open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Mechanic to fix "docking games"
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

Author Topic

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:51:00 - [151]
 

I support this idea for stations but not for gates. The simple reason is that you have the option to put tacklers on the other side of a gate should the target try to de-agress and jump out but until there is a "bribe Scotty" option there isn't anything to stop them docking, repairing and undocking again in seconds.

Originally by: Plaetean
This would remove a massive tactical element from the gameplay; the moment you agress anything you're 100% stuck in that system/situation till the fight is over and either you or the guys agressing you are dead, now either people are failing to understand that and how serious a change it would be, or you seem to think its a good idea (which it is not).

I agree this is the outcome for gate fights should this station concept be applied to gates.

Not only do you have the option to put tackle on the other side of the gate, but there isn't any instant repping ability with gates to prolong the fight.

Leave gates out of this change.


Originally by: Plaetean
Edit: This is also especially insane as all you need to do is make stations spit outs by default.


That is an even worse idea as it promotes lazy bubblecamping of stations. Just have enough dps in station/outside to pop a BS in under 1 minute. Yes you can argue they shouldn't undock without intel and that is a fair point, but lets not give people more reason to play station games Wink

CombatSmurf
Drunken Wookies
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:56:00 - [152]
 

oO-b

Halaxi
Caldari
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:23:00 - [153]
 

Seems a pretty sound, simple idea.

Another idea could be for CCP to sort it so that you are out of docking range as soon as you undock (read: fix the silly docking ranges on some stations). Lets see them try docking games when they end up 5km from the happy spot...

Hal.

Isan'na
Malicious Destruction
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:36:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Halaxi

Another idea could be for CCP to sort it so that you are out of docking range as soon as you undock (read: fix the silly docking ranges on some stations). Lets see them try docking games when they end up 5km from the happy spot...



Problem is, this would tilt the balance in favor of pirates camping a station, so it's a less elegant solution than the op's idea. You pop out, they scramble/web, and you've got a *long* crawl back to safety. On the other hand, the discussed solution nerfs docking games while still preserving the capacity to disengage if not aggressing in the first place.

Overall, supported for stations, not for gates.

Turelle
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:01:00 - [155]
 

Edited by: Turelle on 23/11/2009 17:04:00
Simple, effective. I'm supporting this. But only if it applies to stations rather than gates as the reasons for that have been said before.

Lucias Trask
Divine Power.
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:36:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Dav Varan
Your solution does not fix the scenario you were complaining about in your original post.

Carriers repping a titan would not get an docking timer to start with so shooting the carrier would not extend timers in those cases.

A better solution would be for RR to get a docking timer ( 60 secs ) as aggression currently does.

Your solution is very bad, for reason some have pointed out.
Once you fire on someone , if they have a scrambler you wont be able to leave ever.
Your stuck there until downtime or until they run out of ammo if they dont have the dps to kill you or you kill them.







Did you even read the thread? Or at least think through the OP? Its been explained before so i wont bother, but seriously, read and understand, then post.

Lucias Trask
Divine Power.
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:47:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Plaetean
Edited by: Plaetean on 23/11/2009 11:05:10
Wow, terrible idea, and I'm amazed to see so many people supporting it. Has the general consensus over eve changed that much since I played regularly?

This would remove a massive tactical element from the gameplay; the moment you agress anything you're 100% stuck in that system/situation till the fight is over and either you or the guys agressing you are dead, now either people are failing to understand that and how serious a change it would be, or you seem to think its a good idea (which it is not).

All it would mean is that people are EVEN LESS likely to fight in small gangs, due to being stuck and totally vulnerable to larger gangs the moment they enagage anything. There would be no such thing as a retreat, and fights would generally end in one side being 100% obliterated assuming people are competant with points; as there's no other way for the fight to end. This would especially be the case in situations where you're fighting people near their 'home', they can keep trickling in greater numbers until you simply become overwhelmed.

Solo pvp is dead, small gang pvp is on its way, and now you want to make anyone who fights on a gate stuck there until he's killed the entire other gang?

Jesus.

Edit: This is also especially insane as all you need to do is make stations spit outs by default.



Dock ***ging is not a 'tactical element' besides, there have been plenty of times I have engaged targets, more warped in, and we GTFO without using a gate.

You see I call it a system scanner. I spam it, and when suddenly a horde of intys, hics and dictors shows up on it, i usually call out "GTFO!!" and then we warp away.

Sometimes someone gets stuck, cause he wasn't aligned like he should have been... and then he dies, and we make fun of him mercilessly for days. Sometimes that someone is me.

