These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hard Stripes --Ship Replacement Upgrade
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#101 - 2014-10-23 19:59:54 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Now, lets assume that you have to do something like grind towers, or suicide gank freighters. These give little downside for the increased difficulty in applying damage, so these sorts of things strongly need to be addressed. Also, they still need to be viable to fly in something other than extreme edge cases, lest they be another target spectrum breaker level flop.

These would be the worst ships to use for grinding towers, or ganking freighters, in their respective size classes.

They would not be dead useless, just dead last in results.

Seriously, if ganking a ship is involved, that security hit could seem unfair when considering how little one of these actually managed to contribute.

These are expected to be balanced into categorical uselessness for those areas.
(The T1 ship with base T1 fittings looking far more attractive in each case)

These ships are the waterboys for the team, when they go on roams.
They would be the least interesting priority for a FC calling targets.

Other players would feel better when opposing these, as it would result with near certainty in a win for them.

They give a taste of PvP, but fall short on meaningful contributions otherwise.
Players have a better chance getting killed by actual NPC's, since they would not warn by showing up in local.

All of this accepted, I would expect they still will probably see action, since blowing off steam and screwing around in the game can be fun in itself.
Imagine the miner, grumbling and muttering about needing to get safe, then realizing that it is someone in one of these boats.
All of a sudden, that Procurer feels like a hardcore PvP boat, and is likely to win.

And everyone knows it can't open a cyno, either.

I predict this can lead to significantly more interaction.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Takeshi Kumamato
Blaze Orange Expeditions
#102 - 2014-10-23 21:39:02 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The battleship from upgrade level 3 would still hit BS sized targets better than either of those cruisers, but those cruisers would hit cruiser sized targets more effectively than the BS.

Would your upgrade level 3 battleship hit BS sized targets better than player-built t1 frigates?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#103 - 2014-10-23 21:48:09 UTC
Takeshi Kumamato wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The battleship from upgrade level 3 would still hit BS sized targets better than either of those cruisers, but those cruisers would hit cruiser sized targets more effectively than the BS.

Would your upgrade level 3 battleship hit BS sized targets better than player-built t1 frigates?

That would be a balance consideration.

What is the point you are looking to make, asking that?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Takeshi Kumamato
Blaze Orange Expeditions
#104 - 2014-10-23 21:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Kumamato
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Takeshi Kumamato wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The battleship from upgrade level 3 would still hit BS sized targets better than either of those cruisers, but those cruisers would hit cruiser sized targets more effectively than the BS.

Would your upgrade level 3 battleship hit BS sized targets better than player-built t1 frigates?

That would be a balance consideration.

What is the point you are looking to make, asking that?

If the answer is yes, then you've just affected the player-driven market. Though you might have already answered that question with this statement
Nikk Narrel wrote:

All of a sudden, that Procurer feels like a hardcore PvP boat, and is likely to win.

Does that mean a reasonably fit Procurer is likely to defeat any of your upgraded ships, even your proposed battleship?
My point is that balance-wise, you're going to end up with ships that are statistically identical to our current starter ships. Otherwise, you'll end up with free ships that are more useful than player-built ships and the economy will then be affected.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#105 - 2014-10-23 22:25:16 UTC
Takeshi Kumamato wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Takeshi Kumamato wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The battleship from upgrade level 3 would still hit BS sized targets better than either of those cruisers, but those cruisers would hit cruiser sized targets more effectively than the BS.

Would your upgrade level 3 battleship hit BS sized targets better than player-built t1 frigates?

That would be a balance consideration.

What is the point you are looking to make, asking that?

If the answer is yes, then you've just affected the player-driven market. Though you might have already answered that question with this statement
Nikk Narrel wrote:

All of a sudden, that Procurer feels like a hardcore PvP boat, and is likely to win.

Does that mean a reasonably fit Procurer is likely to defeat any of your upgraded ships, even your proposed battleship?
My point is that balance-wise, you're going to end up with ships that are statistically identical to our current starter ships. Otherwise, you'll end up with free ships that are more useful than player-built ships and the economy will then be affected.

Can you give me an estimate of sales, for these battleship hunting frigates?
No hard figures, but I would appreciate the input.
Assuming we have a player, seriously considering the attempt to take out battleship class targets with a T1 frigate.

