Greedy Goblin

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Weekend minipost: The wise old liars of nullsec

The head of evil wrote his next "nerf supers because PL has more" article. I won't argue with his laughable suggestion, just the starting point: "A broad consensus has begun to emerge from the Wise Old Men of nullsec that the current stagnation of Eve is risking a crisis point."

Translation: "CCP, you go bankrupt if you don't fix nullsec (the way I want)". The truth is that the average concurrent logins directly correlate with highsec PvE and PvB but not with nullsec, lowsec or WH. So these areas are fairly stable and not losing players. Highsec does. The reasons are many, but the main point is that if CCP wants to stop losing players, they should ignore Sov mechanics, new ships, another rebalance round on some class, POS-mechanics and everything and for a year or two focus on fixing highsec.


nightgerbil said...

Heres a classic example of whats wrong with highsec. the concord rules are broken and punish carebears who want to defend themselves. Gankers are writing off ships as a cost of doing business. I'd like to see a removal of:
a) bumping
b) concord and
c) making all frieghters/haulers immune to point/scrams/interdiction.

Making the pve ships a bit tougher while allowing them to ACTUALLY be escorted (something thats currently impossible because concord) would make the game a better place to play. In my opinion.

daniel said...

gevlon once had a "remove concord, replace it with player's action" post.

bumping itself i find ok, but it should damage the ships involved.

Anonymous said...

freighters and haulers can already be escorted, just get a dedicated webbing ship and the freighter will be in warp before he can get bumped.

When it comes to concord i think a complete removal would pretty much remove most of the current highsec population. instead i think we could use the "green, yellow, red" weapon security system.

In highsec you can't shoot someone unless you have your toggle on red. Idea: Introduce a delay (forced ONLY in highsec) where you switch to red but only 10 seconds later can you actually fire your weapons. BUT once you clicked on the red toggle you become free to be shot at and start blinking in the overview. So there are 10 seconds where others have time to defend themselves and the Aggressor can only shoot once the 10 seconds are over OR someone else starts shooting him (he can then fight within the limited engagement before the 10 seconds are over).

nightgerbil said...

@daniel. My thread from a while ago:

note how CCP have already increased the drones of skiffs. I think alot of people are thinking along my lines including maybe ccp.

I think concord was a mistake it hurt the sheep more then the wolves.

nightgerbil said...

@anon 02 August, 2014 09:03
You are aware concord is relatively new right? It wasnt around at the start of the game. Its current incarnation only means we have to watch the gankers forming up their cata fleet without the abilty to respond until they open fire on us.

It means if my corp mate has been an idiot and opened a limited engagment with a "highsec pvper" in his level 4 mission with his navy raven, I can't get my proteus and go save him.

Concord means when my charon is being bumped to death by a mach I cant just kill the mach.

You made the point about the webbing alt. you have to be ALIGNED to warp. then the web makes the warp really fast. Being bumped by a pro, yr never aligned. You cant web to align as it makes you align slower by lowing agilty. A good "pro" bumper, versus him your never getting to warp full stop.

calintor said...

One of the not-so-secret secrets of hi sec is that the gankers are at least as much risk-averse calculator-wavers as the industrialists. More variety and difficulty in their game experienced would be good for all.

Zyan said...

That 10sec delay won't change anything. I fly to a safespot, turn on the red, wait 10sec, and then fly to the target and you can shoot it without delay.

What about restricting weapon power. If you fire at someone who is not blinky or wardeced, your weapons will do only 60% dmg.

If you fire back at the blinky you will do 100%, and from that moment you will also get 100% dmg.

Gevlon said...

@Nightgerbil: a webber can prevent bump. When you jump into a system, you have gate cloak, the machariel doesn't see you. You can see your webber alt/buddy and direct him to get into webbing range. Then you start aligning from full stop, so after the first second you'll be facing the right direction, you'll be just slow. As soon as your speed is about 20% of top speed, the webber triple-web you and you are warping. The Machariel - unless extremely lucky - simply can't reach you in time.

CFC Grunt said...

You don't need to be aligned for webbing to work - you just need to be at enough speed for the webs to cut your max velocity so that your current is more than 75% total.

You can even warp sideways this way, and it's very often done in 0.0 with capitals.

Hisec has been pampered more and more over the years, and a lot of people refuse to use the buffs they were given.

Introduction of CONCORD, Reduction of CONCORD spawn times, making it untankable, nerfs to aggression mechanics and can baiting, mining barge HP buff, freighter buffs. The list goes on.

nightgerbil said...

Gevlon how are you running multiple accounts the way you do without lagging out? I've got a dual monitor 4770k i7 and I find with more then 2 eve clients Im having issues. I was dual boxing wow (killing myself for bloody coins) and lagging to death, a guildie suggested using a "virtual machine". Is that how you are running 6 accts, 5 in missions and one in an orca?

Gevlon said...

No. Virtual machine costs even more CPU. The solution is turning the graphics to the minimum. EVE has a very detailed graphics over a very much not optimized engine.

Xmas said...

