These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Stealth Orca nerf round #2
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp
#41 - 2011-12-04 16:36:30 UTC
Salah Loveless wrote:
I am 100% for any change that forces high sec PvP carebears to actually finish the fights they start! If having to finish what you start is too much of a "nerf" well as they say, “don’t start nutin, won’t be nutin”. Besides, if I read correctly you can still do this as normal in low/null where your 3rd party Orca wil have to accept the risk of trying to protect a pirate and as you High sec carebear PvP pilots love to argue, nothing in EvE should be risk free.

Like you I am all for players finishing the fight they started..............in the ship they were in, so no more pewpewpewing around in your whatever expensive ship you use and when yuo get too much returnfire hotswapping into an expendable frigate with your prized possession safe in the orca.
Marchland
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2011-12-05 04:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Marchland
So, what those who are for this nerf are saying is:

Unscannable Orca corp cargo bay = not a bug.

Using the SMA like any other SMA (carrier, etc.) = bug.

GG CCP, suck more carebear nuts.

You're disillusioning yourself if you think this isn't blatant carebear hand-holding. Enough people probably put in petitions saying they're quitting over losing their 5b ISK CNR/Golem/T3/whatever that they figured they would break high sec SMA's (while not changing it in low sec haha).

On the other hand those same carebears can still haul their ass-tons of faction loot they made by farming missions in complete safety (because again, you're lying to yourself and to us if you would drop 800m on gank ships to kill a ship with 400) and that is legit.

In addition, the combat is STARTED BY THE ******* CAREBEAR, THAT'S THE IDEA. YOU'RE FAILING BY SAYING "FINISH THE COMBAT YOU STARTED." LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND THE MECHANIC BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.

Come on people.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#43 - 2011-12-05 04:50:13 UTC
Marchland wrote:
Using the SMA like any other SMA (carrier, etc.) = bug.
…except that you can still use the Orca's SMA just like carrier's SMA.

The only difference is that you can't get a carrier into highsec where the restrictions on the Orca's SMA comes into play (and where trying to use a left-behind carrier in a similar manner would get you tossed out of highsec). So the question is: have you tried doing the same with a highsec carrier? Have you explored how the Orca works in low/nullsec? Have you tested to make sure that the Orca is indeed different? If so, maybe it's the carrier's SMA that's bugged.
Marchland
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2011-12-05 07:22:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Marchland wrote:
Using the SMA like any other SMA (carrier, etc.) = bug.
…except that you can still use the Orca's SMA just like carrier's SMA.

The only difference is that you can't get a carrier into highsec where the restrictions on the Orca's SMA comes into play (and where trying to use a left-behind carrier in a similar manner would get you tossed out of highsec). So the question is: have you tried doing the same with a highsec carrier? Have you explored how the Orca works in low/nullsec? Have you tested to make sure that the Orca is indeed different? If so, maybe it's the carrier's SMA that's bugged.


Engaging in combat with a carrier in range of you on a station and your target returning fire does not bar you from switching or swapping ships OUT of the carrier, which used to be the case with the Orca. You can indeed still do this with a carrier in low sec and in an Orca in low-sec, but not in high sec. My main's corp locks down a low-sec pocket in Sinq where we did indeed test (in 40 AU safes) the ship swapping mechanic in both a carrier and an Orca; this nerf is a direct slap in the face to ninja's use of the mechanic. There is nothing to say for it other than that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2011-12-05 07:28:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Marchland wrote:
Engaging in combat with a carrier in range of you on a station and your target returning fire does not bar you from switching or swapping ships OUT of the carrier, which used to be the case with the Orca. You can indeed still do this with a carrier in low sec and in an Orca in low-sec, but not in high sec. My main's corp locks down a low-sec pocket in Sinq where we did indeed test (in 40 AU safes) the ship swapping mechanic in both a carrier and an Orca; this nerf is a direct slap in the face to ninja's use of the mechanic. There is nothing to say for it other than that.
So what you're saying is that there is no difference between the Orca's SMA and the carrier's; there is no bug.
Marchland
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2011-12-05 09:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Marchland
Tippia wrote:
Marchland wrote:
Engaging in combat with a carrier in range of you on a station and your target returning fire does not bar you from switching or swapping ships OUT of the carrier, which used to be the case with the Orca. You can indeed still do this with a carrier in low sec and in an Orca in low-sec, but not in high sec. My main's corp locks down a low-sec pocket in Sinq where we did indeed test (in 40 AU safes) the ship swapping mechanic in both a carrier and an Orca; this nerf is a direct slap in the face to ninja's use of the mechanic. There is nothing to say for it other than that.
So what you're saying is that there is no difference between the Orca's SMA and the carrier's; there is no bug.


