely being more deadly. there were others but these were repeated so often.

I've no idea where you got the "gate campers strangely being more deadly", when at least I've said they'd be "no different from before". You sit on gate. You see gate fire. You shoot person popping up on overview. The end.

As to the rest of them, there's been far, far more than just "cloaks will become overpowered", and all of them are valid.

First of all, you don't know who's in a system, so you have no idea if it's safe. Nor do anyone else, because someone can log in, jump in through a wormhole and come in through a gate at any time. If additionally all you have is the dscan, your view of the solar system is very limited, so all someone needs to do to become "invisible" is to find a spot in the solar system which is further away from anything than dscan reaches, and for all intents an purposes, they're "not there". Or, they can fit a cloak. Or they can log out and wait for a while.

This means that for a system to be "safe", you'll have to have scanners out to see if there are any noncloaked ships out there, and they have to be active constantly, any lapse in concentration and someone can get through and hide. And then you'll have to have a reaction force, which will most likely have to be paid a rate which is competitive with L4s, since it's going to be a very, very boring job to do for a long period of time, and it's not something you can just not pay attention to either. You have to be on the ball and ready to move at a second's notice.

And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again.

Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of.

Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#642 - 2012-05-31 09:46:05 UTC
Hell, if sov was simply dictated by pilots in space, a blob of afk cloakers could roam around taking sov and there would be nothing the defenders could do about it. All they would know is that their 30 players can't seem to flip the sov back and can never find, or even know the existence of, the 40 other players who left their covops pilots drifting about while they slept.

Sounds better than a structure shoot, and I bet it takes less ammo. And as a member of the largest alliance in the game, we can always put the most active players in a system. This takes afk cloaking to an entire new level or griefing. You made a believer out of me Frying Doom. Sign me up.


First though, would leaving my cheetah to orbit the sun while I went to work be considered a "patrol" and count towards my alliance being active and taking the system?
Frying Doom
#643 - 2012-05-31 09:55:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system.

Oh? What's this then?
[quote]-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
-Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs



You said "I thought you wanted the limiting factor to be how much it cost based on the distance from the "capital system"?"

That quote isn't from me and if you read below it I explain what changes I believe need to be made.

The limiting factor is the activity level use it or loose it but the cost is related to above so rich large Alliances could own more and more space but would have to use the systems and pay for supplying them. As I have said repeatedly the rich should still be able to do what poor alliances cannot.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#644 - 2012-05-31 10:08:01 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I am aware of that plus you left out mining ratting and with the alterations scouting and patrolling. And No I have no set Idea of what space I believe any alliance would be capable of holding. Assumptions like that are just allways wrong.

If you're going to make SOV costs scale up as distance from your capital system increases, then you have to have some sort of "optimum alliance size" in mind, anything above that would cost too much. Which in my mind isn't very sandboxy, since it puts limits on things, but vOv


Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality. And yeah I am heading for that sarcasm again

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Quite possibly but they would stand alot better chance with the changes than they do now.

Have said this before on the other post. the amounts mined, ratted plexes patrols ect.. with the average activity of lets say 20-30 people per system per day.

First of all, no, they wouldn't stand a greater chance with the changes than they do now. To rat or to mine, you need safe space. To have safe space, you need border systems which gives some semblance of warning beforehand so people have a modicum of chance of getting safe so they don't bankrupt themselves to keep the SOV. So, all we'd have to do (and it wouldn't be hard to do) is camp them in for whatever time it takes for the ticker to tick down.

So one minute you quote parts of an idea that I support me but the next you failed to read the rest of the same idea?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#645 - 2012-05-31 10:09:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Well most of them relied on cloaks suddenly becoming overpowered and gate campers strangely being more deadly. there were others but these were repeated so often.

I've no idea where you got the "gate campers strangely being more deadly", when at least I've said they'd be "no different from before". You sit on gate. You see gate fire. You shoot person popping up on overview. The end.

As to the rest of them, there's been far, far more than just "cloaks will become overpowered", and all of them are valid.

First of all, you don't know who's in a system, so you have no idea if it's safe. Nor do anyone else, because someone can log in, jump in through a wormhole and come in through a gate at any time. If additionally all you have is the dscan, your view of the solar system is very limited, so all someone needs to do to become "invisible" is to find a spot in the solar system which is further away from anything than dscan reaches, and for all intents an purposes, they're "not there". Or, they can fit a cloak. Or they can log out and wait for a while.

This means that for a system to be "safe", you'll have to have scanners out to see if there are any noncloaked ships out there, and they have to be active constantly, any lapse in concentration and someone can get through and hide. And then you'll have to have a reaction force, which will most likely have to be paid a rate which is competitive with L4s, since it's going to be a very, very boring job to do for a long period of time, and it's not something you can just not pay attention to either. You have to be on the ball and ready to move at a second's notice.

And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again.

Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of.

Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why?


First bit was not you I was talking about. Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me.
On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.

A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#646 - 2012-05-31 10:10:48 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Hell, if sov was simply dictated by pilots in space, a blob of afk cloakers could roam around taking sov and there would be nothing the defenders could do about it. All they would know is that their 30 players can't seem to flip the sov back and can never find, or even know the existence of, the 40 other players who left their covops pilots drifting about while they slept.

Sounds better than a structure shoot, and I bet it takes less ammo. And as a member of the largest alliance in the game, we can always put the most active players in a system. This takes afk cloaking to an entire new level or griefing. You made a believer out of me Frying Doom. Sign me up.


First though, would leaving my cheetah to orbit the sun while I went to work be considered a "patrol" and count towards my alliance being active and taking the system?

