hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 125

Thread: Black Ops

  1. #21
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex
    Removing local in a fair way from k-space would require a complete rewrite of the game's intelligence mechanisms. Directional scanner simply is not enough to replace local in k-space, and for better or worse, the game has long been built off the premise of having local available. Black bridging a pilgrim into a -1.0 sanctum whoring system would take no work at all, and result in stupidly easily kills all day long. It would feel like the enemy is cheating - they have perfect intel about you, but you don't even know they are in the system. While an AFK-cloaked ship could strike suddenly, you at least know the potential for that action exists. Until CCP decides to rewrite EVE to incorporate some sort of BSG-esque Draedus, and then network ship intel systems together (so you can actually have picket lines of sensors and "secure" your space), touching local in K-space is impossible. Wormspace avoids a lot of these problems due to the shifting and unpredictable worm network - you can't just pick Alliance X space to grief all day long. The limited number of system entry points (usually only 1 to 2 holes) also allows you to "secure" them much more easily with alt eyes. A few people dualboxing can run sites with absolute knowledge of everything going on in their system and the neighboring holes, and the chances of having a true afk-cloaker is minimal. Of course you still have to stay on your toes, but the point is its a "fair" no-local environment. K-space without local would be incredibly dumb.
    Think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with this.

    There is also the fact that since you can't light cynos in W-space the only things coming to get you are the things that either logged in there, or stuff you missed from not checking dscan often enough. If you have a scout watching the wormhole(s) that people are most likely to come in on then seeing stuff jump in is your cue to leave. Obviously pirates have found ways around this (using a cloaky already inside as the tackler), and you can just be unlucky enough where a new incoming wormhole spawns into the system you're running sites in that you don't know about, etc but generally speaking the dynamics of W-space are such that watching wormholes is usually enough of a safeguard.

    By contrast if there were no local in 0.0 then you wouldn't need people to warp to your site, they could just appear next to you via a covops cyno, and because the gates are static someone could wait days in that system for you to come back and you'd never know about it until the point at which they attacked. There is no impetus for people to leave a 0.0 system where there are juicy kills to be had, whereas with wormholes that expire there is a finite window of opportunity before your buddies can no longer get in the same way you did, at which point you would have to drop probes to find a new way for them... and dropped probes can be seen. It's finely balanced, and it works well imo.

    So yeah, removing local from 0.0 without any consideration for even the obvious ramifications isn't the right solution imo, and is probably why CCP haven't even intimated doing it yet.

  2. #22
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Black Ops

    So having protection while farming anoms is just simply out of the question ehh? Wouldn't want to hurt that ISK/hr per person ration now would we.

  3. #23
    Herschel Yamamoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Illuminati derpy herp
    Posts
    3,129

    Re: Black Ops

    Pretty much. If you need more than like one guard for half a dozen ratters(and you would), you're better off just missioning.
    "Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall View Post
    Herschel Yamamoto is owning in this thread.

  4. #24
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Herschel Yamamoto
    Pretty much. If you need more than like one guard for half a dozen ratters(and you would), you're better off just missioning.
    Which is why... mission running needs a hard nerf along with a no local change. It is really disappointing to see so many people easily defeated when it comes to imagination.

  5. #25
    Herschel Yamamoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Illuminati derpy herp
    Posts
    3,129

    Re: Black Ops

    Right, because it's guaranteed to work out perfectly if you fuck with every part of the game massively all at once.
    "Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall View Post
    Herschel Yamamoto is owning in this thread.

  6. #26
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Black Ops

    Confirming that messing with a couple other aspects of the game is every part of the game. Grow up.

  7. #27
    Takon Orlani's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Your mom
    Posts
    4,322

    Re: Black Ops

    Cry more about local.

    This thread is about blops, goddammit.

  8. #28
    Herschel Yamamoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Illuminati derpy herp
    Posts
    3,129

    Re: Black Ops

    You want to massively nerf missions, and remove local in nullsec. That's a serious change to the way about 80% of Eve players play.
    "Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall View Post
    Herschel Yamamoto is owning in this thread.

  9. #29
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Black Ops

    Getting Black Ops to be balanced requires non-tunnel vision thinking. So if you are not capable of doing so, please GTFO of the thread. Thanks.

  10. #30
    Herschel Yamamoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Illuminati derpy herp
    Posts
    3,129

    Re: Black Ops

    No, it just requires that you buff a few of their stats so that they're usable to do their job. Inside-the-box thinking could have balanced them three years ago, CCP just hasn't implemented it yet(lol2LYrange).
    "Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall View Post
    Herschel Yamamoto is owning in this thread.

  11. #31
    Takon Orlani's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Your mom
    Posts
    4,322

    Re: Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Herschel Yamamoto
    No, it just requires that you buff a few of their stats so that they're usable to do their job. Inside-the-box thinking could have balanced them three years ago, CCP just hasn't implemented it yet(lol2LYrange).
    This.

    Stop with the out of box talk, this is ccp were talking about.

  12. #32

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    426

    Re: Black Ops

    The box is there for a reason, most of the time.

  13. #33
    Takon Orlani's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Your mom
    Posts
    4,322

    Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by KKassandra
    The box is there for a reason, most of the time.
    This.

  14. #34

    Join Date
    April 16, 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    51

    Re: Black Ops

    Bumpage for glory...

