These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Iam Widdershins - withdrawn candidacy. Vote Alekseyev Karrde.

Author
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-02-10 22:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcos Vandymion
Osabojo wrote:
Iam Widdershins sperged out in Skippermonkey's joke thread and will probably act like a self-important doofus who won't be able to get along with anybody else in the CSM. See for yourselves.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=65474


I like that other guy - he has some kind of "I'll punch ya face in....no srsly."-attitude. Could work on the worst debates. Someone else vote for him, I still won't change my mind ^^.

EDIT: Duh, hur hur - Knightmare. Creative. What was that anime called again? Code Geasss I think it was...
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#62 - 2012-02-10 22:39:08 UTC
Arcos Vandymion wrote:
Osabojo wrote:
Iam Widdershins sperged out in Skippermonkey's joke thread and will probably act like a self-important doofus who won't be able to get along with anybody else in the CSM. See for yourselves.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=65474


I like that other guy - he has some kind of "I'll punch ya face in....no srsly."-attitude. Could work on the worst debates. Someone else vote for him, I still won't change my mind ^^.

EDIT: Duh, hur hur - Knightmare. Creative. What was that anime called again? Code Geasss I think it was...

Heck if I know.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#63 - 2012-02-10 23:25:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Red Templar wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Red Templar wrote:

You get my like, even though i probably will not vote for you.

What can I do to change that? I honestly want to know. Screw politics, what are you looking for in a CSM?

Person. There is bunch of forum avatars in this sub-forum who promise stuff and talk a lot about their ideas/concerns/thoughts/political views. Who cares about that? Only them probably. Not CCP, thats for sure.

99 percent of the CSM candidates are some generic political slogam bullshit idiots. They promise **** and talk alot about what they think about some minor detail, that might not even come up during their term as CSM.

Look at Trebor's campaign last year. He posted entire mini biography of himself, all his experiences, projects he worked on, etc. That was some good stuff, even tho Wizardry suck balls and he is a douche. It still allowed to see him as a person. I liked that.

So stop being politicaly correct, and show me who you really are. There are no perfect people. We are all flawed. And if i vote for someone, i want to know their flaws, vices and virtues.

**** guys who have better ideas or can speak nice on forums. I want someone with character, and i want to see that character.

If you feel like I'm all politically correct, you clearly haven't met me (that's fine I guess). I'm sure quite a lot of people can tell you, I can be a real ragey ***** when I **** something something up myself and lose a spaceship in a completely avoidable way. I used to be a lot less pissed off about losing **** because it'd be like "oh... how does that work? WTF? I didn't know that. Dammit. I wonder if I can kill someone using that..." and nowadays it's basically "OH FFS I COULD SEE THIS COMING FIVE MINUTES OFF" -- though I'm basically just pissed at myself.

I don't even care if I get on killmails. Combat records are what they are, and they are inherently inaccurate representations of your achievements in PVP. As long as something dies, it doesn't matter to me whether I got the killmail, though it is a bit more fun if you were able to do it solo. (Ask Killer. "Ok, I'll just jump in and push him through to you guys in case he wakes up and MWDs to the gate... ok point...he's......uh............he's down lol")

Inside the game, I play (and encourage my corpmates to play) for maximum grief. I've done terrible, terrible things to people and their misbegotten spaceships and loved it. Trolling and killing and unapologetic theft; everything goes under the EULA. This was one of my favorite chatlogs to date, and my favorite altcorp is the one where the CEO resigned and gave the roles to me when I teamkilled everyone in it (after taking his recruitment bonuses). My ideal day in EVE is to gain some poor sap's trust, clean out his corp hangar, and blow up like 3 billion isk in mining ships with a Breacher. At that point I don't even care if anything dropped.

I always try to troll someone by default. If they're mad about their loss and start smacking about it, double down! Those are the best kind of chat logs. Otherwise I guess you can just GF or give them some vague suggestions, or even try to double down on the scam and then explain to them how they messed up later.