Or, possibly, expecting to waste a significant amount of time plinking against a battleship class target, using said frigate.
For the sake of comparison, I am not sure either is relevant, as they would both require significant numbers in order to kill a BS sized target.

Let's say we take the level 3 upgrade battleship, and match it against that T1 frigate.
For the frigate, they would require significant numbers in order to kill the target.
Not fleet numbers, but enough on the frigate side to overcome passive shield recovery of a single BS.
So, let's make it fair, and say equal numbers of both fighting.

Assuming intelligent play on all parts, the frigates are more likely to succeed.
It can fit to match the weaknesses of it's target, while the level 3 upgrade BS lacks that ability.

In all honesty, a group of thoughtfully fit frigates can have resists and active tanking combined with speed tanking, that negates the damage output the group of level 3 BS is capable of.
While one of each is most likely a stalemate, a group of frigates could shrug off the BS damage while focusing fire, and popping the BS's one by one.

Assuming intelligent play, the BS flying group should leave, once they understand they can't handle targets two sizes below their own.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Takeshi Kumamato
Blaze Orange Expeditions
#106 - 2014-10-23 22:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Kumamato
The point is not that a group of t1 frigates would defeat your level 3 battleships, but that in any situation where your level 3 battleships would be preferable to t1 frigates, then those t1 frigates would not be bought and the player economy would be damaged.

Case in point:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41837285/overview/

If your upgraded battleships are better than t1 frigates against other battleships, and if those frigate pilots had taken the few days it takes to get your unlimited level 3 upgraded battleships, then they would not have used their frigates for that kill. Instead, they would have used your proposed battleships.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#107 - 2014-10-24 09:23:31 UTC
It's all about Risk vs Reward Nikk.

Giving people free ships is removing much of the initial RISK while retaining the REWARDS of using bigger, better ships in combat. You effectively pointed that out in your initial post.

You want to give 'Mission Runners', (translation - anyone who has good enough standings,) the ability to greatly reduce the risk of loss while enhancing their capabilities in PvP.

The principle has some merit, but not much. Your execution of the principle sucks.

Friends
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2014-10-24 11:18:27 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
It's all about Risk vs Reward Nikk.

Giving people free ships is removing much of the initial RISK while retaining the REWARDS of using bigger, better ships in combat. You effectively pointed that out in your initial post.

You want to give 'Mission Runners', (translation - anyone who has good enough standings,) the ability to greatly reduce the risk of loss while enhancing their capabilities in PvP.

The principle has some merit, but not much. Your execution of the principle sucks.


And that's why i'm totally against the idea. Reducing risk to encourage people who don't pvp is counter productive. Those who don't pvp avoid it because they don't enjoy it. Free ships won't change that. On top of the obvious market impact this would be horribly abused by those who do pvp.

Part of the fun of pvp is the very risk that the op is trying to mitigate. Where's the fun if you have nothing at risk to actually lose?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#109 - 2014-10-24 14:14:21 UTC
Takeshi Kumamato wrote:
The point is not that a group of t1 frigates would defeat your level 3 battleships, but that in any situation where your level 3 battleships would be preferable to t1 frigates, then those t1 frigates would not be bought and the player economy would be damaged.

Case in point:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/41837285/overview/

If your upgraded battleships are better than t1 frigates against other battleships, and if those frigate pilots had taken the few days it takes to get your unlimited level 3 upgraded battleships, then they would not have used their frigates for that kill. Instead, they would have used your proposed battleships.

Except for the fact, that they would have failed against the target using the level 3 upgraded BS.
That Apocalypse would have shredded them like wet tissue paper, the same way it could be expected to annihilate the same number of ships in a mission.

You seem to be assuming that these free replacement ships are in for the win, but they are not.

They are in for an interesting fight, following which either the other pilot majorly screws up, or the guy in the free ship loses.
As we can't realistically balance items around player error, we disregard that thankfully rare occurance, and note the remaining results: The free ship loses every time against better quality shipping.

Noone expecting to play to win, in encounters with other players, are going to use these.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#110 - 2014-10-24 14:30:56 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
It's all about Risk vs Reward Nikk.

