These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Introducing the soloist module: No fleet? No help? No problem.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-04-15 17:16:57 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
so... siege/bastion module for Garmur?

Lol

also, nothing stopping people from flying together anyway.


I don't really think that in a balanced form it would be as powerful as siege or bastion. The general idea is that it should be balanced more closely towards links,with more general but less powerful bonuses.

No, it doesn't prevent people from flying together, it just denies some of the nice things about being in a fleet. Some of which are circumventable, some are not.

the best things about being in a fleet is flying with other people and communicating. a fleet only makes it more official.

my argument still stands.


Well, try operating with your buddies without a fleet next time. Don't forget that you can't bring logi either.
Iain Cariaba
#22 - 2015-04-15 17:28:55 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
so... siege/bastion module for Garmur?

Lol

also, nothing stopping people from flying together anyway.


I don't really think that in a balanced form it would be as powerful as siege or bastion. The general idea is that it should be balanced more closely towards links,with more general but less powerful bonuses.

No, it doesn't prevent people from flying together, it just denies some of the nice things about being in a fleet. Some of which are circumventable, some are not.

the best things about being in a fleet is flying with other people and communicating. a fleet only makes it more official.

my argument still stands.


Well, try operating with your buddies without a fleet next time. Don't forget that you can't bring logi either.

My buddies and I operate in lowsec nearly everyday without a fleet.

Additionally, logi works fine without fleet. You just need to speak up when reps are needed instead of relying on broadcasts.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-04-15 17:33:19 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
so... siege/bastion module for Garmur?

Lol

also, nothing stopping people from flying together anyway.


I don't really think that in a balanced form it would be as powerful as siege or bastion. The general idea is that it should be balanced more closely towards links,with more general but less powerful bonuses.

No, it doesn't prevent people from flying together, it just denies some of the nice things about being in a fleet. Some of which are circumventable, some are not.

the best things about being in a fleet is flying with other people and communicating. a fleet only makes it more official.

my argument still stands.


Well, try operating with your buddies without a fleet next time. Don't forget that you can't bring logi either.

My buddies and I operate in lowsec nearly everyday without a fleet.

Additionally, logi works fine without fleet. You just need to speak up when reps are needed instead of relying on broadcasts.


Part of the concept of the module is to disallow remote assistance. You won't be getting reps.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#24 - 2015-04-15 19:02:09 UTC
Or, rather than break the game entirely, we could just finally nut up and disallow off grid boosting. That would solve a lot of problems.

"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.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#25 - 2015-04-15 19:04:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or, rather than break the game entirely, we could just finally nut up and disallow off grid boosting. That would solve a lot of problems.


Confirming there are reasonable people in the F&I discussion section.

Altho I think CCP said that GB is technically impossibru. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-04-15 19:05:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or, rather than break the game entirely, we could just finally nut up and disallow off grid boosting. That would solve a lot of problems.


This module wouldn't break the game any more than bastion module breaks the game. Moreover, moving boosts on grid is starting to seem more and more like a technical limitation, something that may ultimately prove to be impossible.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#27 - 2015-04-15 20:07:15 UTC
Quote:
moving boosts on grid is starting to seem more and more like a technical limitation, something that may ultimately prove to be impossible.

In which case...

- get rid of warfare links entirely.
- revamp Command Ships and Warfare Link T3s (into what, I have no idea)
- the only "fleet based bonuses" that will stay will be the Titan ones.

How did you Veterans start?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#28 - 2015-04-15 20:11:15 UTC
Removing links completely - I think we're far past the point of that being possible.

Just like with Titans & Motherships. Blink

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#29 - 2015-04-15 20:13:31 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or, rather than break the game entirely, we could just finally nut up and disallow off grid boosting. That would solve a lot of problems.


Confirming there are reasonable people in the F&I discussion section.

Altho I think CCP said that GB is technically impossibru. Blink


For lag reasons, or some such. Doesn't mean it's not the right answer, though.

"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.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-04-15 20:19:04 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Quote:
moving boosts on grid is starting to seem more and more like a technical limitation, something that may ultimately prove to be impossible.

In which case...

- get rid of warfare links entirely.
- revamp Command Ships and Warfare Link T3s (into what, I have no idea)
- the only "fleet based bonuses" that will stay will be the Titan ones.


Maybe that's the right choice, but that's not the call that I'm making here. I deliberately left discussing other player's problems with links out of my original post because I don't have a crystal ball to see what CCP will ultimately decide or do. At least my proposal gives people a little bit of a carrot on a stick to not use links in any potential future where links are either on grid, still off grid, or removed entirely.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-04-15 20:21:22 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Removing links completely - I think we're far past the point of that being possible.

Just like with Titans & Motherships. Blink

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I wouldn't rule it out. The devs have broken the ice on hard hitting changes with phoebe and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. Supercarriers are another example of a heavy handed change, or at least they're purported to soon be. We'll see.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-04-15 20:25:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Or, rather than break the game entirely, we could just finally nut up and disallow off grid boosting. That would solve a lot of problems.


Confirming there are reasonable people in the F&I discussion section.

Altho I think CCP said that GB is technically impossibru. Blink


For lag reasons, or some such. Doesn't mean it's not the right answer, though.


