Player Features and Ideas Discussion

1. Locked? You mean you can't choose different ammunition types?
We see multiple losses to NPC ships in missions too, are they unexpectedly dangerous, or are their opponents guilty of poor judgement and planning instead?

2. So, a clumsy battleship with known damage types appears. Maybe your PvE ship can't kill it, but then in high sec your defense is based around surviving for Concord.
The key point here is that this ship is, unit for unit, significantly less effective than market sourced options.
Foolish players learn by experience, it is hoped.

3. This really seems surprising, that you would claim this:
Groups will train together in order to better advance up to level 4 missions.
At that point, they will inexplicably begin using less efficient ships to work together as a group, requiring additional time and effort to accomplish their goals.
Despite not having a solid argument as to why they would use the level 3 BS, rather than a faster market sourced ship, they will apparently choose this.
Considering they will lose ISK over the long run, as these free ships are notably less efficient grinding missions, you expect they don't care about losing this ISK because they avoided investing in a ship, which they already had to have in order to reach level 4 missions in the first place.

4. I'm terribly sorry, did a post get deleted where a fatal flaw was described, which I did not afterword demonstrate as in error, or limited to opinion alone?

1. The ammo you describe is not available for use in the free ships. It would defeat their known damage type if it were.
I am not interested in suggesting game balance issues that rely on player error, either.
You are awfully focused on gankers, recently. Why would you expect a clumsy ship with poor dps to be chosen above one with a much higher chance of success?
The ship being free to fly doesn't come with expectations of income. Freighter bumping is a separate issue, beyond pointing out that these ships would be less effective for involvement.

2. These would be weaker than destroyers. I am sure some players will try to showboat their skills with a snowball launcher, if they think it will get recognition.

3. Sorry, that seemed to be what I read into your statement. Needless to say, the cruiser that they used for those level 3 missions would be more effective, at pretty much everything, compared to the BS in question.

4. Now, that is unkind. I am sure you are a decent person, despite the claim that I am refusing to take opinions and unfounded statements as solid facts.

Perhaps I should reinforce the concept, that I feel a ship can still be fun to fly, while being comparatively useless as a means to grind profits.

I agree.

This thread is not about any ship as effective as you described.

Unless the rifter pilot made significant blunders, those attacking ships would be ineffective.

One of the key points of this whole idea is that the ships are designed to lose fights, and are only capable of winning against pilots making extremely bad choices.

EVE, it's about the fun.

To begin with, that ship would have a choice. Stay or leave.
These replacement ships have locked fittings, meaning they could not hold it down.
Nor are they agile enough to bump another BS well enough to prevent warp exit.

If that navy Apoc determined that it needed to scram, it could.
If it decided to thrash a couple first, it could also do that.

If it was fitted for the correct damage resistance, than it could quite possibly tank long enough, to drop their numbers below critical need to overcome that tank.
Fitting the right damage type helps too.

The only hope of the free ship pilots, would be if the navy apoc player screwed up.

And I don't find it practical to suggest game balance be done around expectations of player error.

But I do say this, I would like to see that fight. It sounds interesting to me.

This is what people have been trying to determine, is if these ships are A:) powerful enough to be useful in any situation, and thus effect the market or B:) not worth flying, owning or implementing.

This COULD include forays for non-mission purposes means that these are seen, at least as the idea stood in the OP, as primarily for PvE purposes, such as missions.

If they are that limited and locked in, then they are worth the dev time to get into game as they will be used once by a small handful of people and then sit unused forevermore.

I am sure that for many players, possibly even a majority, these will mean nothing.

Me? I rarely fly gallente or amarr ships. That doesn't mean those ships are not good for other players, just not so much for me.

For many OTHER players though, these ships will seem a blessing, and an enjoyable outlet for their play.

...thud...thud...thud...here have some codeine and a spare patch of brickwork...thud...thud...thud...

It really is this simple though, if the ships are worth anything in combat they will replace market sales and be abused. If they are worthless then why add them? Worthless PvP is not what Eve is about, risk and loss/gain is the key driver.

Worthless, by what set of guidelines?

If you expect to get a net gain of ISK, these will be the least efficient choice.
They are the worst choice in PvP, if winning is your priority.
If these are the aspects that define value to you, then this may seem worthless.

If, however, you just want to have fun, and better odds than winning a typical lottery, these will not be as likely to waste your time.
They will be an interesting fight, and players should have the impression of a fun time.

I don't think EVE is a second job, and while I won't pretend to speak for all, I play it to have fun.