I feel that doing all this is fine and good because any real EVE player should be able to take the experience of getting horribly stomped on and learn from it. There should be no such thing as 'griefing' in EVE: things that are considered 'griefing' anywhere else are legitimate gameplay in EVE. It's a risky game, and it's your own damn responsibility to find out how these things work: this is nice and cheap early on. Anything under allowed game mechanics goes; saying that something is dishonourable or unfair because you can't figure out how to win is like saying that medics in TF2 are for losers who are too **** to win without them. If you're at war, you should know about it already or someone should tell you: there's a big message if you're already in the corp. If you shoot canflippers... you just shot someone. That's literally begging for a fight. Any time you die in EVE it is 100 percent your fault, and if you can't take something away from any given loss and learn something from it, you aren't exactly fit for the game.

If there are game mechanics that allow you to totally gank people with no counter or sacrifice, then those mechanics obviously need fixing. For instance, if CCP had no problem with joining a corporation while you're in space targeting someone and then blowing them up because now you're at war, that would be a broken mechanic. You can actually do this without being CONCORDed (though it is considered a petitionable exploit), which is definitely something that should be fixed. In my opinion, you have to petition something someone did for using a game mechanic (like this) that totally works but is still disallowed, that mechanic needs work.

To me, EVE's victory condition is that you be the last person who still has a ship. Sure, you can get the credits to scroll by going to the last tab of the ESC menu (same way you win Animal Crossing: City Folk by going to the basement of the museum between 8pm and midnight every Saturday... oh god) but you can only truly win EVE when you stand atop a mountain of corpses and burning wreckage and self-destruct the game's last Sleipnir.

That is to say, EVE never ends. Every day you play you should learn something new, and if necessary act on it.

If that doesn't make me seem terrible enough, come hit me up on EVE Voice or some ****. I'll try to tone the gay jokes down to the point where information transfer is possible.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#64 - 2012-02-11 08:16:23 UTC
Bump.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

huja
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-02-11 09:24:09 UTC
What do you think about sec status and neutral logistics in high sec?
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#66 - 2012-02-11 10:47:49 UTC
huja wrote:
What do you think about sec status and neutral logistics in high sec?

'Sec status' is a bit of a broad topic, and I'm not really sure what kind of issue you mean to ask about. I'm not aware of any major issues with the way it works unless you are referring to Jack Dant's "what happens in lowsec stays in lowsec" proposal -- in which case I think that's a great idea.

Neutral logistics on the other hand I can tell you all about. For the sake of brevity I'll refer to all remote assistance -- tracking links, remote repair, remote sensor boosters, remote ECCM -- as 'logistics.'

I have fought many times with and without neutral logistics, mostly without; I have fought groups that have in-corp logistics, neutral logistics, and no logistics at all.

The split of opinions on neutral logistics in hisec is, in 99% of cases, between the haves and the have-nots (either friends or alts, it makes no difference). Most people that have them think they are pretty dang good, bring them along quite frequently, and some of them will use them to fight damn near anything. They are much more convenient and less scary when they are not in the same corporation (as they should be -- two logis are less inherently dangerous than two Tempests in most every situation).

Most people who don't have logistics seem to feel that they are dishonourable, a cheat, inherently unfair, and even an exploit -- and that they should be completely abolished. Even some pilots from groups that DO have heavy logistics think this way, in most recent memory some pilots from NOIRdot, who as a mercenary corporation usually has no problem with flooding local with excessive numbers and scaring away all their potential targets.

Many of these same people will then gladly run hisec incursions for their isk. If you don't see why this is ironic, well, I'll get to that.

EVE's population is aging and growing in number; more and more of them are able to fly some pretty nice ships, including Logistics class cruisers. With the introduction of Incursions, these ships went from purely a PVP thing except for maybe some guys who ran high level complexes with some extra alts to an essential staple of one of the most desirable PVE occupations in the game. Dedicated logistics ships are becoming ever-increasingly common and prevalent, and that's just something we've got to come to grips with.

Many people feel butthurt about getting killed in what they expected to be an honourable 1v1 when suddenly scimitar... even though they should know what to expect from the people they are fighting, and could often find out with a little basic research. That is perhaps understandable, though they should probably realize that they are mostly complaining about their own lack of planning. This is where most of the complaints come from.