Giving people free ships is removing much of the initial RISK while retaining the REWARDS of using bigger, better ships in combat. You effectively pointed that out in your initial post.

You want to give 'Mission Runners', (translation - anyone who has good enough standings,) the ability to greatly reduce the risk of loss while enhancing their capabilities in PvP.

The principle has some merit, but not much. Your execution of the principle sucks.


And that's why i'm totally against the idea. Reducing risk to encourage people who don't pvp is counter productive. Those who don't pvp avoid it because they don't enjoy it. Free ships won't change that. On top of the obvious market impact this would be horribly abused by those who do pvp.

Part of the fun of pvp is the very risk that the op is trying to mitigate. Where's the fun if you have nothing at risk to actually lose?

This concept seems slow to sink in, I guess because people are not used to thinking along these lines.

You two are pointing out the absence of risk.
(Never mind that the player is investing their time in the game, this definition seems limited exclusively to ISK)

I am pointing out, that this is OK, as the reward is equal to the risk.

Just for clarity, let's do the math on that. Zero ISK invested, in order to have reward match, means zero ISK gained.

These players won't be winning any fights, flying these, and return a net profit for the time spent in the game.

Focus on this point: the goal of playing is to have fun. ISK does NOT equal fun, it is an obstacle to it whenever you don't have enough, in fact.
This is exactly why PLEX sales exist, because grinding for ISK can be so awful to many players, that they would rather spend real life cash earned in real life jobs, than grind for it in the game.
Whether it is the lack of game time, or the sheer dislike of the grinding process, the result is the exact same thing.

Anything that costs ISK, comes with that association.
Sometimes, people feel investing their time should be the only requirement to play a game.

Does it mean that players can never win, flying these ships?
No, but it does require other players to screw up in some truly significant manner.
I feel that is perfectly fine, as I know I would not respect a game where I won after such a memorable lack of proper effort.
That other player flying the free boat created content for me, and my paying a stupidity tax is on me alone.

One key way of observing this, is that the player flying this would very reliably make greater return ISK on their time invested by grinding, or flying missions, etc.
And that is because a return of zero ISK is easy to compete against.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Iain Cariaba
#111 - 2014-10-24 17:06:30 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This concept seems slow to sink in, I guess because people are not used to thinking along these lines.

You two are pointing out the absence of risk.
(Never mind that the player is investing their time in the game, this definition seems limited exclusively to ISK)

I am pointing out, that this is OK, as the reward is equal to the risk.

Just for clarity, let's do the math on that. Zero ISK invested, in order to have reward match, means zero ISK gained.

Apparently you don't know what risk is. Time spent grinding something that won't go away without effort on your part is not a risk. There are only two things at risk in EvE, SP and isk. Since mission rats don't shoot pods, SP is not at risk, that leaves only isk.

The reward is not equal to the risk with your idea.

Just for clarity, we need to take you back to kindegarden math. Zero plus anything does not equal zero. The only way your idea would balance in risk vs. reward is if your freebie ships had a special role where bounties, LP, and mission rewards were set to zero along with any ship killed by it not generating a wreck. That would be zero gain for zero risk.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
These players won't be winning any fights, flying these, and return a net profit for the time spent in the game.

You get any ship in large enough numbers and you can kill anything. Put these in the hands of groups like CODE. and MiniLuv and watch highsec burn.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Focus on this point: the goal of playing is to have fun. ISK does NOT equal fun, it is an obstacle to it whenever you don't have enough, in fact.
This is exactly why PLEX sales exist, because grinding for ISK can be so awful to many players, that they would rather spend real life cash earned in real life jobs, than grind for it in the game.
Whether it is the lack of game time, or the sheer dislike of the grinding process, the result is the exact same thing.

Anything that costs ISK, comes with that association.

I could understand selling PLEX to fund a PvP playstyle, not for a PvE playstyle. If you need repeated infusions of isk to run the highsec isk faucet, then you're doing something wrong and you really need to re-evaluate your chosen career path.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Sometimes, people feel investing their time should be the only requirement to play a game.

And there are many, many other games where this is possible, go play one of them. It sounds harsh, but once again I have to point out that the niche of EvE that is its draw is that everyone runs the risk of as real a loss as you can get in a video game. You remove that loss and you remove the niche.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
1) Does it mean that players can never win, flying these ships?
No, but it does require other players to screw up in some truly significant manner.
I feel that is perfectly fine, as I know I would not respect a game where I won after such a memorable lack of proper effort.
That other player flying the free boat created content for me, and my paying a stupidity tax is on me alone.

2) One key way of observing this, is that the player flying this would very reliably make greater return ISK on their time invested by grinding, or flying missions, etc.
And that is because a return of zero ISK is easy to compete against.

Damn, I'm out of quotes, so I'll do this lat one by the numbers.

1) Again, all you need is enough players in these ships and everything can lose to them. Would you rather get ganked by 10 players in 10mil isk catalysts or 3 players in free battleships?

2) So there would be isk gain without possibility of isk loss. This seems to be completely contrary to the tenets of EvE.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#112 - 2014-10-24 17:54:31 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This concept seems slow to sink in, I guess because people are not used to thinking along these lines.

You two are pointing out the absence of risk.
(Never mind that the player is investing their time in the game, this definition seems limited exclusively to ISK)

I am pointing out, that this is OK, as the reward is equal to the risk.

Just for clarity, let's do the math on that. Zero ISK invested, in order to have reward match, means zero ISK gained.

1. Apparently you don't know what risk is. Time spent grinding something that won't go away without effort on your part is not a risk. There are only two things at risk in EvE, SP and isk. Since mission rats don't shoot pods, SP is not at risk, that leaves only isk.

The reward is not equal to the risk with your idea.

2. Just for clarity, we need to take you back to kindegarden math. Zero plus anything does not equal zero. The only way your idea would balance in risk vs. reward is if your freebie ships had a special role where bounties, LP, and mission rewards were set to zero along with any ship killed by it not generating a wreck. That would be zero gain for zero risk.

...
You get any ship in large enough numbers and you can kill anything. Put these in the hands of groups like CODE. and MiniLuv and watch highsec burn.

...
I could understand selling PLEX to fund a PvP playstyle, not for a PvE playstyle. If you need repeated infusions of isk to run the highsec isk faucet, then you're doing something wrong and you really need to re-evaluate your chosen career path.

....
And there are many, many other games where this is possible, go play one of them. It sounds harsh, but once again I have to point out that the niche of EvE that is its draw is that everyone runs the risk of as real a loss as you can get in a video game. You remove that loss and you remove the niche.


By the numbers, since you did quite a large post.

1. Risk is not limited to ISK or skillpoints. All you have done, is expand it by a single category, while completely ignoring the top level category entirely.
TIME.

We NEED players to risk their time doing something, in order to create mutual content with other players.
You can put all the ISK you want into an account, but if a player doesn't risk an investment of time, it means absolutely nothing.

2. You are attempting to strap on an absolute to the concept, and it simply doesn't fit. A gross reward of zero is meaningless in this context, but a NET reward of zero is where we need to focus.
The ISK gained will always be a net loss, when using these ships, as compared to other well defined pursuits in the game.
That is why they will never truly compete with other ships on the market.
This idea has no obligation to represent a total loss beyond that aspect.

I feel you are sidestepping something more meaningful, that the only commodity we should be concerned with is TIME.
If you spend your TIME grinding, in ships purchased by ISK, you will generate significantly more ISK.
If you spend your TIME by PvP, in ships purchased by ISK, you will fight more effectively.
If you spend your TIME flying a free ship, unconcerned by need to replace said ship, you will take risks more easily.

But if you do not enjoy how you spent your TIME, no matter how much ISK or kills you gather, you wasted and lost your investment on the most precious level.
Having lost such a precious investment, TIME, it becomes less likely you will risk further such investments.

Your other points in that section really don't hold up, in this light where TIME is the key factor.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
1) Does it mean that players can never win, flying these ships?
No, but it does require other players to screw up in some truly significant manner.
I feel that is perfectly fine, as I know I would not respect a game where I won after such a memorable lack of proper effort.
That other player flying the free boat created content for me, and my paying a stupidity tax is on me alone.

2) One key way of observing this, is that the player flying this would very reliably make greater return ISK on their time invested by grinding, or flying missions, etc.
And that is because a return of zero ISK is easy to compete against.