I'm not sure how you'd fix high sec.

They should definitely add more PVE content and keep improving the New Player Experience.

I'd create a kill-rights market, or, at least, have some way for groups like Marmite to advertise to buy kill rights.

The Bounty system needs another pass.

Aggressive ship bumping causes damage to both ships based on relative mass of each ship and counts as an attack for the crime watch system? (A bumping Nomen gets it's nose smashed in when hitting Jump Freighter at > 600 m/s, the freighter see his shield drop 2%)

Easy Esky said...

Firstly, the webbing mechanic is what helps you align. It is expensive, but a fast locking hyena with double webs will align freighter within three seconds. You use something like a condor, but it needs a MWD to sometimes make the range from upto 35km away. Which is precious time increasing the risk of a bump.

To be able to bump another should require an active module to have an effect. Now a suspect flag can be applied to be bumper, and the old defence of "but Jita undock" is torn down. Well if industrial ships need to fit accordingly, ie tank over yield or cargo space. Then the risk/reward metric applies to everybody! There is no compromise for being able to bump. A grid/CPU sucking module then is just the ticket to restore the balance to the game.

Anonymous said...

You've read the entire series - Mittens advocates for fixing highsec and improving player retention through highsec.

His post about "fixing nulsec" is simply "what can be done with a minimum of developer resources" - most of which are simple data changes (remove a bit of CannotDock = 1, delete a bit of ImmuneToEwar = 1 etc).

It is preposterous in the extreme that you think that Supers are "fine as they are". Even the most ardent super supporter doesn't agree with this. Hell, Mittens has "the apex force" at his disposal in one of the largest super fleets in the game (and importantly the active players to be able to utilize it). If he was protecting his own interest he would advocating expansion of super dominance, not scaling it back.

It should come as no surprise to you. Supers have been considered broken almost since the day they were introduced and many commentators share Mittens' opinion on them.

Petri Petrified said...

I find it easy to move a freighter in High Sec. In a player corp I have an escort in a double webbing Huggin/Rapier. Jump the escort into the system, approach the gate and have your webs ready. The Freighter pilot clicks Jump for the next gate and as soon as they apper the escort selects them, locking them in the process. The webs engage immediately once the lock is complete and the freighter is instantly at speed despite not being "aligned".

The only thing that can stop that freighter is someone locking them faster and either pointing them or alpha killing the freighter. Bumping would be by sheer luck only.

Anonymous said...

nightgerbil : It's probably your graphics card. I have a slower CPU than you + GTX Titan that feeds a 30" monitor + 2 other monitors and 5 Eve clients while running lots of other apps at the same time. Everything runs super smooth. Either that or make sure you have enough memory and a good internet connection.

Gevlon said...

Supers have been considered broken by bad players who have no chance to ever get them. The solution isn't to bring everything down to their level but them learning to play.

Deth Delkanara said...

You should always apply Malcanis Law to everything Mittens ever posts. Ever. Just to refresh, here it is: "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."

He cries about supers, it's cause he knows short of luck, his side can be worn down and won't log in once the hard work begins. He whines about sentry drones, it's because people who do the hard work of removing them or dealing with them don't get kill mails. He whines about apex force, it's because it takes a lot of skill and coordination to work and he can't get his super scrubs to show that level of attention. He complains about supers needing sub cap support, fine, except for the fact a super carrier these days doesn't, really, it's fighters, bombers, anti-sub choppers and aircraft, EW planes and so on can face any threat. The escort is only there to add targets and forward observe.

And what ever happened to the alpha dreads he wanted to have everyone train for?

Mittens wants to do whatever is necessary in the game to keep his tribe subscribed, the ISK flowing so they don’t have to actually participate in the game other than to log in, hit F1 and shitpost in local and for them to be the top dog. Nothing else matters and should you think so, please refer to Malcanis Law and then get some therapy.

Supers are too durable, yes, they should not be immune to ewar, yes, however, they should also be a hell of a lot harder to jam or affect than an incursus because, it’s a damn super carrier. Fighters and Bombers on carriers should be a lot more powerful and a lot less durable. It should not be harder to take down a bomber than it is a cruiser. Something I don’t get other than in the name of computer power is that larger ships don’t have multiple batteries of smaller guns. A titan is a fricking city in space, it should be covered with a retarded number of small and medium guns. Conversely, they should have less tank in both shield and armor so that you really need to be sure that you want to commit one. However, committing one should be a whirlwind of destruction. Not the current “oops, timer is almost up on doomsday, time to refit for max tank, there, survived, refit to DPS.”

And that is just the messed up crap off the top of my head.

Anonymous said...

CfFC's apex force is only larger then PL/N3's if you include all the Russian alliances which CFC just abanded in the last war. The simple fact that PL/N3 have seven times as many renters, and those renters are aloud to build supers for PL/N3 to buy means CFC has already lost any head to head arms race with PL/N3. Unless CFC can find another larger group of supercap alliances to throw under the bus(like the Russians again), then they(CFC) doesn't have the apex force you think they do.