Some people feel like their small groups are getting killed unfairly by a silly-small number of people just because they are made "invincible" by logistics. This is a flawed perception, because there is plenty that they could be doing to win anyway. Say you've got 5 guys fighting 2 guys 20km off the front of the Rens undock. It's a pretty big station, so let's use that. Everything seems easy until two Guardians light up on the station and suddenly your primary is healthily repping right back up again; you're not doing any damage. What could you possibly do?

Well, you can't defeat them by brawling, so the answer is Ewar. You can jam them with ECM. If they are pretty close, you can shoot them to dock them up/distract them, or neut them. You can switch your primary often, which is difficult for the logi to cope with. If the logistics are like 50-70km away at the back of the station (as is pretty common), you can damp them. If you really damp them hard, you can get a logistics' max targeting range under 25km without much difficulty. You might even be able to draw the fight away from the logistics, getting them out of rep range. If you come well-rounded instead of just fit for generic gangbang, you can make fighting a group that has any kind of remote reps pretty feasible with equal numbers (including the logi).

All this is under the current mechanics. Some people will stick their fingers in their ears and shout that this is not good enough, they want neutral logi GONE. How do you want to do this exactly?

Do you want to make it impossible to rep anyone who's not in your corporation/alliance? No more incursions, I guess. Ok, make it alright to rep strangers as long as they aren't aggressed to anyone? There goes joint wars.

Back in the day, up until the weeks shortly after Incursion, giving someone any kind of remote assistance was an act of implicit trust. They were presumably trusting you to help them out and you were trusting them to not 'go global' or get you ganked by some nefarious dudes. When people began to introduce pick-up groups of random neutrals for running incursions rather than forming corporations of people they trusted, absolute mayhem ensued. Logistics and shiny battleships with energy transfers on were going GCC left and right. I wondered to myself, why can't these people find a group that they trust and just stick to them? That's what the game has always been about, not trusting total strangers with the safety of your 200-3000 million isk ship.

CCP "patched" this in two or three steps. First, reps automatically turn off for CONCORD. Sigh. I guess that might be alright. Next they start making reps turn off for ANY player aggression, and it is now almost impossible to use logistics, either in or out of your corporation, in any large fight in high security space. Every time the person you are repairing begins shooting someone new, your reps turn off. When you turn your reps back on, your buddy's capacitor transfers turn off. It's a nightmare tale of consequences outside a mechanic's stated intention, and I've experienced it first-hand.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#67 - 2012-02-11 10:48:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
(continued)

It may be slightly outside the scope of this discussion, but I don't like these changes. I think that they are having a hurtful impact on high-security PVP, and I think that CCP is responding far too vigorously to complaints of griefing in incursions. I believe that it is not CCP's place to protect people from consequences of putting the trust of their most valuable assets into the hands of strangers they have barely talked to; if CCP had just played it chill and given it some time, incursions would work differently: People would form more tight-knit communities of incursion-bears who actually form corporations and closely bonded groups that have to rely on each other for their safety and income. That is, they would do it the way they've done it in all other areas of EVE since time-immemorial.

In essence, I don't believe that neutral logistics can be removed easily (or indeed at all) without seriously breaking the game, causing a large number of "unintended consequences", or completely reworking the most basic rules behind what is allowed in combat throughout the entire game. I have read a lot of proposals -- some simply written by really angry people, some actually thought out -- but the majority can be shot down with a simple example of a situation where it's impossible to determine what the game should do or the exact opposite result is achieved.

Arrow Neutral logistics play an important role in the game and they are one of the more interesting things to work with in hisec PVP: the better your research, the more you can anticipate from your enemy, even though local is FULL of neutrals. They do not make anyone invincible, and they are literally the only way to possibly win certain fights. They are here to stay.

There is another issue that is frequently raised, however. Aren't logistics on stations and gates nearly invincible? They can dock whenever they want, as soon as they get shot, and many view this as a problem. I have no problem with fixing this, but it needs to be done carefully.