Damn, I'm out of quotes, so I'll do this lat one by the numbers.

1) Again, all you need is enough players in these ships and everything can lose to them. Would you rather get ganked by 10 players in 10mil isk catalysts or 3 players in free battleships?

2) So there would be isk gain without possibility of isk loss. This seems to be completely contrary to the tenets of EvE.

This borders on silly.

1. The three free BS's would not be more effective, making this point drop. Were they to face off against each other, and the Cat pilots to not blunder, the Cat pilots would win overwhelmingly.
As to the ganking point, the free BS is incompetent here, as it cannot point anything, nor would it's DPS be enough to kill a target before said target could easily leave.

2. Point one was beaten, and this was an observation based on a flawed assumption.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-10-24 18:09:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


1. The three free BS's would not be more effective, making this point drop. Were they to face off against each other, and the Cat pilots to not blunder, the Cat pilots would win overwhelmingly.
As to the ganking point, the free BS is incompetent here, as it cannot point anything, nor would it's DPS be enough to kill a target before said target could easily leave.



Oh go on, I'll beat my head against the brick wall of this absurdity once more.

Iain was making the point that you supposedly hamstrung free BS would still have more dps than the cats gankers normally use. Gankers calculate whether to gank or not based on cost of ships lost in the gank compred to the value of the target. Point is absolutely not required of one of the pilots brings a bumping alt that never even receives agression. Thus the gankers can now destroy anything with impunity as they have absolutely no isk at risk and using your blinkered view they would even have to invest less time.

This obviously means they aren't even buying the cats and mods from the market.

You either invest time or pay subs to play eve. Any isk generating activity will require a greater or lesses degree of playertime and will absolutely put you into some form of competition with other players. Giving free stuff is just plain daft as it means that a player never has to risk any of their own isk, just bring enough friends in free crappy ships and you can run anything other than incursions. Given that the ships are free you could probably just keep throwing them in there too in sufficient numbers to win by basic attrition.

This is just one example of how broken the concept is and everyone who has replied has disagreed with the idea.
Iain Cariaba
#114 - 2014-10-24 18:28:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
By the numbers, since you did quite a large post.

1. Risk is not limited to ISK or skillpoints. All you have done, is expand it by a single category, while completely ignoring the top level category entirely.
TIME.

We NEED players to risk their time doing something, in order to create mutual content with other players.
You can put all the ISK you want into an account, but if a player doesn't risk an investment of time, it means absolutely nothing.

2. You are attempting to strap on an absolute to the concept, and it simply doesn't fit. A gross reward of zero is meaningless in this context, but a NET reward of zero is where we need to focus.
The ISK gained will always be a net loss, when using these ships, as compared to other well defined pursuits in the game.
That is why they will never truly compete with other ships on the market.
This idea has no obligation to represent a total loss beyond that aspect.

I feel you are sidestepping something more meaningful, that the only commodity we should be concerned with is TIME.
If you spend your TIME grinding, in ships purchased by ISK, you will generate significantly more ISK.
If you spend your TIME by PvP, in ships purchased by ISK, you will fight more effectively.
If you spend your TIME flying a free ship, unconcerned by need to replace said ship, you will take risks more easily.

But if you do not enjoy how you spent your TIME, no matter how much ISK or kills you gather, you wasted and lost your investment on the most precious level.
Having lost such a precious investment, TIME, it becomes less likely you will risk further such investments.

Your other points in that section really don't hold up, in this light where TIME is the key factor.

In what delusional world do you live where time is a risk? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. You don't lose time spent in game. If your time spent in game wasn't fun for you, go find something else to do. Paying a subscription fee to spend time in a game you don't enjoy is just stupid. This is not risking time. You can waste time but you cannot lose time.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
This borders on silly.

1. The three free BS's would not be more effective, making this point drop. Were they to face off against each other, and the Cat pilots to not blunder, the Cat pilots would win overwhelmingly.
As to the ganking point, the free BS is incompetent here, as it cannot point anything, nor would it's DPS be enough to kill a target before said target could easily leave.

