These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

PaleStar for CSM - Vote for Experience and Sanity
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Endeavour Starfleet
#21 - 2012-02-18 03:48:24 UTC
PaleStar wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Your idea for removing local sucks. Yet before I completely go against you let me ask your views on incursions.


I wouldn't want to remove it... I want to update it. The latest change to player lists was like the first visible change since I can remember. I want to replace the functionality of the count with something that is more effective. Let me ask you this: how many times have you scanned your list in local and tried to count the hostiles when the channel was above 200? Wouldn't you like a readout at the top of the screen that says: "100 in local" 20 blue, 20 light blue, 20 red, 20, orange, 20 neutral" ?

Shameful edit: I forgot to answer your incursion question. I like them. Good isk and it forces people to work together. Unfortunately, it's easy to be shut out of a incursion and I don't know how to solve that. It's also a grind after a while and if the payouts were any lower, they wouldn't be successful.


I didn't like the ability to "jam" local in your idea. If it was an option to switch from full to numbered that would be ok.

As for not getting into Incursions. Many people cry and scream that their T1 Fit mission Drake wont get invites when in reality FCs NEED 70 percent resists and decent buffer because otherwise logis will have to run all 4 reps on you which means more chance they can be alphaed.

However if you can get a remotely decent fit together (About as expensive as a mission fit) getting into the almost 24/7 Assault/HQ fleet that runs is a cakewalk.

PVe is a grind. To make it more dynamic invites alpha strikes that kill fleets. Many that run in the above mentioned fleet are running shiny ships that would get into almost any super VG fleet. Yet they want to run with the big fleets because it involves lots of fun from comms. More sites and variety are always wanted but many runners do understand that PVe will never be as exciting and varied as PVP. That is the reality.

So if you want to help those who are supposedly shut out. Get increased payout on assaults and HQs so its easier to have 2 or 3 of em.
PaleStar
#22 - 2012-02-18 04:00:18 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
PaleStar wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Your idea for removing local sucks. Yet before I completely go against you let me ask your views on incursions.


I wouldn't want to remove it... I want to update it. The latest change to player lists was like the first visible change since I can remember. I want to replace the functionality of the count with something that is more effective. Let me ask you this: how many times have you scanned your list in local and tried to count the hostiles when the channel was above 200? Wouldn't you like a readout at the top of the screen that says: "100 in local" 20 blue, 20 light blue, 20 red, 20, orange, 20 neutral" ?

Shameful edit: I forgot to answer your incursion question. I like them. Good isk and it forces people to work together. Unfortunately, it's easy to be shut out of a incursion and I don't know how to solve that. It's also a grind after a while and if the payouts were any lower, they wouldn't be successful.


I didn't like the ability to "jam" local in your idea. If it was an option to switch from full to numbered that would be ok.

As for not getting into Incursions. Many people cry and scream that their T1 Fit mission Drake wont get invites when in reality FCs NEED 70 percent resists and decent buffer because otherwise logis will have to run all 4 reps on you which means more chance they can be alphaed.

However if you can get a remotely decent fit together (About as expensive as a mission fit) getting into the almost 24/7 Assault/HQ fleet that runs is a cakewalk.

PVe is a grind. To make it more dynamic invites alpha strikes that kill fleets. Many that run in the above mentioned fleet are running shiny ships that would get into almost any super VG fleet. Yet they want to run with the big fleets because it involves lots of fun from comms. More sites and variety are always wanted but many runners do understand that PVe will never be as exciting and varied as PVP. That is the reality.

So if you want to help those who are supposedly shut out. Get increased payout on assaults and HQs so its easier to have 2 or 3 of em.


I really like that idea. Incursions for the rest of us!

On the local thing: I'm fascinated by the fear one feels in a wormhole. The problem is that you have to go into a wormhole to get that feeling. Nullsec, circa 2003, was very much like that. Being alone and lost in nullsec meant that you had to be on your toes and really think about what you are doing. Nullsec isn't like that today. Also, while Eve is far from a simulator, I've always found it funny that the most useful intelligence tool is a chat window. Something about that isn't right.




Endeavour Starfleet
#23 - 2012-02-18 04:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
This is EVE. It is right because that is Nullsec. Things are bad enough with AFK cloaking already.

BTW if you happen to be against AFK cloaking. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=204096#post204096 If I get potential CSM support for this I will redo the topic with new images and stating that I now support an amendment to my idea to prevent the probes from registering any contact that is mobile so that wormhole hunters that are active will be unaffected.

Wormhole were added to truly experience that gameplay of fear. Also you forget NPC nullsec which is very 2003 where you are usually alone and hunted. Not much bluing out there.
PaleStar
#24 - 2012-02-18 04:21:59 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
This is EVE. It is right because that is Nullsec. Things are bad enough with AFK cloaking already.

BTW if you happen to be against AFK cloaking. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=204096#post204096 If I get potential CSM support for this I will redo the topic with new images and stating that I now support an amendment to my idea to prevent the probes from registering any contact that is mobile so that wormhole hunters that are active will be unaffected.

Wormhole were added to truly experience that gameplay of fear. Also you forget NPC nullsec which is very 2003 where you are usually alone and hunted. Not much bluing out there.


I like the idea of being able to hunt cloakers like submarines but I don't think there is much wrong with cloakers. You don't truly know if the cloaker is AFK or not. I've watched people sit in one spot for hours at a time. They sit, they wait, they pounce. I'm not sure what kind of person that is... because I'm not that patient but I've seen people do it. It's good tactics.

