These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FW: rebalancing NPCs and you

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#601 - 2012-11-30 04:31:09 UTC
Cynthia Nezmor wrote:
Alticus C Bear wrote:
The battlecruiser in the large plex seems to have the right level of tank now, not much you can do about high DPS destroyers but at least they are quite vulnerable to other ships.




Vulnerable would be a 1000km bubble around the plex and multiple waves of NPCs that can actually hold at least a T1 frig until the fabled "pvp" comes to the farmer.

Consider this scenario: neutral Daredevil/Vigilant comes in, ganks the 1 NPC ship, moves to next plex. Docks up if anything comes near him. After all plexes cleared, he decloaks the 8 stabbed Condors/Reapers to run the timers. Here he can go afk, and come back 30 minutes later.

Retribution = Farm Wars 2.0.


Earlier in the thread

Alticus C Bear wrote:
Really hope there are more changes planned.

DPS ship could be used to clear NPC then any stabbed frigate could run the timer.

Suggestions.

NPC’s should keep spawning through the timer; a ship of the correct size for the plex has no issue dealing with them so it should not be a problem. At least have a spawn a minute from the end of the timer.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#602 - 2012-11-30 16:52:08 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
It is reinventing the wheel where no reinvention needs to be done. The most annoying thing about minors is the endless frigate spawns. There is what, seven or eight spawns?? That is annoying but the rats themselves are not a threat in a minor.

Rats in mediums and majors only interfere if there is a full spawn. Make the spawn one at a time - issue solved.

Plexing is a sov mechanic. It needs to be time consuming. One rat at a time is a joke. If this rolls out as is on TQ Amarr will be on their heels again.


CCP is doing it right.

If you don't want people to plex in an undersized ship then take an appropriately sized ship (whatever that means) and chase them out. We really shouldn't be depending on npcs to defend our space anyway. We need more tools so we can do that.

But yes the full spawns of the rats are a real problem for medium and major plexes. Even one spawn at a time limits the pvp fits you can use. Not everyone wants to fly a long range rail naga in pvp.

Will the rats the amarr face be more difficult? Why do you say it will hurt the amarr?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#603 - 2012-11-30 17:15:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Axl Borlara wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
It will still result in HAC, Recon, and tech II logi gangs stomping on any tech I ships that might want to enter. This is fine out in the open. But that has been one of the great things about FW plexe restrictions is the fielding of tech I frigates and cruisers by everyone, new and old players. Changing the restrictions will render tech I cruisers not worth taking into that environment.


I disagree. Bring a recon in against a vexor sitting at 0 on the warpin and see what happens.


You are missing the point.
Ok, yes you could start with a t1 cruiser in a plex.
However, why would you not start by defending with a t2 cruiser? In which case, you'd attack using t2 as well.

It works reasonably well now because in minor plexes, t2 frigates aren't allowed. Faction frigs are debatable, but in most cases, there are practical uses for t1 frigs.
Same for mediums. t1 cruisers are used because that's the best available. (plus of course faction).


We'll keep an eye on it and can change as needed if the results aren't good. However I plan on using medium plexes to farm HAC kills using my T1 cruisers. Twisted


I think the improvements to the t1 cruisers indeed might make this change easier to deal with.

However even with the changes I think the deimos will be pretty hard to beat in a t1 cruiser. So will a kiting vagabond. But this really won't change much since the current mechanics really favore the cynabal and vigilant.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#604 - 2012-12-04 10:41:30 UTC
Unsticking, let's make some space for future threads.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#605 - 2012-12-06 20:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Friendly rats attack my drones when I have them out.

They attack them even though I have high standing with the faction and do not attack the rats first.

Is this intended?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#606 - 2012-12-27 23:44:28 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Friendly rats attack my drones when I have them out.

They attack them even though I have high standing with the faction and do not attack the rats first.

Is this intended?


I wanna know too. Cause this is friggin annoying.

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#607 - 2013-01-01 02:33:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Posting here because it's FW-related. Are acceleration gates going to continue to make people invulnerable? **** is ridiculous.


The fact that someone can always enter a FW plex as long as they do not hang around outside for any length of time is intended design.
Come on, man. I like you and all, but you've been with CCP for six months. Why do you guys always fall back on the "intended design" argument at every opportunity, even when that argument makes no logical sense?

Faction warfare wasn't even a gameplay element when acceleration gates were first introduced into the game. And gate sliding has been an anomaly since before faction warfare.

I very much doubt this was intended design. That the game locks you out of any action, completely obverse to any of the gate's usual behaviour? It's just a side-effect of some other coding that's occurring (session-type changes.) It's a happy side-effect. It probably should never be "fixed" ... but to call it intended it a bit nutty.