    Its well known in my alliance / corp that I have a raging hardon for Black Ops and I too have been thinking about this issue. And yes... it has been overcomplicated ...

    buff their:
    - Range (titan level please)
    - fuel bay (or drop the consumption for bridging)

    - resists
    - fitting potential.

    range and fuel bay are pretty "essential" ... the rest is what I'd like to leave open ... either give'm better resists and tankier, or change their fitting in asuch a way that you can either nano them (see panther) or tank them (see Sin/Widow) or perhaps just go fullout gank (redeemer) or ...

    as people've said, fuck out of the box thinking, conventional "minor" buffs could've solved black ops issues ages ago.

    Their biggest functional constraint however is purely their range ... I could live with having to take a fuel-transport buddy everywhere, if only I could fucking jump a reasonable distance ..

  15. #35

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    144

    Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane
    Their biggest functional constraint however is purely their range ... I could live with having to take a fuel-transport buddy everywhere, if only I could fucking jump a reasonable distance ..
    Agreed. Shit, even 5.5LY @ JC5 would be a welcome improvement. I spend an inordinate amount of time in Black Ops and that's really my chief complaint. I'll just keep going back to the gas can Sin fit when I'm doing nothing but bridging. (5,000m3 cargo space ftw)

  16. #36

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    759

    Re: Black Ops

    hm I think people who would use them, are doing so. Its not a ship that everyone would want to use. Saying that, it desperately needs a buff to jumping range.

    If you made them any tankier, people would start doing RR black ops gangs more so than already. I've seen them occasionally, and while comedy is alot of ISK to risk for little (if any) benefit compared to alternatives.

    I see them as being something that jumps in a bunch of stealth bombers and a couple recons, follows through and supports with long range weapons/ewar. It shouldn't hold up on tank very well, and damage should only be supplemental to gang rather than the focal point.

  17. #37
    Takon Orlani's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Your mom
    Posts
    4,322

    Re: Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by TimMc
    hm I think people who would use them, are doing so. Its not a ship that everyone would want to use. Saying that, it desperately needs a buff to jumping range.

    If you made them any tankier, people would start doing RR black ops gangs more so than already. I've seen them occasionally, and while comedy is alot of ISK to risk for little (if any) benefit compared to alternatives.

    I see them as being something that jumps in a bunch of stealth bombers and a couple recons, follows through and supports with long range weapons/ewar. It shouldn't hold up on tank very well, and damage should only be supplemental to gang rather than the focal point.
    Still needs a fitting tweak to fit a proper buffer.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    April 16, 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    51

    Re: Black Ops

    People who would use them, are using them (myself included) but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that the range is insanely short to begin with (only really comes into play in "small" regions or tightly packed ones like great wildlands) and that the fuel consumption for anything but bombers is tits up insane.

    Again, I can live with the fuel consumption, I can write that off as a "lolroleplay" element of black ops and a "balancing" mechanique so only dedicated groups can do long deployments / project far away.

    However, the pain in the bollocks remain the pisspoor range which means in 90% of the time your so close to your hostiles space that you run the risk of easely being spotted...


    Granted being able to bridge a force from 3 fucking regions away while no one ever knew isn't what we want neither, but making the range on par with the likes of a titan would be a good start to the whole thing.

    DPS / utility wise I wish they where a bit more .... Utility though. The DPS on my panther is currently pretty good with the nano / Gank fit I've got on it for OMGGTFO situation but perhaps giving them a bonus to like ... webbing, ecm, neuting (or nossing) and pointing / damping (prolly pointing) would be good ? So that way you don't make them insane in terms of tank or dps but you give'm bonuses that are in line with their RECON Equivalents.

    This would not only be logical but also work 2 ways, my panther for instance would be awesome and have a stronger web, which is good for my fleet, but would force me to engage / commit into the fight more. Even if its range > strength or strength > Range (in the panther getting web bonus scenario) it'd still mean committing the ship more and in such a way as to get it more exposure.

    This leads to more fun for BOBS pilots, and more potential kills for their victims.

  19. #39
    Marlona Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Black Ops

    I cross trained from the shit Sin to the Panther. Care to share your nano Panther fit please?

    I think I mentioned a while back in some thread on some forum about being able to bridge further than you can jump. Is that something that would be welcome? I also would like lower fuel usage instead of a larger fuel/cargo bay. No point in turning them into haulers.

  20. #40
    DAN13L's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    The Wild Dutchlands
    Posts
    264

    Re: Black Ops

    Quote Originally Posted by Marlona Sky
    I cross trained from the shit Sin to the Panther. Care to share your nano Panther fit please?

    I think I mentioned a while back in some thread on some forum about being able to bridge further than you can jump. Is that something that would be welcome? I also would like lower fuel usage instead of a larger fuel/cargo bay. No point in turning them into haulers.
    No, I don't want to be able to bridge further then being able to jump... That doesn't help a We-Gonna-Hotdrop-Your-Ass-With-6-Black-Ops-fleet.
    I would like to see:
    - Increase hitpoints, currently, they don't even have as much as their T1 brothers
    - Increase to jump range, it's very low compared to other jump-drive-capable ships
    - Decrease in portal generator usage, they drain your fuel so hard that you have to take a transport ship with fuel if you want to bring a few other ships
    With priority to the first two. And if they don't want to decrease portal gen fuel consumption for other ships, then at least lower them for Recon ships, as they belong in the kinda stealthy group as well together with the Stealth Bombers who do have low fuel consumprion.

    Now CCP just needs to see it and tweak them.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •