These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Logistics Change - Looking for Feedback
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#81 - 2015-08-08 07:42:08 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Saisin wrote:
I was glad to hear the crew at the latest Open Comms show discussing stacking penalties for remote repping (at 2:04:50). The concept mentionned here or here or in many other places, I am sure....


How do you rationalize stuff like reps having diminishing returns but not guns?

You also somehow want cap to be off grid while doing their work while getting their targetting information from someone on the other grid. WTF kind of BS is that? Cap not needing to be on grid to affect a fight is a stupid idea.



As far as in-game lore, it would be very easy to make some kind of comment that energy flux fields in the shield generation matrix of ships can only transfers so much energy from an outside source through the shield-capacitor transfer conduit... or something :)

Also, if the lore says it is so, then who are we to complain about that mechanic? The lore says we transfer our consciousness via some sub-space frequency something-or-other to a fully grown clone potentially 100 light years away and we wake up immediately. Lore says we have a perpetual motion machine creating a constant flow of energy (capacitor) that is never ending, but maybe just sometimes slow.

The whole game is currently based off of mechanics that originated in the lore a few game devs had 20 years ago. In 3 months time, if something like this was implemented, it would be assimilated, accepted and meta'd and become the status quo.

Way to miss the point. The point is why be arbitrary in game play with stacking penalties for reps and not damage.

Hell you don't like blobs maybe you should go play scrabble or chess. Because there NO mechanism that makes ANY sense to punish a n+1 group. It is stupid.

Hay even better idea why not just have ships blow up if they get more than 10 reps...

We even have a goonswarm (note the name) go on and on about player participation in one thread yet clearly states here in this one that he is incapable of fielding pilots with any ability to think.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#82 - 2015-08-13 00:46:11 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:

Way to miss the point. The point is why be arbitrary in game play with stacking penalties for reps and not damage.

Hell you don't like blobs maybe you should go play scrabble or chess. Because there NO mechanism that makes ANY sense to punish a n+1 group. It is stupid.

Hay even better idea why not just have ships blow up if they get more than 10 reps...

We even have a goonswarm (note the name) go on and on about player participation in one thread yet clearly states here in this one that he is incapable of fielding pilots with any ability to think.


We already play this game under a very arbitrary set of rules.

Personally, I think Concord is a joke. How do you rationalize completely omnipotent gank squad police that can destroy anything in seconds, but then they can only be in one place at a time, even when they show up in less than 10 seconds?

How do you rationalize that I can extract something from a planet, have its supply diminish, then magically return to its starting levels if I go on vacation for a week.

How do you rationalize half-moon asteroid "belts" that also magically replenish every 24 hours?

How do you rationalize that capacitor transfers can create energy out of nowhere?

How do you rationalize that Kilometer long spaceships can be "created" in less than 8 hours from 7 simple materials?

How do you rationalize that running your spaceship at full speed, sometimes in excess of 1000 m/s, directly into ANYthing and the worst that happens is a bounce...?

I could go on. The point is that we, the players, have decided to accept the way a game works based on a set of arbitrary rules. One more won't break the game, and could possibly make it a bit better.

Cedric