You appear to be dribbling please get a bucket.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#647 - 2012-05-31 10:15:58 UTC
durable genitalia?

what about internal genitalia?
Frying Doom
#648 - 2012-05-31 10:41:35 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
durable genitalia?

what about internal genitalia?

Nice rhyme but one would hope they are all durable. Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#649 - 2012-05-31 11:04:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality.

So, increased costs which won't matter one whit to goonswarm, then. Why add it to the system, then, if even a 9k alliance won't see a problem with it when occupying a full region?

Frying Doom wrote:
Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me.
On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.

A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance.

So, in other words, you want a null which is mostly devoid of life.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Ned Black
Driders
#650 - 2012-05-31 11:13:00 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

...

And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again.

Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of.

Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why?


Well, personally I say its about time nullspace that is supposed to be a dangerous place actually became a dangerous place. Right now nullsec is about the safest place to do PvE activities in EvE simply because you instantly know when someone enters your system and if it is a friend or not. If they remove local then you nullbears would actually have to experience a bit of risk... oh the horror...
Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve?

Personally I think CCP provides WAAAAYYYY to much free intel about what happens. Remove local, remove intel mail about hostile towers going up in your space, and remove intel mails about people attacking your infrastructure. If you are not around to see anyone attacking your sov structure then you should have no effing clue someone goes there and finds it missing.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2012-05-31 11:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Ned Black wrote:
Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve?

nullsec isn't safe.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Leisen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#652 - 2012-05-31 11:16:36 UTC
I've had a nonstop fap marathon since the creation of this thread, and I am very pleased to report; I have succeeded. My genitals are calloused. I am durable genitalia.

FOR YOU EVE, FOR YOU!
Frying Doom
#653 - 2012-05-31 11:29:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality.

So, increased costs which won't matter one whit to goonswarm, then. Why add it to the system, then, if even a 9k alliance won't see a problem with it when occupying a full region?


So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic.

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me.
On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.

A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance.

So, in other words, you want a null which is mostly devoid of life.

I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local.
The fact that you will not know if it is safe other than to look at your d-scan and see if there are probes out benefits the observant not the lazy. As someone in an other ship wouldn't know you are there either till you give it away by trying to probe them down,

As to the anomalies, so null would be dangerous funny that. It this is your choke point maybe you need a patrol nearby when you go in, or just look at the Dscan to see if someone is comming.

At the moment we have so many people complaining that Hi-sec is to dangerous and you are trying to tell me that because a Null with out local would require people to concentrate more that this is a bad thing. It does have a security rating for a reason, it is lower than high and lo sec so don't you think that implies it should require you to pay attention.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#654 - 2012-05-31 11:30:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ned Black wrote:
Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve?

nullsec isn't safe.

But the most dangerous systems are not in Null. Not a great argument there.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Ned Black
Driders
#655 - 2012-05-31 11:43:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ned Black wrote:
Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve?

nullsec isn't safe.


Yet the number of PvE ships lost in highsec vastly outnumbers the ones lost in nullsec... strange...
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#656 - 2012-05-31 11:54:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic.

It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm", and everything to do with "well shucks, the largest alliance in the game wouldn't have a problem with paying for the SOV it's got now, why implement a system where costs aren't fixed?".

You know, if you want to do game balancing, then what you need to do is look at the way things can be abused, not the way you want things to be used. But, I don't really expect this from you at this point.

Frying Doom wrote:
I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local.

Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2012-05-31 11:57:12 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
But the most dangerous systems are not in Null. Not a great argument there.

How many kills happen pr jump in the most dangerous system in nullsec vs the most dangerous system in hisec?

How many kills happen pr jump on average in hisec vs on average in nullsec?
Ned Black wrote:
Yet the number of PvE ships lost in highsec vastly outnumbers the ones lost in nullsec... strange...

How many PVE ships are in hisec vs how many PVE ships are in nullsec? What's the kill ratio of PVE ships in hisec vs in nullsec?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#658 - 2012-05-31 12:05:33 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic.

It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm", and everything to do with "well shucks, the largest alliance in the game wouldn't have a problem with paying for the SOV it's got now, why implement a system where costs aren't fixed?".

You know, if you want to do game balancing, then what you need to do is look at the way things can be abused, not the way you want things to be used. But, I don't really expect this from you at this point.

Frying Doom wrote:
I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local.

Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is?

I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm.

Almost every part of this game has been abused only to later have the loop hole closed. The ability to abuse the game is why CCP penalizes people who are caught using deliberate loop holes to there advantage. As I have said before the only way to create a system which is free from abuse is to do away with the thing in the first place. If the history of eve has tough us anything it is that every part of the system will be exploited for any gain players can get.

Game balance while looking for abuses should not just solely be made with them in mind or what you will have in the end is just unbalanced.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#659 - 2012-05-31 12:12:53 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm.

I've no idea why you think I've got a problem with paranoia, or why the fact it was posted by a WIdot guy should make it something I need to agree with. vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
Game balance while looking for abuses should not just solely be made with them in mind or what you will have in the end is just unbalanced.

I've no idea what you tried to say here.

And I notice you didn't answer this question, so I'll make sure you don't forget it:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
[quote=Frying Doom]I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local.

Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#660 - 2012-05-31 12:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm.

I've no idea why you think I've got a problem with paranoia, or why the fact it was posted by a WIdot guy should make it something I need to agree with. vOv


You believe the Capitals and Forts idea is specifically an attack on Goonswarm even though the idea is from Vricrolatious a member of Goonswarm.
To quote you
Lord Zim wrote:
It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm"


And you don't think that sounds paranoid?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!