. . . Exactly.

They are saying swapping was a bug, which you CAN do with a carrier, but now you CAN'T do with an Orca.

A SMA should be an SMA, not this ******* flip-flop "it does one thing in low sec and another thing in high sec" bullshit.

Add to that the REAL bug that Orca's corp hangar is unscannable by players, but can still be picked through by customs officials to remove/fine for drugs. . . uhhhh. Their "mining support vessel" is the ultimate hauler.
Beliar Gray
I'm quitting Eve PV Rock I want to talk with you
#47 - 2011-12-05 10:31:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Beliar Gray
Essentially its just another ninja tactic nerf thats tagged as bug fix by everyone that hates them.
There is no further justification...

Sad though, we ninjas trained our orcas for 6 months or so and now they are useless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2011-12-05 10:33:53 UTC
Marchland wrote:
They are saying swapping was a bug, which you CAN do with a carrier, but now you CAN'T do with an Orca.
But you just that that you can do it in an Orca.

So which one is it?
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#49 - 2011-12-05 11:22:32 UTC
Escaping the consequences of a fight in an Orca is lame. No problem with that, as in:
1. Fight in ship X, start to lose....
2. Hide 'ship X' inside Orca, and get ship Y (or simply disengage and fly off in a pod...)
Its 'risk-free' PVP.

But that isn't what these 'nerfs' are doing. Read and comprehend.
They preventing you from BOARDING another ship from the bay - with timers no less.

It really is pretty lame- because there isn't anything inherently unfair about bringing new ships into a fight - as long as they can't be returned to the hangar until the fight is over.

IE, Engage in ship X, board ship Y, engage in Y, while ship X remains floating in empty in space.
It isn't 'risk-free' PVP, as any ship that is boarded it now 'in play' and must finish the fight - or be destroyed.

Had they simply made it impossible to 'hide flagged ships' in Orcas, without wrecking the 'boarding' ship functionality, I'd have been perfectly OK with it. After all, sometimes the mission runner turns the tables, and you would rightly lose your T3/Sleip/'Cane. The 'risk-free PVP' that people complain about disappears, a reasonable solution.

But, no, CCP has chosen to make it impossible to board ships from the SMA at all - and further used an arbitrary timer to do it.

Why? Its no surprise - its not the 'hiding' and 'evading' combat that kills carebears - its the act of 'boarding' a new, bigger, ship that kills them. And Carebears petition like crazy and sometimes quit when they get cocky and lose Billion ISK ships to a T2-Cane. "Yeah, I initially shot at a Vigil, but an Orca brought them a Hurricane - no fair, they cheated - I should only have to fight the Vigil!"

No, this is hand holding at its worst. I suppose CCP intends for Faction-fit PVE ships to live forever, because CCP is doing a good job of eliminating one of the ONLY threats to their existence. Those LVL 4 NPC's certainly aren't going to do it.
Marchland
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2011-12-05 11:33:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Marchland wrote:
They are saying swapping was a bug, which you CAN do with a carrier, but now you CAN'T do with an Orca.
But you just that that you can do it in an Orca.

So which one is it?


You can't do it in high sec, which you could before.

The SMA should work one way: Swap ships, aggression or not.

It works 2:
1. Swap ships, aggression or not, in low sec.
2. Unable to swap ships with aggression, in high sec.

That's ********.
Marchland
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2011-12-05 11:37:32 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Escaping the consequences of a fight in an Orca is lame. No problem with that, as in:
1. Fight in ship X, start to lose....
2. Hide 'ship X' inside Orca, and get ship Y (or simply disengage and fly off in a pod...)
Its 'risk-free' PVP.

But that isn't what these 'nerfs' are doing. Read and comprehend.
They preventing you from BOARDING another ship from the bay - with timers no less.

It really is pretty lame- because there isn't anything inherently unfair about bringing new ships into a fight - as long as they can't be returned to the hangar until the fight is over.

IE, Engage in ship X, board ship Y, engage in Y, while ship X remains floating in empty in space.
It isn't 'risk-free' PVP, as any ship that is boarded it now 'in play' and must finish the fight - or be destroyed.

Had they simply made it impossible to 'hide flagged ships' in Orcas, without wrecking the 'boarding' ship functionality, I'd have been perfectly OK with it. After all, sometimes the mission runner turns the tables, and you would rightly lose your T3/Sleip/'Cane. The 'risk-free PVP' that people complain about disappears, a reasonable solution.

But, no, CCP has chosen to make it impossible to board ships from the SMA at all - and further used an arbitrary timer to do it.