2. Point one was beaten, and this was an observation based on a flawed assumption.

1. Stop reaching and trying to claim your bad idea isn't bad. You've already nerfed your original idea to the point where a battleship can't hold out against a couple destroyers. Continuing to try and encourage this idea is just sad, and your desperation to get support is starting to show.

2. The only thing you've beaten is this idea to death. You apparently have no clue how this game's mechanics or economics work, nor are you cognizant of the fact that a large portion of this game are the tyoe of players that abuse the mechanics. Every single time anyone has posted a reason why your idea is flawed, you've responded with further flawed ideas. Time to give it up.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#115 - 2014-10-24 18:32:30 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


1. The three free BS's would not be more effective, making this point drop. Were they to face off against each other, and the Cat pilots to not blunder, the Cat pilots would win overwhelmingly.
As to the ganking point, the free BS is incompetent here, as it cannot point anything, nor would it's DPS be enough to kill a target before said target could easily leave.



Oh go on, I'll beat my head against the brick wall of this absurdity once more.

1. Iain was making the point that you supposedly hamstrung free BS would still have more dps than the cats gankers normally use. Gankers calculate whether to gank or not based on cost of ships lost in the gank compred to the value of the target. Point is absolutely not required of one of the pilots brings a bumping alt that never even receives agression. Thus the gankers can now destroy anything with impunity as they have absolutely no isk at risk and using your blinkered view they would even have to invest less time.

2. This obviously means they aren't even buying the cats and mods from the market.

3. You either invest time or pay subs to play eve. Any isk generating activity will require a greater or lesses degree of playertime and will absolutely put you into some form of competition with other players. Giving free stuff is just plain daft as it means that a player never has to risk any of their own isk, just bring enough friends in free crappy ships and you can run anything other than incursions. Given that the ships are free you could probably just keep throwing them in there too in sufficient numbers to win by basic attrition.

4. This is just one example of how broken the concept is and everyone who has replied has disagreed with the idea.

By those numbers:

1. No, the cats would be more effective against most targets, presuming intelligent fitting efforts.
You keep ignoring that the DPS output of these free ships is locked in place, and is predictable.
Like the NPC ships they are modeled after, you can fit to resist, if not nullify, their DPS output.

The limiting aspect of these boats has been delegated to the number of players willing and able to fly them cooperatively.
That said, a significantly smaller group can annihilate them using normal shipping.

2. If they want to gank with, before Concord shows up and blaps them out of existence, then they won't be using the free ships.
Cat sales, in this context, simply are not threatened.

3. You can buy ISK. You can buy Ships with that ISK.
You can't buy players.

In order to just bring enough friends in free crappy ships, those friends have to meet two qualifications:
1. They must be willing to invest the time to play the game, and in addition to coordinate their play time to match.
2. Having gone to the trouble of establishing point 1, they must either want to lose, or want to avoid spending ISK.

These marvelous creators of content, should be cherished by everyone in the game.
They are willing to get together, undock in ships that can be easily countered, and go out to create mutual content for everyone.

Do we have to pay them to do this, or could we get existing players to do it?

4. I am still waiting on more than just an opinion that it is broken.
As to popularity, time is on my side, should this ever get beyond the idea stage.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Ix Method
Doomheim
#116 - 2014-10-24 18:32:54 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Oh go on, I'll beat my head against the brick wall of this absurdity once more.

I has aspirin. Keep going, its a worthy cause.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#117 - 2014-10-24 18:46:40 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
In what delusional world do you live where time is a risk? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. You don't lose time spent in game. If your time spent in game wasn't fun for you, go find something else to do. Paying a subscription fee to spend time in a game you don't enjoy is just stupid. This is not risking time. You can waste time but you cannot lose time.

You really are trying to avoid acknowledging that time has value.

You have a limited amount of time, particularly time you can spend playing a game, such as EVE.
If you feel that your time has no value, then this idea may not benefit you as much as some others.

Time is never wasted, if you enjoyed yourself.
Time is lost, never to be recovered, if you do not enjoy it.

Perhaps we value different things?

Iain Cariaba wrote:
1. Stop reaching and trying to claim your bad idea isn't bad. You've already nerfed your original idea to the point where a battleship can't hold out against a couple destroyers. Continuing to try and encourage this idea is just sad, and your desperation to get support is starting to show.

