These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

EvE Berserker (Pilot flown cloak capable drones)

First post
Author
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#41 - 2016-01-15 18:36:18 UTC
So you want downsides?
-free cyno-fleet. Every capital pilot would jump in joy. Oh, the biggest capital-fleets are in the hands of all the big groups that will also be multiboxing... Would be a huge power-projection issue.
-free hunters for BLOPS-fleets. Again the bigger fleets would get the biggest benefit and they usually already multibox, so it would enhance their abilities more than any single pilot would.

Wormholer for life.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2016-01-15 19:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
What you are not appreciating is that on Tranquility, multiboxing scales infinitely until a player runs out of time to control active pilots.

The only "more" contribution to the equation is greater potential staying power (if a pilot loses a ship, then it can fly a drone. Assuming there is a mechanism that allows fleets to bring along extra pilot controlled drones).

In other words, neither point provides anything that is not already available. Opting for more limited functionality is of course possible for capital pilots that want to take the hit to avoid the cumbersome and awkward current system. But it is simply a choice to sub-optimize for convenience.

I for one would not mind seeing people scouting in something you can catch in a bubble. I would find that very convenient :).

But lets tack on:
Limited cyno capacity ( lowers the potential convenience factor considerably. Return to base to "reload" using "repair").

Edit
Morrigan corrected to Wander in light of post below :-)

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#43 - 2016-01-15 19:55:27 UTC
Jerghul you really don't get Eve do you.

Eve is built upon meaningful choises. Your idea is neither meaningful or a choice.
Multiboxing is a choice and it has its positives and negatives. Your idea is basically going to be mandatory.
CCP doesn't make you want to our need to run multiple accounts. It only makes things convenient. Running 2 accounts isn't that difficult or hardware-heavy.

Eve is about choices and interacting with people, which your idea does diminish.

You somehow feel left out. I suggest finding people to play with, not drones

Wormholer for life.

ISD Buldath
#44 - 2016-01-15 20:03:27 UTC
Quote:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


I have removed some off topic Posts, and those quoting them.

~ISD Buldath

Instructor King of the Forums! Knight of the General Discussion

Support, Training and Resources Division

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE-Mails regarding forum moderation.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2016-01-15 20:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Wander
It provides both meaningful choice and expands the contact surface and duration of player interaction. As I have argued previously in this thread. Nor is it mandatory or even automatic. It simply is more accessible, less cumbersome, and less awkward.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#46 - 2016-01-15 20:47:59 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
So it is said. I herby demand a visible always on modification of all multiboxers in client. Make them yellow or pink for all I care, just make them visible for everyone.

You want your 9205787805679456 accounts? You can't your invisible "superiority" army anymore - the END.

Your main is now and until the end of time linked and always visible for everyone else to see like a bright beacon in the darkness. Deal with it.


As someone who regularly multiboxes in PVP, I would be perfectly okay with this. It actually kind of annoys me that people might think they were fighting three separate humans vice one human frantically switching windows and trying to fly 3 ships at once. It would also be nice if all my kills could be linked to me, so that people would know "He got 17 unique kills on this character, 14 on this one, and 27 on that one."

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#47 - 2016-01-15 20:57:41 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
I will emphases the pvp point more. Lowering the threshold for pvp is undoubtedly a powerful ++++ and goes to good game design for allowing low intensity pvp without the hassle of clone change (implants would not effect drone characteristics, nor would they be at risk of loss).


How damn low does it have to be when T1 frigs are more or less ALL competitive in PvP?

Who can't afford to lose a T1 frig but would totally park a droneboat un-attended so he can remote to his "drone" to PvP?


No idea, but I watched MOA log off a 12-man Tristan fleet rather than fight four cruisers on one gate and six Svipuls on another.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#48 - 2016-01-15 21:06:34 UTC
No, your idea is useless, complicated and unnecessary. The only thing it would be used for is a free throwaway cyno. In any other reason a separate character is better.
If you want to use multiple characters and their abilities, get them. The game isn't supposed to give you that ability. It's YOUR CHOICE to use multiple characters. That entails paying for them, training them up and learning to use them effectively together. Multiboxing isn't free not should it be.
I don't want to see a drone doing something that a player should be doing and that includes disposable cyno's.
If you cannot afford to multibox or are incapable of doing it, it's not a gameplay-issue. That is an issue between the chair and akeyboard. Take a look at the multiplexing change. CCP wants more players controlling their characters, not less.

Wormholer for life.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2016-01-16 09:49:32 UTC
FT
Risk aversion and satisfaction denial are powerful driving forces in EvE

Wander
The concept is not free, and has nothing to do with separate characters on the same account (beyond those being a symbol of EvE not being about "if you want more than 1 character , then buy more accounts"). And, yepp, its all about free choice. As I have argued (instead of dogmatically declaring) earlier in this thread.

The current multiboxing system is inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. Hence my proposing a limited, convenient, accessible alternative.

Players are the ones doing stuff multiboxing now, and multiboxing in a more limited form as suggested btw.




Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#50 - 2016-01-16 11:04:44 UTC
If you lose a ship and a pod, you don't go back in with a drone, you get a new ship and burn just like every other player.

Why are you so stuck on multiboxing? It's not some magical button that will make the game good or enjoyable. It is a tool you can use and not something that needs to be made easier or more accessable just because you cannot afford a better computer

Wormholer for life.

