These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM X - What are you voting for?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2015-01-20 08:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the income from mining has gone up significantly over the years, and I mean after correcting for inflation.


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I am not so much trying to stop ganking, as I am trying to push for ways that the victims can counter ambush or stand up against the gankers instead of running. Add another layer to this aspect of game play.

See now this is an idea I can get behind. It has always bothered me that mining ships are so one-sided. They should be given the tools to fight back, even if fitting for combat reduces their mining output. That's a choice to let the player make, not one that should be forced upon them.

All too often I hear people say the Procurer is what I want, because it has a lot of hit points and damage. Well it doesn't have a lot of slots, it has zero utility highs, and it doesn't have much powergrid. You can't fit an active tank to a procurer, you can't fit neuts. It's stuck with its super-drones as a freebie for people who are just going to AFK mine and hope that anything attacking them will die before they come back.

You know what I'd like to see on mining ships? Utility highs with unbonused missiles, instead of or along with drones! With the right balance, it can be slightly weaker than a normal combat ship when fit with mixed turrets and launchers (extra cargo space meets lack of powergrid) or when fit for mining it still has a significant power to fight back. And the beauty of unbonused launcher hardpoints is how easily you can instead fit a cloaking device, probe launcher, or capacitor mod in them.

And that still offers an advantage to miners who are busy with things at or near the computer than those who do not monitor at all, because the ones within earshot and only managing one mining ship can jump into action when combat starts and let their missiles or neuts pick up where the drones left off.


I just feel that a big part of why miners feel powerless is because their ships ARE powerless.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#122 - 2015-01-20 20:07:32 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I am not so much trying to stop ganking, as I am trying to push for ways that the victims can counter ambush or stand up against the gankers instead of running. Add another layer to this aspect of game play.

See now this is an idea I can get behind. It has always bothered me that mining ships are so one-sided. They should be given the tools to fight back, ...
Quoting you to the OP. Another stellar post. Thank you.
---------
From here because it will probably be lost in the depths of that threadnaught, I can not agree more with the sentiment expressed.
Vigilanta wrote:
Gabriel Elarik wrote:
Nothing should be 100% safe in eve

make a safe cloak 100% safe thats wrong nothing else as long as he is cloaked he cant harm anyone


I agree, cloaking should not be 100% safe (hint it is now), how people are not up in arms about this I have literally no idea considering how much they hate on hs freightors, 250 caps circle jerk repping each other ect ect.

I have seen this dead horse beaten often, and there will be no change i'm sure this time around. The fact that so many individuals vehemently defend the permanent duration of the cloaking module just astounds me. I have no problem with someone who wishes to cloaky camp a system, but you should have to be paying at least a modicum of attention to do so. (also i haven't done PVE in YEARS so i really dont have a horse in the race other than pointing out players inconsistent viewpoints).

I think the part that gets me the most is this particular line is that people have perfect intel with local and ls/ns shouldn't be that safe. Okay I don't completely disagree, but that local works both ways, both parties have perfect Intel on who in system, so its effectively balanced. The irony is the safety said cloak camper has, the only way a cloaky camper is dieing, is if he is mentally incapable. He has 100% engagement control, he can pick the fight, and trust me no cloaky camper is going to pick a fight he thinks he has even a slim chance of losing. The only trap that really can be laid is a counter drop on a bait carrier or something, but since most BLOPS are MJD fit, they use their coward module and are out before the first counter dropper loads grid.

So please tell me how this equation is balanced (hint, its not), I will grant you though that this is more than just cloak rebalancing, this is issues with modules like MJD's and at the end of the day the amount of time it takes to load system (which isn't likely to change anytime soon)

Further more as is often cited in eve, a group of people should always be stronger than a single individual, cloaky camping is one of a very few instances left in eve where this is inverted, a single individual has the ability to do much more damage than the group. Again the cries of perfect local intel would be heard and the THIS ISNT A PROBLEM IN WORMHOLES JUST REMOVE LOCAL. The WH argument doesnt apply at all because you cant light these things called cyno in wormholes, BLOPS or otherwise, so what you have in system is what you get and all your entrances have mass limitations, and finally, your PVE content is worth ALOT more cash, than null or low. You would basically have to remove jump drives from the game, or seriously up the payout of null pve activities to balance the risk versus reward equation of a no local or delayed local nullsec.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2015-01-20 20:49:43 UTC
My favorite idea for fixing the threat of AFK-cloaking is setting limits on how many ships can come through a single cyno and/or time delays on ships coming through or lighting another cyno, to make hotdrops smaller and/or slower. Still a threat but less of a OMG ITS OMEGAFLEET THEY INSTABLAPPED MY TANKED CARRIER!!!

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#124 - 2015-01-22 04:02:36 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
My favorite idea for fixing the threat of AFK-cloaking is setting limits on how many ships can come through a single cyno and/or time delays on ships coming through or lighting another cyno, to make hotdrops smaller and/or slower. Still a threat but less of a OMG ITS OMEGAFLEET THEY INSTABLAPPED MY TANKED CARRIER!!!



Because we need less hot drops and more ratting carriers.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2015-01-22 04:18:29 UTC
Actually, smaller/slower hotdrops will lead to more ratting carriers which will lead to more (in total) hotdrops.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#126 - 2015-01-22 04:20:38 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Actually, smaller/slower hotdrops will lead to more ratting carriers which will lead to more (in total) hotdrops.



