These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Blockade Runner Rebalance

First post First post
Author
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#321 - 2014-05-21 12:26:23 UTC
A better design: the 'Dinsdale' Tinfoil Packaging System causes player scans to indicate you are carrying PLEX when your cargo is in fact quite empty.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#322 - 2014-05-21 12:36:12 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
There is no justifiable reason to keep cargo scan immunity on blockade runners.


The judges decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.

Which is to say, whether we like it or not the ships exist the way CCP ships them to us. We can argue all we like for whether it makes sense to have or remove the cargo scan immunity, but it's CCP's decision in the end. So you'll be "disappointed" if the cargo scanning immunity is removed, big deal. So you can bold the part where you claim there is no justification for keeping that feature: that's not an argument, it's only an opinion, and your opinion needs to be backed up by an argument.

For example: Baltec1 wants us to think that it's a suitable argument that suicide gankers won't know which ships to shoot. You are at least admitting that your main interest is gathering intel on which pilots are alts for which of your competitors and enemies.

What if CCP decides that trolling you with unscannable blockade runners is more interesting gameplay than giving you another means of gathering intel? They are blockade runners after all, and the biggest blockade in the game is the perpetual gate camp in Uedama.

On the other hand, it just doesn't make sense that the NPCs can scan the cargo of a ship when the players can't. Since the once-mentioned-and-never-repeated idea of letting players determine the consequences for smuggling contraband hasn't been repeated, one is led to assume that it's not actually going to happen. Perhaps NPCs will continue to have no idea of what is in the hold of those blockade runners.

From my perspective, the gameplay of player-applied consequences for smuggling is much more interesting than perfectly safe smuggling due to a special-case game mechanic.

Where's the fun in trying to smuggle goods to market if there's no risk of getting caught?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#323 - 2014-05-21 12:43:51 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Ah I see you want the Intel to make someone's life miserable for the rest of his game life time, I see your point.

No, I want the chance at possibly getting that intel if you're ******** enough to let me have it.
Considering how extremely easy it would still be for you to prevent that from happening I don't see what the problem is.


Nobody is autopiloting nyx BPO in their BR, you want the intel to know if this BR worth ganking or not. you are risking your couple catalysts (2 mill total), KR and negative standing (which I'm sure gankers don't care about) in potential reward of loot pinata from me if I'm ******* (how many asterisk in your post ?).

you gank 5 bill BS and cross your finger that loot fairy will be kind to you,
you gank freighter and hope the juicy stuff drop for you,
you gank BR and hope it was carrying something worth it.

I see risk vs. reward apply in all these cases as intended.

Why are you so insistent on keeping a ship that you can autopilot safely with expensive cargo?
You do realize you're also insisting on keeping a mechanic that increases your risk when autopiloting with empty cargo?
The only logical conclusion to be had from this is that you actually intend on or currently autopilot a BR with expensive cargo and you enjoy the effortless safety blanket it provides.

You want this safety blanket in spite of the incredible ease at which you can restore this safety for yourself anyway without it. You're not content with the fact that you can have absolute safety if you fly your BR properly, you want that safety when you're too ******* lazy to be at your computer.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#324 - 2014-05-21 12:45:42 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

Where's the fun in trying to smuggle goods to market if there's no risk of getting caught?


So why do you support it being impossible to detect what is inside a blockade runners cargo hold?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#325 - 2014-05-21 12:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mara Rinn wrote:
So you can bold the part where you claim there is no justification for keeping that feature: that's not an argument, it's only an opinion

No, it's a fact.

Mara Rinn wrote:
What if CCP decides that trolling you with unscannable blockade runners is more interesting gameplay than giving you another means of gathering intel? They are blockade runners after all, and the biggest blockade in the game is the perpetual gate camp in Uedama.

Have you forgotten that blockade runners can warp cloaked?
It seems you have because otherwise only an idiot would be arguing this line.
Who really gives a **** about a gate camp, just cloak up and warp away. But you want to be able to run the blockade without even being at your computer. A minimally competent pilot can run gate camps with a covert ops cloak. The fact that so many people **** it up is astonishing to me because it's incredibly easy.

Mara Rinn wrote:
Where's the fun in trying to smuggle goods to market if there's no risk of getting caught?

I don't know, you're the one that's arguing for even less risk than what's already inherent in a fast-aligning ship that can warp cloaked.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#326 - 2014-05-21 12:49:45 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Inreases risks on both sides btw as well


It does not increase risk for ganking, it turns it into purely pot luck that you will lose damn near every time. That is not good game design.
Oxide Ammar
#327 - 2014-05-21 13:18:02 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why are you so insistent on keeping a ship that you can autopilot safely with expensive cargo?
You do realize you're also insisting on keeping a mechanic that increases your risk when autopiloting with empty cargo?
The only logical conclusion to be had from this is that you actually intend on or currently autopilot a BR with expensive cargo and you enjoy the effortless safety blanket it provides.

You want this safety blanket in spite of the incredible ease at which you can restore this safety for yourself anyway without it. You're not content with the fact that you can have absolute safety if you fly your BR properly, you want that safety when you're too ******* lazy to be at your computer.