Barqs
Peanut Factory
Good Sax
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:58:00 - [158]
 

I really like this option, brings back the fight only if you think you can win stuff.
Barqs-

Cire XIII
Caldari
Ever Flow
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:26:00 - [159]
 


Arcane Azmadi
Caldari
First Flying Wing Inc
Primary.
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:57:00 - [160]
 

Excellent suggestion. Supported.

Digger One
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:51:00 - [161]
 

Having been living in NPC 0.0 I can't but to support this proposal.

This should have been implemented a long time ago, even without the upcoming sov changes.

+1 to Op

Plaetean
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:14:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: Plaetean on 24/11/2009 01:54:42
Originally by: Barqs
I really like this option, brings back the fight only if you think you can win stuff.
Barqs-


Why on earth would you think thats a good idea for pvp? Edit: just to clarify as I don't understand the reasoning behind supporting this. You think its a good idea if people only ever engage if they are sure they will win, therefore absolutely no close fights?

Plaetean
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:22:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Lucias Trask

Dock ***ging is not a 'tactical element' besides, there have been plenty of times I have engaged targets, more warped in, and we GTFO without using a gate.

You see I call it a system scanner. I spam it, and when suddenly a horde of intys, hics and dictors shows up on it, i usually call out "GTFO!!" and then we warp away.



Well I for one have heard of something called a warp disruptor, and I have also heard of something called engaging a gang the same size or even perhaps bigger than yours, in which situation your gang would for the most part be pointed. All this 'solution' would do is remove even more opportunity for a close and even sided fight; as people in this thread have repeatedly pointed out, people would only enagage if they are sure to win.

And yes, docking and especially jumping gates are by definition, tactical elements of the gameplay. It just seems to me the people supporting this idea are fed up with having to use tactics themselves, and would rather their targets are pinned for them purely by the fact they engage.

idimmu69
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2009.11.24 00:46:00 - [164]
 

supported & about time

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:47:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Becq Starforged
Originally by: Don Pellegrino
The only thing I don't like is that sometimes you will land 800-1300 meters off a station, so you have to approach it before being able to dock and a frigate (especially an inty) could easily agress you, thus preventing you to dock.

Not at all. If you have no aggression flag, you never get a timer in the first place. You only get a timer (and an aggression flag) if you make an aggressive act, and you timer is only reset if you attack or are attacked while you still are flagged.





My bad, seems like I misunderstood.

Finger Puppet
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:51:00 - [166]
 

This is a well needed change. With regards to having a blob wait one or two systems over for you or your gang to agress, more emphasis should be places on intel. Maybe you could buy a system scan from inside station indicating blues neuts and reds upto a number of jumps away?

grant manson
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:57:00 - [167]
 

i think its a great solution and well balanced

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:37:00 - [168]
 

This should win the simplest and most elegant award ever. I fully support this combat. It will change the game drastically into a much better battlefield.

Arengor
Redarmy Special Forces
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:27:00 - [169]
 

Exelent solution!

Nico Terces
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:53:00 - [170]
 


Mookuh
COLD-Wing
Posted - 2009.11.24 11:08:00 - [171]
 

I like the idea of nerfing docking-games, but giving people the option to keep the enemy comitted until one side is destroyed or has warped off(though realistically, you aren't going to get away in a battleship...) has a far too large impact on the game.

You wouldn't engage unless you can assure you can win the fight at hand.... which is hard to tell, given that the enemy can Cyno-in at will (in lowsec) or have a legion of repping alts (in high-sec).

In Nullsec, the problem of carriers re-docking is marginalized by the fact that 20+ Dreads will be able to annihilate a carrier in around 3-4 volleys, and a Titan will even be able to instantly kill one of them.
If you're going up against a sizeable force of carriers and a titan with less than 20 dreads, you're probably screwed, yes, which is mitigated by the fact that the Titan costs 60Bil (uninsureable) vs. the 200Mil+fitting cost of a dread.

Carriers that don't agress and just rep are a problem without a Titan of your own, so giving ships agression for remote-repping should definately be looked into.

Also, the HP buff to all ships, and the introduction of rigs (and Abaddons Rolling Eyes) has amplified this problem, so maybe enlengthening the dock/jump timer because of these unadressed consequences of these changes are in-order.

There's just too many downfalls to being able to refresh someone else's aggro timer to make it a good addition to the game....

Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Caldari
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:57:00 - [172]
 

Supported.

HTFU indeed :)

Plaetean
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:17:00 - [173]
 

Edited by: Plaetean on 24/11/2009 17:02:21
Originally by: Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Supported.