Why? Its no surprise - its not the 'hiding' and 'evading' combat that kills carebears - its the act of 'boarding' a new, bigger, ship that kills them. And Carebears petition like crazy and sometimes quit when they get cocky and lose Billion ISK ships to a T2-Cane. "Yeah, I initially shot at a Vigil, but an Orca brought them a Hurricane - no fair, they cheated - I should only have to fight the Vigil!"

No, this is hand holding at its worst. I suppose CCP intends for Faction-fit PVE ships to live forever, because CCP is doing a good job of eliminating one of the ONLY threats to their existence. Those LVL 4 NPC's certainly aren't going to do it.



I cannot Like this post enough. Nailed it. It's only risk free if you put your ship away, while it's often faster to just warp out; how many carebears fit points to their mission fits. If you're losing to a carebear and try to hide your boat, yes, that's evading PVP, but upgrading via switching into another ship, even if it leaves the "bait" ship outside, should still be possible. You're not running and the original ship is not evading combat.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#52 - 2011-12-05 13:02:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
I just sit here and read comment after comment about no more 'risk free PVP' - and how Orcas are being used to 'evade' combat.

Evading combat is lulzy, but it isn't what the Carebears posting here are so jubilant about. Like he said, how many of them actually bother to fit a point - evading isn't an issue.

This is about Carebears crying to CCP - because they got cocky in their 1 Billion ISK CNR, shot at a 'weak' Vigil, only to see it turn around, tank and scramble them. I've seen it happen dozens of times....and every time, their cocky attitude persists...
....until the Orca brings a Hurricane to the fight.

Then: abrupt change. They start to negotiate, pay ransoms, and invariably lose their ship AND get podded by alts.

Think about it rationally. Are they mad because the 'Vigil' happened to disappear safely into the Orca?? NO! OFC, they are mad because the 'CANE skullf'ed them. Being allowed to bring in a new ship hardly makes it 'unfair' - THEY chose to fight.

The bear picked the fight, by shooting first. The Orca merely turns the tables on a Carebear that tried to prey on a 'weak' frigate. Don't want to die? Don't shoot at the Vigil.

Oh wait, I forgot about plan B) - Whine loudly to CCP about the Orca until they change it. Roll And CCP, for their part, has always been right there - with a baby bottle full of warm milk.
Nav illus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2011-12-05 13:16:20 UTC
I'm starting to worry about this game. Hi-sec is looking more and more risk free every day. Sad
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#54 - 2011-12-05 13:32:53 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
The bear picked the fight, by shooting first. The Orca merely turns the tables on a Carebear that tried to prey on a 'weak' frigate. Don't want to die? Don't shoot at the Vigil.

Playing Devils Advocate they picked a fight with a Vigil, not a Cane. Would they have shot a Cane if it had been there ninja-looting in the first place? Probably not, which is of course why you/ninjas use Vigils in the first place, to invite aggression.

CCP haven't really set a precedent with this to be honest - they have been continually nerfing scamming as well with changes to the UI... Adding a textual description of an amount in a contract, removing freeform contracts completely, showing where the contract route goes, warning them that they might not be able to dock there, etc. This Orca change is not the paradigm shift you might think it is.

The problem here, if you're prepared to stand back and look at it objectively, is that if you choose to retaliate to a Vigil stealing your stuff it's not unreasonable to expect that this is what you are going to be fighting. Being able to switch into something much more threatening may well be emergent gameplay from your point of view but it runs counter to "expected behaviour" from the carebears perspective. Again CCP fixing this sort of thing is nothing new, they fixed the lofty trick, they removed cascading GCCs, they even recently went one step further and removed automatic cascading aggression upon stealing.

At the end of the day you've still got "proper" methods like social engineering and corp infiltration to rid carebears of their ships. You should assume from numerous other examples that CCP are not happy with deceptions via the UI or unintended or undocumented game mechanics and will continue to remove them, for the betterment of whoever it affects (which let's be honest is always likely to be people who don't want to fight)

Just my 2p.
BuzzyBeagle
Centers for Intergalactic Mercantile Acquisition
#55 - 2011-12-05 13:52:20 UTC
Pandorath wrote:
At least 90% of eve players are the so called bears, i do not expect that i will get much support. This however has nothing to do with ships corp hangars which still work.

Also
Tippia wrote:
Pandorath wrote:
It's not risk free pvp, its griefing.
You know that griefing isn't allowed in EVE and will get you banned, right?

Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.
L2EvE


i absolutely agree.
CCP catering to and coddling these fluffy little Bears makes me sick to my stomach.
Outer Space should be a no mans land, not a place where Mission and Miner bots can freely auto-ISK all day long.