I tackle your carrier in one ship, light a cyno. 5 guys jump through, each one has a cyno, 25 guys jump in. Each one has a cyno, 125 guys jump in....so it's a bad idea, but also a bad idea that wouldn't work.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#127 - 2015-01-22 05:13:15 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
I tackle your carrier in one ship, light a cyno. 5 guys jump through, each one has a cyno, 25 guys jump in. Each one has a cyno, 125 guys jump in....so it's a bad idea, but also a bad idea that wouldn't work.
31 weaker enemies on the field. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#128 - 2015-01-22 05:14:51 UTC
There's already jump fatigue. Why not just make all of Eve highsec =/
Jenshae Chiroptera
#129 - 2015-01-22 05:55:57 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
There's already jump fatigue. Why not just make all of Eve highsec =/
I am in null.
When I see reds coming on intel channels - know what I do?
I dock up!
Yup, I dock right up.
Then I undock in a covert ship. Why? Being in a covert cloak ship is better than being in a station.

Everyone knows it is over powered. It needs to change.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#130 - 2015-01-22 05:56:56 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
There's already jump fatigue. Why not just make all of Eve highsec =/
I am in null.
When I see reds coming on intel channels - know what I do?
I dock up!
Yup, I dock right up.
Then I undock in a covert ship. Why? Being in a covert cloak ship is better than being in a station.

Everyone knows it is over powered. It needs to change.



What?! That's a horrible argument. And who is "everyone?"
Jenshae Chiroptera
#131 - 2015-01-22 06:01:05 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
What?! That's a horrible argument. And who is "everyone?"

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Crap answers. .
We have a difference of opinion and I feel you are blind to my perspective. We won't resolve this. Have a good time. o7
Try take those sunglasses off and think a bit before you argue so blindly. Refute the reasons why I prefer a covert ship over a station.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#132 - 2015-01-22 06:03:15 UTC
Because you can get eyes on your enemy. So what? That's overpowered?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#133 - 2015-01-22 06:08:39 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Because you can get eyes on your enemy. So what? That's overpowered?
Again. A quick reply with very little thinking and only one benefit or use mentioned.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#134 - 2015-01-22 06:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph IX Basarab
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Because you can get eyes on your enemy. So what? That's overpowered?
Again. A quick reply with very little thinking and only one benefit or use mentioned.



It's not my job to list every single way that YOU think cloaks are overpowered. It's yours. It's called your campaign because it's yours.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#135 - 2015-01-22 06:12:34 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
It's not my job to list every single way that YOU think cloaks are overpowered. It's yours. It's called your campaign because it's yours.
Already done, multiple times in multiple places and multiple times with you. Is your goal in life to waste people's time? Lol

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#136 - 2015-01-22 07:06:14 UTC
From here.

Even a Goon is not so blind.
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
AFK cloaking is much, much less of a threat since the changes to Jump Range and Jump Fatigue. The threat has never really been about the one cloaked ship- the threat was what they could cyno in at any time.

If there is still a problem, the problem would be that the cloaking module can stay on indefinitely, requires no fuel, and there is absolutely no way to track down someone that is cloaked (unless they decloak somehow).

This brings about a situation where a person can have many "afk cloaking" accounts logged in at once (like me!) and go between being "AFK Cloaked" to "Active Cloaked" instantly without anyone being aware, across several tens of accounts. This means that I can always have near-perfect information before I strike or bridge in blops.

If anything, I can keep an alt cloaked up with a private stream in a hostile staging system and be providing real time intel 23/7, without being at my computer.

I don't really want CCP to make more changes to AFK Cloaking, but part of me can see why this mechanic is slightly broken as-is.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#137 - 2015-01-22 07:37:20 UTC
Then clearly your issue is the cyno, not the cloak. How can you complain about what intel a cloaked ship can gain when you have local as the perfect intel tool?

With all do respect, you're a pver, a miner, an industrialists, etc. And that's fine. But it really sounds like you're trying to bring a little too much highsec into my null/lowsec. If you have a problem with afk cloakers and cynos...why not just play in highsec?

For you to claim that the mechanic is over powered, you'd actually have to show some strong stats. Back when Drakes and Hurricanes were the ships to fly in 0.0, there was real stats backing up why they were over powered. When every capital fight summoned everyone with a cyno from literally all over new eden, you could see that was a game breaking problem. Even Isthars today are a bit of an issue. But as far as cloaky ship and hot dropping goes, there's no stats backing this up. Miners aren't dying in droves. People are still doing their ratting just fine.

Here let's see if you can answer this question. For every 10 ratting or mining ships out there flying in a non hs area of Eve, how many get hot dropped? If it's SUCH an issue you need to actually back up your argument with some statistics or something. Because right now, it honestly just looks like someone that does pve complaining about someone doing pvp.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#138 - 2015-01-22 07:42:32 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Here let's see if you can answer this question. For every 10 ratting or mining ships out there flying in a non hs area of Eve, how many get hot dropped?
It is too logically evident to me to believe it needs that effort. So, counter argument. Disprove it.
Give me stats on how many hours miners and ratters don't stay docked up, move to another system or are playing another game when there is an AFK cloaker in their home system.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#139 - 2015-01-22 07:44:44 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Here let's see if you can answer this question. For every 10 ratting or mining ships out there flying in a non hs area of Eve, how many get hot dropped?
It is too logically evident to me to believe it needs that effort. So, counter argument. Disprove it.
Give me stats on how many hours miners and ratters don't stay docked up, move to another system or are playing another game when there is an AFK cloaker in their home system.


Once again, I would respectfully remind you that the burden of proof is on you as a CSM candidate to prove your point.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#140 - 2015-01-22 07:45:58 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Because right now, it honestly just looks like someone that does pve complaining about someone doing pvp.


That's the TL;DR of their entire post history, dude. "playing the wrong game" has rarely fit anyone better.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.