HTFU indeed :)


More like STFU, until you can learn to read a thread and not just the OP or employ logical reasoning.

Zenethalos
Minmatar
Doesn't Afraid Of Anything

Posted - 2009.11.24 17:01:00 - [174]
 

SUPPORT!

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows

Posted - 2009.11.24 18:34:00 - [175]
 

Edited by: foksieloy on 24/11/2009 18:36:15
This man speaks the truth.

Although i would opt not to have this on gates, would make harassment of hostile territory harder.

Pian Shu
Probability Directive

Posted - 2009.11.24 23:59:00 - [176]
 

Edited by: Pian Shu on 24/11/2009 23:59:37
I'm totally for this; in fact, I suggested it here.

Really, it's genius. And it would solve so many issues. Don't want to engage? Fine, don't. Want to engage? Good, engage all the way.

Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:01:00 - [177]
 

Edited by: Becq Starforged on 25/11/2009 00:08:04
Originally by: Mookuh
I like the idea of nerfing docking-games, but giving people the option to keep the enemy comitted until one side is destroyed or has warped off(though realistically, you aren't going to get away in a battleship...) has a far too large impact on the game.


I guess I'm not sure I understand this point of view in a game in which warp disruptors exist. If I'm ratting in a belt in nullsec (and not paying attention to local, which is a regularly enforced capital crime!) and a hostile lands near me and points me, then I am locked in combat until I blow up or blow him up (or drive him off if I'm carebearing with no point). And in this case, I don't even get a chance to 'commit' by aggressing; I'm locked into combat the second the hostile acquires a lock on me.

In light of that, why do you feel it's particularly heavy-handed to create mechanics that are less severe at stations? Allowing a pointed ship to escape by docking even after being pointed (so long as they haven't themselves aggressed) is pretty mild by comparison. Allowing them to dock 'at will' with a minute's lead time seems overly easy by comparison. Surely you don't feel that warp disruptors and scrams should also be removed from the game because they lock you into a fight that you might not win, right?

And by the way, even after aggressing, you are no more 'locked in combat' by this mechanic than you are at that belt. If you are in a fast ship, or if you have the right kind of EW, or if you have some support from ships with the right kind of EW (which could include webs, damps, ECM, or even a warp scram to shut off the hostile's MWD) then you can break their point and warp away normally.

TL;DR: if you think this mechanic is too severe, compare it to being warp scrambled at a belt.

Plaetean
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:15:00 - [178]
 

Edited by: Plaetean on 25/11/2009 00:46:07
Originally by: Becq Starforged

TL;DR: if you think this mechanic is too severe, compare it to being warp scrambled at a belt.



Which is why I don't start fights I can't definitely win in a belt or at a planet. Compare trying to bait someone into a belt, gate, and station, then apply the sucess rate of belts to the entire game. Currently the majority of pvp in eve happens at gates, and the point is this change would extend the belt situation to gates and stations as well, which is a bad idea because it means more blobbing, less willingness to engage, more falcon alts etc and more general ***gotry that sucks the fun out of pvp in the first place.

Edit: Just try and imagine for a second how much harder this would make engaging a larger gang, especially in hostile territory. Now I'm aware that is a concept that is totally unfamiliar to the vast majority of eve, but some people don't enjoy being a part of blobs, and especially don't enjoy having to avoid a fight purely because the other side brought more numbers. All this change would do, especially for the gates side of things, is make that situation even harder to manage for the smaller side. Then again perhaps that is the motivation for supporting this change, if that is the case, it makes me sad to see so many supporting it. The notion that people should be punished for attempting to engage in a fight in a game like eve is one of total insanity.

Dah' Khanid
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:34:00 - [179]
 

A very nice and smooth solution to what has been an annoying feature for years now.

Plaetean
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:34:00 - [180]
 

Edited by: Plaetean on 25/11/2009 01:23:52
Originally by: Pian Shu

Don't want to engage? Fine, don't.


People won't; why would they? Congratulations, you have just destroyed risk vs reward.

It's hard enough getting people to engage on remotely close numbers as it is even on a station, and after 1-2 bait -> ganks it'll become totally pointless to engage anything unless you know you can win; at which point the other side refuses to engage as the balance is no longer in their favour. All I'm doing here is using your own hypotheses, which is the amazing thing. As people in this thread are so fantastically keen on pointing out, under this change people shouldn't be engaging unless they're sure they can win, but both sides can't be sure to win the same fight.

The amount of idiocy and self contradiction on these forums is honestly mind blowing.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only