I'll play devil's advocate: where does your plan stop? I could, in theory, build a ship and implant combo that would be faster than your prober. I don't need a cloak, I can simply put him on the edge of system, point him in a direction and let him loose. I'll lose the advantage of ship surprise, after all, a cloaked ship can be anything, BUT you will still wonder if I have a cyno. You still won't feel comfortable with me in your system. And honestly, I think it takes a step making nullsec that much safer. Personally, I would like see nullsec become more dangerous. I'd like to see nullsec with better payouts to the average pilot. Basically, make the people that live in nullsec responsible for your day to day safety. It's like that now somewhat, but it doesn't seem to be enough.

I guess I like difficulty and I know that there is a majority of people that don't. I'm fine with that actually, because the majority is what will bring people in our game, so they have to rule. Here is a middle ground solution for dealing with cloakers: A ship, like a interdictor that spits out a 100km sphere that is capable of decloaking. I don't know, just tossing it out there... I'm not much for the idea of probing a cloaker out, after all what is the use of cloaking?

Here's another variation on a theme: ship that spits the decloak bubble and a probe that detects within grid. You know the cloaker is out there, but you still need ships to trawl the water. Again, just an idea.
Endeavour Starfleet
#25 - 2012-02-18 04:31:11 UTC
The difference is that nullsec danger has many different meanings.

An "active" danger is for instance of wormholes were reformed to allow good planning to help bypass the blue wall and allow for active attacking of weak points inside.

The "passive" danger is bad because while people are having to keep their fingers on warp the entire time the inactive cloaker is having a bath and will light the cyno only after he has been away enough to draw people out. All the advantages virtually no disadvantage due to how cheap such ships are.

I like the active danger one.
PaleStar
#26 - 2012-02-18 04:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: PaleStar
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The difference is that nullsec danger has many different meanings.

An "active" danger is for instance of wormholes were reformed to allow good planning to help bypass the blue wall and allow for active attacking of weak points inside.

The "passive" danger is bad because while people are having to keep their fingers on warp the entire time the inactive cloaker is having a bath and will light the cyno only after he has been away enough to draw people out. All the advantages virtually no disadvantage due to how cheap such ships are.

I like the active danger one.


I like the danger that can be created by one pilot. Back to your submarine, the aspect of a singular pilot traveling up and down your routes creating havok is very appealing. For one, it gives those lone wolf types something that they can do well. For two, it remains true to the submarine warfare gimmick. For three, it makes nullsec just a little more dangerous.

Right now, Low-sec is more dangerous unless you are not part of a bloc. The mechanics of engagement are different and the wary traveler isn't usually prepared to fight with gateguns in the mix. The people camping ARE prepared and know exactly how to tank them to get a kill. I'm sure you've seen the insta-broadswords in low-sec... even a frigate can be tagged with ease. Back to nullsec, yes you can create bubbles and yes, you can engage with impunity, but if you are part of a bloc, it's safer. There should be some uncertainty to it. Some, because you don't want to diminish the reward of conquering space. And maybe Sov mechanics are the answer, I don't know. I still enjoy the appeal of a single pilot raising havok and while that happens today, it doesn't happen enough.
Endeavour Starfleet
#27 - 2012-02-19 05:04:13 UTC
The issue of "single pilot" is that it is a multiplayer game. How do you prevent say a hundred "single pilots" from shutting down a smaller alliance? That is what AFK cloaking is doing. It may have been a lone wolf tactic half a decade ago. Yet today its nothing more than a tool of large alliances trying to force out smaller ones.

It should be "wolfpacks" Again I would like to see the wormhole system changed a bit to allow large fleets a chance to jump behind the blue wall. Right now you can use that but its limited because of mass. And there is not nearly enough Null to Null wormholes forming. If it was changed it would force alliances to be constantly on the lookout for surprise roaming instead of hiding behind a shield wall.

THAT gives smaller groups a chance and removes any need for supporting AFK cloaking or remove local in my opinion.
PaleStar
#28 - 2012-02-19 15:20:04 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The issue of "single pilot" is that it is a multiplayer game. How do you prevent say a hundred "single pilots" from shutting down a smaller alliance? That is what AFK cloaking is doing. It may have been a lone wolf tactic half a decade ago. Yet today its nothing more than a tool of large alliances trying to force out smaller ones.

It should be "wolfpacks" Again I would like to see the wormhole system changed a bit to allow large fleets a chance to jump behind the blue wall. Right now you can use that but its limited because of mass. And there is not nearly enough Null to Null wormholes forming. If it was changed it would force alliances to be constantly on the lookout for surprise roaming instead of hiding behind a shield wall.

THAT gives smaller groups a chance and removes any need for supporting AFK cloaking or remove local in my opinion.


Single pilots need love too. Yes, it is a multiplayer game but not everyone can always find a fleet. Think of the glory of the lone U-boat commander, running up and down shipping corridors.

My concern is that the adjustment does not end. A large alliance will easily adapt to new tactics if you hinder the cloak. You won't see someone like Goons give up and stay home just because their cloak isn't effective anymore. Chances are high that a new, equally nasty or nastier tactic will be developed and you are back to square one.

We have to watch for slippery slopes. Again, I like the idea of being able to hunt people down but for me personally, that's a feature, not a fix, because I don't think cloaks are broken. If there was ever a change, locating the cloaker needs to be something skillful and meaningful. Something that allows pilots to shine. It can't be something that is instant or easy. It can't negate the power of the cloak.

Previous page12