2. The only thing you've beaten is this idea to death. You apparently have no clue how this game's mechanics or economics work, nor are you cognizant of the fact that a large portion of this game are the tyoe of players that abuse the mechanics. Every single time anyone has posted a reason why your idea is flawed, you've responded with further flawed ideas. Time to give it up.

Big smile
1. I do not believe you have thought this through, but I can forgive that.
I pointed out that thoughtful players could take advantage of the known damage type these ships would have. I apologize if this was not explained adequately enough, it seemed obvious to me.
That lets you defend against their DPS.
The same logic allows you to know their vulnerability, and fit damage to best exploit their weaknesses.
This lets you kill them.
Mission runners do this all the time, it really is not so complicated.

2. You assume much. I admire your passion, even if I feel it is misled.
Noone has posted an actual reason why the idea is fatally flawed.
I did shift my view on potential fittings to locked in fittings, much earlier, in response to a well considered point that established a need for these ships to have the NPC's predictable offensive and defensive nature.

Not liking the idea, is hardly the same thing as proving the idea is bad.
But, I do appreciate your feedback.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2014-10-24 18:52:19 UTC
Ix Method wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Oh go on, I'll beat my head against the brick wall of this absurdity once more.

I has aspirin. Keep going, its a worthy cause.


I'm going to need codeine I think...and lots of it...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2014-10-24 18:58:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...blather...


OK lets boil it down to basics. If these ships have any value they will be used in place of player built ships since this is cheaper. This takes sales from the market and there is no way to deny this. None. I know you will but that just shows a blatant refusal to accept what everybody is telling you.

If the ships have no value (to avoid market damage) then what would be the point wasting ccp time in adding them?

Any player who wishes to PvP will already do so. Any player who does not wish to PvP certainly would not be enticed to do so by being offered a sub-par ship that will simply highlight just how rubbish their PvP skills really are (artificially so since they are flying an awful ships assuming it has no impact on the marlet). In fact this would even put the few % of wavering PvP players off since it would make them believe they have even worse skills than they actually do.
Iain Cariaba
#120 - 2014-10-24 19:12:15 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
By those numbers:

1. No, the cats would be more effective against most targets, presuming intelligent fitting efforts.
You keep ignoring that the DPS output of these free ships is locked in place, and is predictable.
Like the NPC ships they are modeled after, you can fit to resist, if not nullify, their DPS output.

The limiting aspect of these boats has been delegated to the number of players willing and able to fly them cooperatively.
That said, a significantly smaller group can annihilate them using normal shipping.

2. If they want to gank with, before Concord shows up and blaps them out of existence, then they won't be using the free ships.
Cat sales, in this context, simply are not threatened.

3. You can buy ISK. You can buy Ships with that ISK.
You can't buy players.

In order to just bring enough friends in free crappy ships, those friends have to meet two qualifications:
1. They must be willing to invest the time to play the game, and in addition to coordinate their play time to match.
2. Having gone to the trouble of establishing point 1, they must either want to lose, or want to avoid spending ISK.

These marvelous creators of content, should be cherished by everyone in the game.
They are willing to get together, undock in ships that can be easily countered, and go out to create mutual content for everyone.

Do we have to pay them to do this, or could we get existing players to do it?

4. I am still waiting on more than just an opinion that it is broken.
As to popularity, time is on my side, should this ever get beyond the idea stage.

1) The DPS output of a catalyst is pretty much locked as well, yet we all know the havoc caused by certain groups in them. Catalysts also have a set damage profile, which can be tanked against, yet we see multiple losses to them every day. Your argument here fails.

2) You have no clue at all. Given the option between a 10mil catalyst or a free battleship, if the battleship does a reasonable amount of DPS compared to the catalyst, gankers will choose the freebie every time. Your argument here fails.

3.1) The grind to level 4 missions is not that long, even shorter when using a fresh alt funded by an older alt. You'd better believe people will train up a cruiser to run level 3 missions to unlock that free battleship. Your argument fails here.
3.2) Two groups: CODE. and The Ministry of Love. Your argument fails here.

4) You have repeatedly been given more than opinion. The fact that you're dismissive of any argument not supportive of your bad idea is indicitive that you aren't capable of admitting you are wrong.