I didn't state at any of my posts that I want to autopilot BR, let's not skew facts here. You want the information that gives you 100% guaranteed feasible target when you intent to gank, you don't want to risk and repeat doing this every time you see BR and try guessing if it's carrying something worth ganking or not. As I stated before nobody is carrying cargo worth billions and autopilot BR unless he is complete idiot.

You are asking to remove the scan immunity acting like you are the prey here, because it's raising the chances of getting ganked back and forth because of this immunity. In the contrary you are the predator who is asking for the intel to gank what he deserve to get ganked for. Don't twist facts and reasons just ask CCP what you actually want them to do.

"CCP pls remove scan immunity from BR to remove the risk I'm paying for ganking BRs that I have 0 intel on its cargo, Pls I don't want hit and miss ganks."

Feel free to copy and paste it.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#328 - 2014-05-21 13:19:12 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
I didn't state at any of my posts that I want to autopilot BR, let's not skew facts here. You want the information that gives you 100% guaranteed feasible target when you intent to gank, you don't want to risk and repeat doing this every time you see BR and try guessing if it's carrying something worth ganking or not. As I stated before nobody is carrying cargo worth billions and autopilot BR unless he is complete idiot.

Are you aware that blockade runners can warp cloaked?
Seriously, are you even aware of this at all?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#329 - 2014-05-21 13:20:50 UTC
I mean you'd think I was asking for its removal from a ship class that had absolutely no means of defense or evasion, not a ship that can only be ganked if you're stupid enough to let it be ganked.

You're just asking to keep what you have now, which is a ship that literally won't be ganked ever regardless of if you're flying it like a moron or not.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#330 - 2014-05-21 13:22:41 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
"CCP pls remove scan immunity from BR to remove the risk I'm paying for ganking BRs that I have 0 intel on its cargo, Pls I don't want hit and miss ganks."

Feel free to copy and paste it.

CCP please remove scan immunity from BR to reintroduce risk that was completely eliminated from players that choose to fly their blockade runners in inattentive and/or stupidly incompetent ways.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#331 - 2014-05-21 13:58:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:

Where's the fun in trying to smuggle goods to market if there's no risk of getting caught?


So why do you support it being impossible to detect what is inside a blockade runners cargo hold?


So why do you think I support that?

As for James: when your entire argument is that only an idiot would disagree with you, you don't really have an argument. Your opinion is not fact.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#332 - 2014-05-21 13:59:56 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP please remove scan immunity from BR to reintroduce risk that was completely eliminated from players that choose to fly their blockade runners in inattentive and/or stupidly incompetent ways.


CCP please keep scan immunity for BRs so James and Baltec1 can continue crying their entitled gankbear tears!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#333 - 2014-05-21 14:09:57 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
You're just asking to keep what you have now, which is a ship that literally won't be ganked ever regardless of if you're flying it like a moron or not.


There was a Prowler, Viator and Crane ganked in Uedama today, with a track record of one or two being ganked per day in Uedama. There's a cottage industry of ganking BRs in Deltole. There's a BR being ganked in Jita every other day.

So BRs do get suicide ganked. You could have verified this with about 30 seconds of querying zkillboard.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#334 - 2014-05-21 14:19:01 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP please remove scan immunity from BR to reintroduce risk that was completely eliminated from players that choose to fly their blockade runners in inattentive and/or stupidly incompetent ways.


CCP please keep scan immunity for BRs so James and Baltec1 can continue crying their entitled gankbear tears!


Entitled?

We are asking for a slim chance to scan them. They are STILL able to be completely unlockable and thus, unscannable. The only entitlement here is people wanting to be unscannable even when flying the ship badly.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#335 - 2014-05-21 14:27:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
You're just asking to keep what you have now, which is a ship that literally won't be ganked ever regardless of if you're flying it like a moron or not.


There was a Prowler, Viator and Crane ganked in Uedama today, with a track record of one or two being ganked per day in Uedama. There's a cottage industry of ganking BRs in Deltole. There's a BR being ganked in Jita every other day.

So BRs do get suicide ganked. You could have verified this with about 30 seconds of querying zkillboard.


Still doesn't change the fact that ganking based upon pure luck is bad game design. The ship can already be unlockable and thus unscannable when flying it well. Bad pilots should not be protected from their own stupidity.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#336 - 2014-05-21 22:00:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Immune to cargo scanning.


**** YEAH!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#337 - 2014-05-21 22:12:56 UTC
Again, why?
Why do you people want this bonus so bad, this bonus that you don't even need?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#338 - 2014-05-21 23:06:59 UTC
Well i didn't link anything,but anyone can go on zkillboard>class>blockade runner and see by himself ,there is no gambling in suicide ganking BR the fact that you need t2 cats to do it ,or that the cargo didn't drop as nothing to do with "unscannability".

The only reason you want the characteristic to be removed is only to scan juicy multibillion ones to brag to your friends .There is nothing related to game design or game balance in your propaganda.You just want the whole blanket for yourself Roll

And to finish i didn't ask protection to CCP,they are the one who come first with this design .And until now you fail to give an argument who make sense to remove it ,except your greed for juicy trinket .
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#339 - 2014-05-21 23:19:38 UTC
ITT: Goons complaining that hi sec income isn't high enough.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#340 - 2014-05-22 00:42:56 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)