I sympathize with people's desire and understand the reasoning for moving boosts on grid. If it isn't possible though, I think that it would be nice to discuss some changes to boosts or perhaps alternatives.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#33 - 2015-04-15 20:30:17 UTC
The problem is OP... your "idea" is the polar opposite of mine and has equally dramatic results and ramifications... all in the spirit of "equalizing" things.

Put it this way... rather than "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (as I propose) you are instead opting for "drowning the baby to dillute the bathwater."

A "solo module" simply becomes the default module of choice for anyone who who cannot afford an alt (or fleetmember) to act as booster.
And while it will cause some logistical pains... they pale in comparison to the benefits (even if I only get 50% of the full warfare link bonuses with this module, I will still be FAR superior to anything not using it or real warfare links (helly yeah Garmur that can point out to 35km and fly at 5000+ m/sec)).

How did you Veterans start?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#34 - 2015-04-15 20:38:29 UTC
FT Cold wrote:

I sympathize with people's desire and understand the reasoning for moving boosts on grid. If it isn't possible though, I think that it would be nice to discuss some changes to boosts or perhaps alternatives.


The only acceptable measure then is the outright deletion of boosts. Not obscene buffs, bizarre restrictions and what amounts to a whole other ruleset for solo players, based on this one apparently magic module.

"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.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-04-15 20:41:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

I sympathize with people's desire and understand the reasoning for moving boosts on grid. If it isn't possible though, I think that it would be nice to discuss some changes to boosts or perhaps alternatives.


The only acceptable measure then is the outright deletion of boosts. Not obscene buffs, bizarre restrictions and what amounts to a whole other ruleset for solo players, based on this one apparently magic module.



I don't think it's going to happen. Furthermore the concept of restricting remote assistance is not new to the game, and the degree of buffs a ship would receive is not out of line with existing boosting mechanics.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#36 - 2015-04-15 20:49:38 UTC
FT Cold wrote:

I don't think it's going to happen.


It's more likely than what you're suggesting, certainly.

"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.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-04-15 20:50:10 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
The problem is OP... your "idea" is the polar opposite of mine and has equally dramatic results and ramifications... all in the spirit of "equalizing" things.

Put it this way... rather than "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (as I propose) you are instead opting for "drowning the baby to dillute the bathwater."

A "solo module" simply becomes the default module of choice for anyone who who cannot afford an alt (or fleetmember) to act as booster.
And while it will cause some logistical pains... they pale in comparison to the benefits (even if I only get 50% of the full warfare link bonuses with this module, I will still be FAR superior to anything not using it or real warfare links (helly yeah Garmur that can point out to 35km and fly at 5000+ m/sec)).


Well, you've nailed it. The concept is to give people the feeling of a choice without leaving players with existing booster toons feeling jilted. It would certainly be the module of choice for players that do not wish to use alts; there's equality here- every single player will have access to the module.

The idea is to tune the module correctly, so that for smaller (on the order of 1-3 people) scale fights, it would be the choice for players without links 100% of the time. For players with links, they may decide that the more narrow, but stronger buffs provided by links allows them the degree of specialization to make their fits work. For some fits links may work better, and for others the choice will be this module.

It's a different angle to be sure, but one I believe is workable.
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-04-15 20:56:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
FT Cold wrote:

I don't think it's going to happen.


It's more likely than what you're suggesting, certainly.


It's a solution that alienates and angers fewer people, retains more paying accounts, and gives players a sense of equity in at least one area of PVP. In all, it's likely that neither my module will be adopted or boosting will be removed, but thus far noone has pointed out any game breaking qualities inherent to it.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#39 - 2015-04-15 20:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
FT Cold wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Removing links completely - I think we're far past the point of that being possible.

Just like with Titans & Motherships. Blink

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I wouldn't rule it out. The devs have broken the ice on hard hitting changes with phoebe and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. Supercarriers are another example of a heavy handed change, or at least they're purported to soon be. We'll see.


If OGB, capitals & Ishtars get fixed, then it means that real player subscriber numbers are falling and they see no growth potential in the same 50k people with 5 accounts shuffling around New Eden on bought plexes. Smile

P.S. Your OP suggestion just perpetuates the cancer, thus is part of the problem.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2015-04-15 21:04:24 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Removing links completely - I think we're far past the point of that being possible.

Just like with Titans & Motherships. Blink

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I wouldn't rule it out. The devs have broken the ice on hard hitting changes with phoebe and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. Supercarriers are another example of a heavy handed change, or at least they're purported to soon be. We'll see.


If OGB, capitals & Ishtars get fixed, then it means that real player subscriber numbers are falling and they see no growth potential in the same 50k people with 5 accounts shuffling around New Eden on bought plexes. Smile


Maybe; it all depends on how they're fixed. Ishtars were nerfed, but they're still perfectly viable, and taking the damage dealing capabilities away from supers doesn't mean that alliances won't want to bring lots of them to fleet fights. The same principle applies to OGB, if CCP says there's a problem with it and decides that they want to change it, there's a solution that alienates the fewest people and retains the most accounts, while simultaneously being a positive overall change for the game.