Arla Sarain
#51 - 2016-01-16 13:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Here's the real problem with it: Multiboxers
Unless you have a way to exclude your multiboxer light idea from folks with multiple accounts - it's just dumb.

Arya Regnar wrote:
So instead of multiboxing 30 accounts and 30 characters I can do 30 and 60? Whoa, I can finally step up my game.

Read the OP.
Jerghul wrote:

Pilot that has deployed these remote controlled (as opposed to automated) may toggle between his ship and each drone to fly each drone as if it were a ship (Perhaps hotseat only)

This limits 1 entity per 1 player. Unlike multiboxing, which is N entities per 1 player. The proposed tool is not even multiboxing and actually puts the players mothership at risk since you can only control 1 at a time.

I.E. someone multiboxing 30 accounts doesn't get 60 multiboxers. Each of the 30 chars can only control 1 entity each.

Serendipity Lost wrote:
This idea is dumb
The premise is dumb
Anyone thinking it's a good idea is....

That about cover it?

then what about you and Wander Prian spouting the most mind numbingly oxymoron BS possible?

- You defend multiboxing, a mechanic that is LITERALLY all about circumventing the need for interacting with other players, but tell the OP to go find some friends because this is a MMORPG, and is supposedly meant to be played with other people. How is this no contradicting itself?

Just more F&I subforum trolls waking up...
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#52 - 2016-01-16 14:28:51 UTC
Oh trust me I've read more than enough of Jerghul's ideas and all of them are based on his feeling of being left out of something.
my favourite was blaming multiboxing for global warming and that was why AFK-cloaking needed to be nerfed.

I just don't see any value in having a drone that is basically a noob-ship with a cyno or a scram. Why would you want to use it? Unless you just want the free cyno network

Wormholer for life.

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2016-01-16 15:13:00 UTC
Arla
You are of course entirely correct in that technically it is not pure multi-boxing as a player could still only directly control one ship at a time (though can toggle active control without having to log-off/log-on). Hence my systematically calling it a limited form of multiboxing.



Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2016-01-16 21:07:25 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:

then what about you and Wander Prian spouting the most mind numbingly oxymoron BS possible?

- You defend multiboxing, a mechanic that is LITERALLY all about circumventing the need for interacting with other players, but tell the OP to go find some friends because this is a MMORPG, and is supposedly meant to be played with other people. How is this no contradicting itself?

Just more F&I subforum trolls waking up...


Talk about mind numbingly oxymoronic, I don't see anyone defending multi-boxing really. Serendipity actually seems to be more negative if anything.

And you forget that these drones will be able to take gates. So you jump in drone 1, jump through a gate and engage a person, die, and you switch to the next drone and so forth.

Basically Jerghul is asking for as many bites at the apple as he has drones. He'd like to go hunting ratters, but instead of bringing 1 ship and trying his luck and if he gets podded sent back out of the area he is hunting, he'd bring this ship with these drones and when he dies in 1 drone he'd just go deploy another and keep going.

Serendipity's point is that a true multi-boxer will use this, not to field 5,6, or however many drones, he'd have one account with the drone boat, and several ready to jump to the cyno. For example, the drone boat in question is the Sin with it's big fat drone bay and high drone bandwidth. Now instead of having one of the players be the hunter, we have the drone do the hunting. When a target is found and tackled, the cyno is lit and everyone jumps to it and kill said target. So the multiboxer would be able to leverage this kind of drone better than a singleboxer.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2016-01-16 21:44:56 UTC
Teckos
The strength of all drones a pilot could remotely control being less than the strength of one specialized frigate of course. A sub-optimal choice as it solidly violates the n+1 rule.

As to shot-gun cynoing. Instead of using a specialized ship immune to warp bubbles and gate camps to hunt, you would try to leverage drones to achieve a greater degree of cyno potential?

Lets specify some more criteria:

*Low cyno capacity
*Sluggish warp speed
*Decloak targeting penalty greater than for specialized ships.

Assuring the concept is indeed a limited alternative is important; specifically to let the multiboxing pros continue to do their thing without tempting them to go sub-optimal (or rather tempt people to say OP).

Instead of trying to conspiracy theory your way to some sort of opinionated, adhomish motivational analysis, you could try accepting what I said at face value:

The current multiboxing system is inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. Hence my proposing a limited, convenient, accessible alternative.



Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#56 - 2016-01-17 00:50:09 UTC
Why does multiboxing need to be made easier?

Wormholer for life.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2016-01-17 05:43:16 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Why does multiboxing need to be made easier?


Because of the intrinsic and predominant unattainable parity between multi-boxers and single-boxers in a nihilistic setting such as null security space where implicit threats require a dialectical approach to lore and game design.

[/end Jerghul mode]

On a more serious note: It doesn't. Multi-boxing is a purely voluntary thing, nobody is forced to do it so from a game design stand point it should be ignored.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2016-01-17 10:57:30 UTC
Wander
The current multiboxing system is inaccessible, cumbersome and awkward. Hence my proposing a limited, convenient, accessible alternative.

I can copy paste as many times as you need bro. But the reason why has been repeated many times already.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2016-01-17 11:01:39 UTC
Given roughly 1 in 3 multi box I would suggest it's not really that inaccessible.

I feel like this idea is solving a non problem as well as making capital and super movement even safer.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2016-01-17 11:32:55 UTC
Morrigan
Cumbersome and awkward are reasons enough. See the gazillion "little things" posts moderators have solicited and responded to for other examples of cumbersome and awkward things that have been fixed.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Previous page123