Some say that any remote assistance should always give you a 60 second dock/jump timer, no matter what, and that you should always have to turn the module off and wait a full minute before jumping or docking up. I think this is a terrible idea, for several reasons. For instance, many groups tend to run a fairly logistics-heavy fleet composition, making this their modus operandum. It requires a huge amount of organization and discipline, but if they are in trouble in a fight they can all de-aggress and jump through the gate with the logistics still repping to escape a gang that outnumbers them by too much (but not TOO-too much). It is very cool, and a twelve-to-fifteen man gang of Basilisks and Nightmares can engage fleets in excess of three times their own numbers if numbers are what the enemy relies on.

If logistics always counted as a sort of aggressive action, the combat ships could jump out while the logistics would be left on their own in a sort of turkey-shoot. That's no good.

Arrow The dock/jump timer on the logistics ship should only be as high as the dock/jump timer of the ship it is repairing; once that ship can dock, so can the logistics. If the logistics turns off its reps early, then he can dock 60 seconds after he's done. Great! This forces logistics ships to be more mobile and self-sufficient instead of cap-recharge monsters with maximum reps that nobody bothers to shoot because they are too far away: if anything goes wrong, that logistics could have to fend for itself for a whole minute. This should serve as a viable solution to both complaints, without breaking anything new.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#68 - 2012-02-11 14:02:56 UTC
Reading over this again: Holy wall of text batman.

But it describes my thoughts and reasoning. There you go.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-02-11 17:21:16 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Reading over this again: Holy wall of text batman.

But it describes my thoughts and reasoning. There you go.


Anybody who expects complex ideas to be solved without a wall of text need to go back to reading t-shirts and bumperstickers.

I agree with a lot of what you said but I take issue with the side about incursion bears. Incursions were made for pickup groups to form and for people to be able to fly with folks outside their own circle, if they so chose to do. Wardec mechanics have pretty well stopped any incursion-bound corp dead in its tracks.

Would you consider a slight alteration of 'not all rules are universal' in that the rules within an incursion for logistics CHANGES from those in normal hisec. This would leave the incursions their safeties and yet not have that cascade of power off reps off that you spoke of, above, in normal space.

m

P.S, if I were to be looking to build a CSM based on skills and diverse representation YOU would be the person I would want to see in as a hisec pvp rep.

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-02-11 23:22:31 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
(continued)

It may be slightly outside the scope of this discussion, but I don't like these changes. I think that they are having a hurtful impact on high-security PVP, and I think that CCP is responding far too vigorously to complaints of griefing in incursions. I believe that it is not CCP's place to protect people from consequences of putting the trust of their most valuable assets into the hands of strangers they have barely talked to; if CCP had just played it chill and given it some time, incursions would work differently: People would form more tight-knit communities of incursion-bears who actually form corporations and closely bonded groups that have to rely on each other for their safety and income. That is, they would do it the way they've done it in all other areas of EVE since time-immemorial.

*snip*

Arrow Neutral logistics play an important role in the game and they are one of the more interesting things to work with in hisec PVP: the better your research, the more you can anticipate from your enemy, even though local is FULL of neutrals. They do not make anyone invincible, and they are literally the only way to possibly win certain fights. They are here to stay.

*snip*

Arrow The dock/jump timer on the logistics ship should only be as high as the dock/jump timer of the ship it is repairing; once that ship can dock, so can the logistics. If the logistics turns off its reps early, then he can dock 60 seconds after he's done. Great! This forces logistics ships to be more mobile and self-sufficient instead of cap-recharge monsters with maximum reps that nobody bothers to shoot because they are too far away: if anything goes wrong, that logistics could have to fend for itself for a whole minute. This should serve as a viable solution to both complaints, without breaking anything new.


Valid.

Dont want to sound like I'm kissing ass here, but those points summarise my PoV perfectly. I personally own a logistics alternate, and have had too many great moments/kills/fights to ever think of giving her up (yes, i refer to it as a 'she').

What would you say as to the addition of more T3 style ships?
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#71 - 2012-02-12 03:55:16 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you said but I take issue with the side about incursion bears. Incursions were made for pickup groups to form and for people to be able to fly with folks outside their own circle, if they so chose to do. Wardec mechanics have pretty well stopped any incursion-bound corp dead in its tracks.

