Last edited by Madner Kami; August 3 2012 at 01:12:24 PM.
Of course I'd like the abominations of the UIs and mechanics to DIAF, but I'd much rather CCP made people want to make more spaceships explode more often in more actually fun ways than just build modular mobile POS for you while everyone still avoids risk like the plague, or flies a minute selection of the possible ships, fits & tactics.
Read the whole thing. You know what? Fuck it, read the post/posts it is in response to... I've already done the context-based response scenario education with one dumb motherfucker on this board, and I don't think it will be nearly as entertaining to plod through it a second time...Then don't field it. If the other side fields a link ship on grid and you don't; you have an additional target to go after. IIRC, T3 link ships are a bit squishier than T2 CS's anyway, so the cost+vulnerability tradeoff for better buffs is not a bad thing. No one is saying you can't have an off-grid link ship, or even a "nearly impossible to probe" link ship. What they're saying is that when push comes to shove, if you want that resistance bonus, or web bonus, etc... you need to expose the ship providing it to danger.
You should not receive command link bonuses while that ship is happily in a position to be damn near impossible to locate/kill. I.E. If you want the shiny shit, you should expose your shiny shit to danger. That does not prevent you from using it as an ace up your sleeve by having it off-grid in order to provoke a fight. It means the ship needs to be brought onto the grid to work. The people saying "Oh, it's so hard to provoke a fight with a CS on grid" are full of shit, because under the proposed system, it states that the ships need to be on grid for the bonus. I.E. You can warp them in once the fight starts. If that means some other bits need to get tweaked to make them functional, then so be it.
You can keep a non-functional link ship off grid for baiting purposes, then bring it in. Not too difficult of a concept, really.
TL;DR: People deal with bad UI to have good PvP. They won't deal with/pay for bad PvP just to have interaction with a good UI.
If there were no PvP, you'd have to redefine achieving something in Eve as having x widgets in your hanger rather than fun fight experiences or :killmails:. You could try have some MMO aspect because there's somewhat finite sources for resources, but mostly it'd be an isolated, RTS/turn based strategy solo game.
With lossful PvP, you give even the most hardcore PvPers the incentives to loot/salvage after a fight, or finish a juicy rat/anom that you gank someone at. But the converse can't be said, the game doesn't work with just bears. Some PvPers will do any ship/module/ammo related industry no matter how bad the UI/mechanics if it gives them an edge in having fun fights, aka lets them get more for their isk. People won't pvp more if the isk/fit-production chain UI is nicer, but fights are all bring-OP-ship-blob-or-DIAF.
I am bad at expressing this because it seems so obvious if you take a step back from the current really complex & deeply detailed implementation and say wtf is this game and why do people play it, how is it fun, what sustains it?
Last edited by Daneel Trevize; August 3 2012 at 02:15:33 PM.
Yet when you're using the shit every day it is amazing how much better everything feels when you go from Windows to MacOSX+*nix terminal or linux.
It's impossible to return cause fuck that UI is like a straightjacket that makes it impossible to do shit.
Originally Posted by Random hopeful w-space dweller
Now i get what you mean. Sorry for the confusion.
Looks like Grayscale is already busy doing damage control regarding the sentry gun idea. It is actually funny that Issler Dainze as CSM supports it just a few pages before.Originally Posted by CCP Grayscale
Also I really like the full transcript style you did. Very and gave the minutes a more 'human' feel to it.
As far as the link issue, just switch the bonus amount so the CS is the best one as a fast fix for now. Step back and see if fleets put the link ship they are using at risk or continue to use untouchable T3 alts.
The POS shield idea is dangerous. What goal is CCP hoping to accomplish by doing it? I would much rather see POS shield passwords done away with for now. It would only allow those who are actually in the alliance to enter, while keeping those in the same coalition at some risk. Being is a massive coalition that spans 10 regions and being able to go to any blue POS for 100% safety is stupid. Same thing with jump bridges. Only if you are in the same alliance.
Also where is the talk about power projection? Capital ships being the fastest to transverse the galaxy is dumb as fuck. Not to mention with throw away cyno alts in position it only takes a few minutes. Maybe I'm just being bitter.
T3's offer an advantage over and above their T2 counterparts in the link department.
Switch the bonus (CS get 5%, T3s get 3%). It's hard to have unprobable command ships. If you want the better bonus put them on grid. If you don't want to risk that you take the hit.
It's easier to field a T3 link alt right now than a virtue scanner alt. By the time it's probed down the battle is won anyway.
Last edited by Larkonis Trassler; August 3 2012 at 07:10:33 PM.
Off field command links are utterly retarded.
All the wahhing about people not being able to field their command tier 3's on the field with 4 links running is pathetic, they were clearly never meant to be used like that. If you want to use T3 links you should spread them around your gang, if you want to have all your links concentrated on one ship then bring a Command ship, If you want your small nano gang to have links then you'll have to incorporate nano BC's and use some clever piloting to keep them alive.
As soon as links become an on-grid only mechanic it'll force people to think outside the box and new tactics will emerge, as it is now it's a dumb part of EVE that stifles tactical innovation and limits game-play.