These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#401 - 2014-05-23 18:20:32 UTC
Jatok Reknar wrote:
This is a weak, fast-align ship so using autopilot should add more risk, not less.

As it already does for every ship in the game, and they don't have scan immunity.

If you want RP value, then CCP can just mention "scan immunity" in the ship description without bothering to add a mechanical bonus, and it would allow you to RP just as much while having the exact same mechanical impact on responsible BR pilots. To me, for RP purposes, it makes no sense that Viziam or Core Complexion would spend resources developing and installing a shielding system that is rendered completely obsolete by their ships' primary feature. I'd much rather buy the one with extra cup holders instead. So if you want to go down that road, I'm against it on principle.
Jatok Reknar wrote:
Let's not make every ship the same? BR shouldn't be a glorified covert ops frigate with a bigger cargohold.

Hate to break it to you, but if scan immunity is the defining feature, then the BR already is a glorified covert ops frigate.
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#402 - 2014-05-23 18:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Myrthiis
Komi Toran wrote:
Jatok Reknar wrote:
This is a weak, fast-align ship so using autopilot should add more risk, not less.

As it already does for every ship in the game, and they don't have scan immunity.

If you want RP value, then CCP can just mention "scan immunity" in the ship description without bothering to add a mechanical bonus, and it would allow you to RP just as much while having the exact same mechanical impact on responsible BR pilots. To me, for RP purposes, it makes no sense that Viziam or Core Complexion would spend resources developing and installing a shielding system that is rendered completely obsolete by their ships' primary feature. I'd much rather buy the one with extra cup holders instead. So if you want to go down that road, I'm against it on principle.
Jatok Reknar wrote:
Let's not make every ship the same? BR shouldn't be a glorified covert ops frigate with a bigger cargohold.

Hate to break it to you, but if scan immunity is the defining feature, then the BR already is a glorified covert ops frigate.


With my respect you should read back the thread,"scan immunity" isn't here to protect the ships who is already protected by covops mod . What it does is force player to actually pilot the ship actively to make sure it won't be destroyed ,and the presumed valuable cargo robbed .
In a game where bots,Isboxer and Rmt is more and more frequent, i'm not sure that removing a characteristic who actually promote active playing is a good thing.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#403 - 2014-05-23 18:40:06 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
With my respect you should read back the thread,"scan immunity" isn't here to protect the ships who is already protected by covops mod . What it does is force player to actually pilot the ship actively to make sure it won't be destroyed ,and the presumed valuable cargo robbed .

Thank you for that advice. I did what you said, and I found this person on page 13 who put me straight:
Komi Toran wrote:
Just knowing that at any time, if you mess up on a gate, you have a higher chance of being ganked flying the thing regardless of what you're carrying makes flying it more exciting. This is probably the only ship where it's performing its role 100% of the time it's in space.

Without someone paying so close attention to forum arguments like yourself to point this stuff out to me, I might have missed it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#404 - 2014-05-23 18:52:24 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
With my respect you should read back the thread,"scan immunity" isn't here to protect the ships who is already protected by covops mod . What it does is force player to actually pilot the ship actively to make sure it won't be destroyed ,and the presumed valuable cargo robbed .

That's pretty delusional.
It's obvious that for high-value cargos, scan immunity decreases your risk when autopiloting or AFK.

Because of scan immunity, they don't see that you're carrying high-value cargo. Most gankers who would gank for a high-value cargo don't even bother with you then because of the pretty good possibility that you're actually just autopiloting because you're not carrying anything of any worth.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2014-05-23 18:54:42 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Komi Toran wrote:
Just knowing that at any time, if you mess up on a gate, you have a higher chance of being ganked flying the thing regardless of what you're carrying makes flying it more exciting. This is probably the only ship where it's performing its role 100% of the time it's in space.

Without someone paying so close attention to forum arguments like yourself to point this stuff out to me, I might have missed it.

I can't be bothered to check if you're quoting yourself or if you just messed up your quote tags, but this is a ridiculous argument.

How is a chance of being ganked because of scan immunity "performing its role 100% of the time"?
Why is it a desirable thing for a ship to perform its role 100% of the time instead of, well, performing its role well or not depending upon things like player skill and player choice?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#406 - 2014-05-23 19:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Komi Toran
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
How is a chance of being ganked because of scan immunity "performing its role 100% of the time"?