CCP, throw us a bone... believe it or not, we are HELPING the community as a whole, not hurting it.

<3 Buzz
BuzzyBeagle
Centers for Intergalactic Mercantile Acquisition
#56 - 2011-12-05 13:57:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pandorath wrote:
Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.
Incorrect on both accounts. Your problem is that you have brought some irrelevant notion of “griefing” in from some other silly game that has nothing to do with EVE.

So, indeed, L2EVE: it's not what you think it is. Griefing gets you banned around here.



i lulled hard at this misinformed Bear that is so fluffy in her down-pillow covered computer chair she cannot see past her rose colored glasses to see whats going on in the real world.

I approve and note character name as a perfect target of opportunity.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#57 - 2011-12-05 14:10:44 UTC
Whereas catering and 'coddling to' coward high sec ELITE PVP who can't kill missioners without a blob is perfectly acceptable amirite?

It's pretty easy to adapt to this change.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#58 - 2011-12-05 14:33:54 UTC
Durzel wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
The bear picked the fight, by shooting first. The Orca merely turns the tables on a Carebear that tried to prey on a 'weak' frigate. Don't want to die? Don't shoot at the Vigil.

Playing Devils Advocate they picked a fight with a Vigil, not a Cane. Would they have shot a Cane if it had been there ninja-looting in the first place? Probably not, which is of course why you/ninjas use Vigils in the first place, to invite aggression.

CCP haven't really set a precedent with this to be honest - they have been continually nerfing scamming as well with changes to the UI... Adding a textual description of an amount in a contract, removing freeform contracts completely, showing where the contract route goes, warning them that they might not be able to dock there, etc. This Orca change is not the paradigm shift you might think it is.

The problem here, if you're prepared to stand back and look at it objectively, is that if you choose to retaliate to a Vigil stealing your stuff it's not unreasonable to expect that this is what you are going to be fighting. Being able to switch into something much more threatening may well be emergent gameplay from your point of view but it runs counter to "expected behaviour" from the carebears perspective. Again CCP fixing this sort of thing is nothing new, they fixed the lofty trick, they removed cascading GCCs, they even recently went one step further and removed automatic cascading aggression upon stealing.

At the end of the day you've still got "proper" methods like social engineering and corp infiltration to rid carebears of their ships. You should assume from numerous other examples that CCP are not happy with deceptions via the UI or unintended or undocumented game mechanics and will continue to remove them, for the betterment of whoever it affects (which let's be honest is always likely to be people who don't want to fight)

Just my 2p.


Can't really reply due to time constraints, but appreciate the well thought out reply.
Still, I'd say, technically, they are engaging 'you', who happen to be flying in a Vigil, flags follow the person, not the ship.

So I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that -

Just because you engage a Vigil, you are guaranteed to only be fighting a Vigil. You are fighting the pilot.

Forcing players to disengage, dockup in order to switch ships - is kind of weaksauce when the whole point of the Orca having an SM bay in the first place is for in-space fitting and ship swapping. Seems like CCP simply wants to give PVE player every opportunity possible to escape, even AFTER they initiate the fight.

I read this nerf as, 'Orca switching ships is OK' as long as you are using it for Carebear pursuits. Ninjas, need not apply.


Arcan Winter
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2011-12-05 16:22:32 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Can't really reply due to time constraints, but appreciate the well thought out reply.
Still, I'd say, technically, they are engaging 'you', who happen to be flying in a Vigil, flags follow the person, not the ship.

So I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that -

Just because you engage a Vigil, you are guaranteed to only be fighting a Vigil. You are fighting the pilot.

Forcing players to disengage, dockup in order to switch ships - is kind of weaksauce when the whole point of the Orca having an SM bay in the first place is for in-space fitting and ship swapping. Seems like CCP simply wants to give PVE player every opportunity possible to escape, even AFTER they initiate the fight.

I read this nerf as, 'Orca switching ships is OK' as long as you are using it for Carebear pursuits. Ninjas, need not apply.





So you are saying, you want the safty to bring in an orca that the carebear cant attack while you should have the conviniency to easy switch ship from it. I Null/low the other part should at least have a change to start attacking the orca if he or she wants....might be a long travel from the mission gate.
So you want more safty than you should have had in null/low when you what to nija kill a carebear. The risk of needing to drop the new ship before it can be boarded is only a resonabel risk from what I can see.


Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#60 - 2011-12-05 16:40:05 UTC
Pandorath wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I approve of CCP taking steps to remove the risk free PvP that goes on in this game.

It's not risk free pvp, its griefing.



Grieffing is against EULA good sir.

So you're just risk averse or grieffer?