Would you consider a slight alteration of 'not all rules are universal' in that the rules within an incursion for logistics CHANGES from those in normal hisec. This would leave the incursions their safeties and yet not have that cascade of power off reps off that you spoke of, above, in normal space.

For the first point, I have a different perspective on the matter. Just because CCP made a bunch of changes turning them into a viable Pick Up Group mechanic (finally, after a large amount of grief, and at the expense of other important game mechanics) does not strictly mean that they should be a PUG thing. When I sit back and imagine even hisec incursions being a serious business of tight-knit hisec raider groups, I like what I see.

As for changing the way logi work only in incursion systems... words that come to mind for a mechanic like that are 'deceptive' and 'complicated' -- 'deceptive' isn't the right term, but it's the feeling I get. Having two totally different sets of mechanics for remote assistance in different areas of space seems like a recipe for brain-melt in young PVPers as they try to cope with exploitation on the part of experts. That's the feeling I get.

Yes, I make it my mission in life to kill people and take their things utilizing parts of the game they don't understand. I'm a terrible person, and if you gave me a marauder to T2 rig for you I would keep it. That is why I am a good option to represent the actual actions of the players to CCP: both the scammers and "griefers" and what they do, as well as the poor saps who get scammed and killed because the game simply isn't clear or logical enough.


Mike Azariah wrote:
Seeing as you are running, Iam, I could turn it back to you and ask what your prroposals were . . . are you looking to make Concord less or more active as a police force?

I just want it to make sense and to make the graded scale of security mean more than response time for Concord to react.
m

Hmmmmm. I think that CONCORD as it stands is a pretty basic mechanic, and it's there to enforce an order into hisec and restrict the scope of combat there (12:14:28 Combat CONCORD Police Commander lightly hits you, doing 185893.0 damage.) This is what sets it apart from lowsec, and I'm certainly not wanting to change that.

CONCORD is the 50-billion-volt electric fence that separates allowable PVP from disallowed PVP (except suicide ganking, which I guess is an electricity fetish). The only thing changing the strength of CONCORD response will change is what ships are viable for suicide ganking; everything else is a matter of choosing what you should and should not be allowed to shoot. Changing this in different security levels seems like another added complication to hisec PVP mechanics, which as I've mentioned before are already dizzyingly complex.

If you have any ideas you had in mind, though, I'd love to hear them.


Mike Azariah wrote:
P.S, if I were to be looking to build a CSM based on skills and diverse representation YOU would be the person I would want to see in as a hisec pvp rep.

Big heart, thanks so much.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#72 - 2012-02-12 03:58:24 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
What would you say as to the addition of more T3 style ships?

I believe that CCP originally intended to add a class of T3 ships for every hull size (frigate, cruiser, and bs) as they came up with some good roles for them. I have heard some people (notably Kirith Kodachi) pleading for modular capital ships as well.

My response to this is, that sounds pretty cool. If it's implemented well, it could be awesome: go for it CCP, but take it slow. Things like this are easy to screw up, but you've done it well once before.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Szilardis
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#73 - 2012-02-12 09:29:39 UTC
Widders is possibly one of the most knowledgeable pilots I've met in nearly three years. He has my votes (and my axe).
Drekarg
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-02-12 13:28:09 UTC
Finally a candidate I respect, +1 vote here.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#75 - 2012-02-12 22:16:51 UTC
Thoughts on High Sec Incursions?

Local chat Intel/cloak detection?

Use of off grid booster alts?

NPC corps as a means of avoiding Wardecs?

Have you read Malcanis's High Sec Manifesto? What are your opinions?
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#76 - 2012-02-12 23:16:51 UTC
Xorv wrote:
(1)Thoughts on High Sec Incursions?

(2) Local chat Intel/cloak detection?

(3) Use of off grid booster alts?

(4) NPC corps as a means of avoiding Wardecs?

(5) Have you read Malcanis's High Sec Manifesto? What are your opinions?