Because you are a target 100% of the time, there's nothing you can do to mitigate your target status, and the ship's point is to avoid those who would be targeting you.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why is it a desirable thing for a ship to perform its role 100% of the time instead of, well, performing its role well or not depending upon things like player skill and player choice?

I think the "desirable" thing was already answered by the use of the word "exciting." Whether it's performing its role "well" was never brought up in the post and irrelevant for the points made. Player "skill" is still involved (though how much skill is involved in jumping and hitting F1 is questionable), and player choice is in answering the question do you take the fast, agile, cloaky BR out for your milk run, or do you take a slower indy that people aren't going to be keen to gank when they see what low value goods you're carrying.
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#407 - 2014-05-23 19:26:44 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but if scan immunity is the defining feature, then the BR already is a glorified covert ops frigate [with a bigger cargohold].

Sorry, your statement doesn't make any sense. It *is* one of the defining features of the class. People in this thread have argued earlier that if someone wanted to gank a BR, they can today and they can with the changes being made for Kronos. The ship is no harder to gang.

The fact that it will be luck what you get out of it is unique to this ship class and should be perserved. I dont get your argument that just because every other ship behaves one way, we need this to conform or die. Makes the risk vs reward equation not uniform and bland - but have some variety like it does now.

Removing this class ability also only encourages more auto-piloting, not less as started earlier.




Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#408 - 2014-05-23 19:30:01 UTC
Jatok Reknar wrote:
Komi Toran wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but if scan immunity is the defining feature, then the BR already is a glorified covert ops frigate [with a bigger cargohold].

Sorry, your statement doesn't make any sense. It *is* one of the defining features of the class.

No, it's not. Anyone actively piloting the ship has zero use for this supposed feature. So they already are flying a glorified covert ops frigate, according to you.
Jatok Reknar
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#409 - 2014-05-23 19:30:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jatok Reknar
Komi Toran wrote:
Because you are a target 100% of the time, there's nothing you can do to mitigate your target status, and the ship's point is to avoid those who would be targeting you.

No, the ship is called a "blockade runner". The point is not to advertise "look guys, i'm just hauling veldspar, dont shoot me" :) That wouldn't be much of a runner now would it? Being a potential target with unknown value is a good thing and makes it unique.
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#410 - 2014-05-23 19:34:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The exact same as any other gank.


Which is...what, exactly?

Quote:
The only difference will be that the blockade runner has to be flown badly in order to even lock it. Then we need to get a scan before it warps and then we need to look at the scan results and if it is worth it then gank it. By this time the blockade runner will often be either landing on the out gate or is in the next system warping away.


And how is any of this a risk to the ganker? Is the ganker risking getting nothing and losing his investment (gank ship)? What is the risk the ganker is incurring to get his ill gotten gains?

Quote:
Right now gankers rely upon pure luck and just like the lottery almost every blockade runner you can catch isnt worth ganking. You are not adding risk you are making it purely based upon luck and you will lose money in the long term.


Uh...that IS risk.

Risk is defined as uncertainty - a gamble. The outcome not being known. Variability in outcomes.

In other words, luck, lottery, gambling - that IS risk. As is blindly attacking and hoping you get something for it. Because if you only attack when you know there is profit to be had, then there's zero risk to you.

I'll ask again:

What is the risk to the ganker?

Because, so far, you haven't shown any other than "the guy might get away". That's not a risk to the ganker, since the ganker is no worse off if the guy gets away than he was before.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#411 - 2014-05-23 19:37:13 UTC
Jatok Reknar wrote:
No, the ship is called a "blockade runner". The point is not to advertise "look guys, i'm just hauling veldspar, dont shoot me" :) That wouldn't be much of a runner now would it? Being a potential target with unknown value is a good thing and makes it unique.

Your mouth says "no" but your words say "yes." Try reading the part you're supposedly disagreeing with.
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#412 - 2014-05-23 19:45:00 UTC
Personally...I don't really care.

The reason BRs got scan immunity in the first place is because the Orca used to have it with the Corp Hangar, and when that became scannable, for whatever reason, CCP wanted a ship to still exist that wasn't scannable. So they went with the BR as their choice for that.