(1) I am on the side that Vanguards are too easy to blitz for too high a payout (way more money in those than Assaults Sad ), and that mechanics protecting Pick Up Groups as a viable mechanic need to be revisited. Enough organizational infrastructure exists at this point to provide a relatively smooth transition back to players providing each other a relatively safe environment to run hisec incursions.


(2) Local chat? Being able to view who is in local with you at any given time is very important, in hisec as it is in lowsec and nullsec. Wspace is its own animal, and the lack of a local listing interplays wonderfully with the difficulty and unpredictability of getting in and out of system. As for the chat part, local chat and smack is a wonderful tool and I really cannot imagine how boring the game would be without it. It may be a cumbersome mechanic server-side but I love it.

I assume by 'cloak detection' you mean a mechanic to remove yourself from the local list. I am not strictly against this, but the main question you need to ask when considering something like this is not how do you want it to be used but how will it be abused. And oh boy is there a lot of potential for abuse in something like that. If someone comes up with a solid and well-rounded proposal for something like this, I'd love to see it and it could be a very cool addition to the game; until then, I don't mind the way things are now.


(3) Off-grid boosters are pretty cool, and have a really strong and important impact on fleet fights (but they absolutely do not make anyone invincible). With the introduction of T3 boosters and then T2 links they've been getting stronger and stronger, and this has been making them increasingly prevalent.

Boosters should always be able to function off-grid, but if they are made weaker when they aren't on-grid that'd probably be fine. I've also heard CCP Soundwave talking of making T3 ships with the warfare linking subsystem being made less specialized and more rounded (perhaps by giving them smaller bonuses to more than one kind of link), and returning Fleet Command ships to their former role as badasses of the sky when it comes to a specific kind of links.


(4) NPC corps already come with an 11% tax. This could be raised, but it's a pretty big drawback already. I think creating a corporation could be made more expensive, but the cost of making your own corp is often loneliness.

My proposals for changes to wars already make it more difficult to leave a corporation that is at war, and I think this is attacking the problem more directly.


(5) I am totally in agreement with his assessment of the current state of hisec. It is rare for someone to actually tell it like it is with regards to the Happy Rainbow Carebear Zone in the middle of our EVE: there's a lot of PVP there, and that's the way it should be.

Some of his suggestions for increasing the differentiation between security levels are interesting. I am not strictly against them, but I would lend a word of caution not to make them too complicated.

I agree that wars and bounties need a serious makeover, and I'm looking forward to seeing what CCP does with them in their upcoming expansion (which will apparently have a focus on that!). He has some very good concepts for what could be added to revitalize those mechanics, but he is very general in his description; the difficult part is in coming up with actual mechanics that could incorporate these ideas without being exploitable. That is where my interest comes in: I would love to work on proposals to flesh out ideas like these.

His third point, developing high-risk vs high-reward gameplay in high-sec space is perhaps not what I would like. I think that that is the kind of thing that needs to be saved for lowsec, which is desperately in need of a revitalizing spark itself.

An example of this I WOULD like to see, however, is PVE areas directly related to and having an impact on player-instigated wars in high security space. Now THAT could be interesting, as long as it was (again! always!) not exploitable by people who want to do only that.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#77 - 2012-02-13 00:41:12 UTC
Thanks for the answers. I was a little surprised by some. Just to clarify..

Other than some adjustment to lower the payout on Vanguards, you're largely supportive of High Sec Incursions as they are now? You wouldn't support removal of Incursions from High Sec, removal of Concord protection from Incursions in High Sec systems, or a means for players to side with the Sansha against Incursion runners?

The ability to use a T3 booster that is virtually unprobable and that aids in a fight while it is largely immune from hostilities is a good thing?

Oh and to clarify one of my original questions.. it was in relation to the last CSM minutes where both removing/changing Local Intel and a means of detecting Cloaked ships was brought up by CCP. I see you're against changing Local Chat Intel, what about a means to detect Cloaked ships?
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#78 - 2012-02-13 02:09:07 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Thanks for the answers. I was a little surprised by some. Just to clarify..