I can't think of any time that it's ever helped me since I have a habit of always being cloaked when I'm flying ANY ship with a Covops cloak. I guess CCP just wants that functionality. They could give it to DSTs instead, too, but that would just make them more attractive targets to some people, and they don't have the BR's agility to counter that.

.

Why I'm arguing against it here is because...well, I dislike gankers. And all I see are arguments that make their lives easier and reduce their risk.

Piracy SHOULD be a risky venture. And it seems that the proponents of that lifestyle here seem to believe that their activity should carry the same low risk that mining does. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

But, regardless, CCP didn't bring up the change, right? That just popped up in this thread and has gone on as a discussion for a few pages because it has a couple vocal proponents but really doesn't add to the game and would only serve to make them more profit at less risk - which is probably why they're so adamant it's a good idea.

...whereas, on the other side, are people that are against or neutral to the change for reasons from RP to ship uniqueness to (my own) the belief that ganking shouldn't be made even less risky.
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#413 - 2014-05-23 19:45:23 UTC
Here's my thoughts on the matter of scan immunity, as it seems to be the hot topic for a few rather vocal individuals. When you get the blockade runner, you're expecting to get the something like the Millennium Falcon, now aren't you? (How you fly it is your own damn business.) And what you expect of it is to have all the hidden cargo holds, which you have no idea where are or if they exist at all.

But you know what it does, you know it should be carrying something good if it bothers to be flying.. or is it? Or is Han Solo just messing around that asteroid field with huge space worms?

That's what the scan immunity does, that's what all the comments have outlined, but i really wanted to put it to nice words :) So, do you want to be badass and fly with impunity in front of the imperial star destroyers (pun totally intended)?
Or you wanna be just in a slightly more shiny wreathe/barger/whatever? Because you might as well fly one of those doing cloak+mwd - you're just as hard to catch, have more tank and better cargo hold.. just saying.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#414 - 2014-05-23 19:46:26 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
How is a chance of being ganked because of scan immunity "performing its role 100% of the time"?

Because you are a target 100% of the time, there's nothing you can do to mitigate your target status, and the ship's point is to avoid those who would be targeting you.

That's dumb. You don't need some ******** role bonus to make a ship a target.


Komi Toran wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Why is it a desirable thing for a ship to perform its role 100% of the time instead of, well, performing its role well or not depending upon things like player skill and player choice?

I think the "desirable" thing was already answered by the use of the word "exciting."

Which this isn't.

Komi Toran wrote:
Whether it's performing its role "well" was never brought up in the post and irrelevant for the points made. Player "skill" is still involved (though how much skill is involved in jumping and hitting F1 is questionable), and player choice is in answering the question do you take the fast, agile, cloaky BR out for your milk run, or do you take a slower indy that people aren't going to be keen to gank when they see what low value goods you're carrying.

They'll take the BR because it's fast and agile.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#415 - 2014-05-23 19:49:54 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The exact same as any other gank.


Which is...what, exactly?

Are you aware that loot doesn't always drop?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#416 - 2014-05-23 19:54:10 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Rena'Thras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The exact same as any other gank.


Which is...what, exactly?

Are you aware that loot doesn't always drop?

which is not related to "scan immunity"
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#417 - 2014-05-23 20:01:01 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
That's dumb. You don't need some ******** role bonus to make a ship a target.

Dumb or not, that's the purpose it currently serves.

Personally? If I was to change it, I'd remove the cargo scan immunity and replace it with a default suspect flag for as long as you're in the ship. That would be far more meaningful.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#418 - 2014-05-23 20:38:11 UTC
Myrthiis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Rena'Thras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The exact same as any other gank.


Which is...what, exactly?

Are you aware that loot doesn't always drop?

which is not related to "scan immunity"

But it's related to risk.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#419 - 2014-05-23 20:39:01 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
That's dumb. You don't need some ******** role bonus to make a ship a target.

Dumb or not, that's the purpose it currently serves.

Personally? If I was to change it, I'd remove the cargo scan immunity and replace it with a default suspect flag for as long as you're in the ship. That would be far more meaningful.

That would be even dumber and it's good that you're not working for CCP.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#420 - 2014-05-23 20:49:40 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
That would be even dumber and it's good that you're not working for CCP.

Hmm... maybe have them self-destruct on undock?