Other than some adjustment to lower the payout on Vanguards, you're largely supportive of High Sec Incursions as they are now? You wouldn't support removal of Incursions from High Sec, removal of Concord protection from Incursions in High Sec systems, or a means for players to side with the Sansha against Incursion runners?

The ability to use a T3 booster that is virtually unprobable and that aids in a fight while it is largely immune from hostilities is a good thing?

Oh and to clarify one of my original questions.. it was in relation to the last CSM minutes where both removing/changing Local Intel and a means of detecting Cloaked ships was brought up by CCP. I see you're against changing Local Chat Intel, what about a means to detect Cloaked ships?

A way for players to side with the Sansha would be awesome.

I'm supportive of Incursions as they exist now with the caveat that I'd like to see it become dangerous to assist strangers again. I believe that pick-up groups are not the best thing for the game.

The ability to use a T3 booster that is virtually unprobable and that aids in a fight while it is largely immune from hostilities is a very expensive thing. I would definitely support making gang links cause you to be easier to probe down to give pilots outside high security space better tools to counter their use.

I don't think I would support a mechanic that gave the ability to decloak cloaked ships unless 1. it is relatively short-ranged (say 20km or so), 2. it takes a long time to wind up (say 30 seconds), and 3. it's not possible to use it in a rolling-thunder effect where you can immediately decloak every single recon that comes through a gate.

In fact, I don't see much of a reason to include it at all. The ability to cloak up at a safespot is key to the gameplay of a lot of people (who know how to survive out in 0.0 but don't want to have to set up a goldang pos everywhere they go -- I support the nomadic lifestyle), and fitting a cloak already comes with some pretty significant drawbacks. Anything else useful seems like it would allow for the creation of even MORE deadly gatecamps than the ones we are already seeing, gatecamps that can kill pretty much anything that comes through using a combination of bubbles, high scan resolution, and decloaking pulses.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-02-13 08:15:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcos Vandymion
Not exactely on topic, here's some ideas I've been throwing around regarding following quote (highly experimental stage in thought)


NetheranE wrote:
What would you say as to the addition of more T3 style ships?

Just throwing around idea here but I really like that idea. Unless they introduce more subsystem skills - that is. I'd for example love to see some kind of heavy drone platform for Amarr (go fix those damn amarrian drones CCP >.< - we are the second best droneusers by fluff and the worst by fact), as it stands the best drone ships are either of gallantean or pirate design. I was thinking about something in the direction of a carrier here with less overall drones. 10 Garde II's (with a 50% bonus) for example can allready pump out around a 1000DPS at all5. This seems like a legit idea.
Missiles for Amarr (Assault Optimization - hurdur Smile), guns for Caldari, maybe missiles for Min (the Hardpoint Efficiency configuration is one of the worst subsystems as it currently is I think).
Other possible ideas would be capsized weapaons on BS' (not sure that could be made to work, probably not though), moving systems generally around (I think a subsystem that gives heavy neut-power should be an offensive subsystem, cause you mainly will mount neuts/nos' anyway, while cloaking seems more like a computational/engineering problem then one of weaponlayout (which could rectify their general underperformance, and would make the HAM sub for the Legion viable too)).

Attention even more brainmelting content
Hell - they could go totally through the roof and itterate on the factions more if they do something like T3 BS'.
Taking the Khanid for example - they would provide ample reason for a good Missile sub, maybe even for a Shield sub seeing as how they are the closest of all EvEs factions to the Caldari State.
Regarding non BS - T3 Barges? I'd love to have a miningship with a drone subsystem (would potentially need the introduction of a new kind of miningdrones (10m³ ones? 25m³?) - if it's possible to tank id adequately (~40k EHP would be more then the best tanked Hulk I think), you could hide a few of those equipped with flights of combat drones in your mining operation.
Attention /even more brainmelting content

I welcome you to post yout thoughts on T3 BS/Frigs

P.S.: I know I love drones, no need to tell me xD

Edit1+2: removal of grammatical and spelling errors.
EDIT3: Itteration on content
de4deye
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-02-13 08:30:54 UTC
Iam Widdershins is a great candidate, much approved. Although I'm not a highsec guy, I can confirm that this person is indeed a factor.