VandelayIndustries
-
Posts
357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VandelayIndustries
-
-
4 minutes ago, Taelessael said:
A significant part of pvp-areas is risking being attacked, and planning/equipping accordingly. You don't leave your weapons behind while entering an area you are going to need them in.
This is the funniest part, people talk like you said of no counters, but willing enter a pvp zone with no scout, no weapons, no friends, just a ship that is filled to the brim as to weigh the ship down making it accelerate slower. All those were personal choices. But i guess we do live in an age where people forgo personal responsibility for their actions and blame outward, instead of inward.
One thing that stuck with me in early days in EvE was corp mates telling me (if you die, its your fault, and to get better is try to learn what you did wrong, and keep trying to impove)
-
1 minute ago, Atmosph3rik said:
What about people who buy ships with a DRM blueprint? I would expect someone with such a massive IQ to have thought of that.
it’s also possible that someone won’t even be able to acquire a new BP of their ship. If the person who built it isn’t playing anymore. Making the ship irreplaceable
They buy another blueprint easy. If that person isnt playing, then dont fly what you cant afford to lose in the pvp zone.
-
14 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:
It is also the same reason why you can't apply all out PvP to DU, since constructs may represent a lot of time and effort here.
to reiterate. you absolutely can. Ive lost a ship in pvp, that I personally spent time on making. I had a new one deployed about 5minutes after. Thats quicker than any capital ship ive had to replace in EvE. So infact its easier in DU. imagine that.
-
12 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:
In EvE you bought a ship, while in DU you may have spent a lot of time building the ship. See the difference.
It is also the same reason why you can't apply all out PvP to DU, since constructs may represent a lot of time and effort here.
Blue prints. Once its built, you can deploy it instantly. That then goes back to EvE, dont fly what you cant afford to replace. Pretty simple. YOU DO NOT REBUILD YOUR SHIP FROM SCRATCH EACH TIME YOU LOSE IT. you either deploy a BP or buy another token or BP from the vendor you got it. HOW IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I swear the IQ on these forums is in the double digits.
-
4 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:
As far as hauler vs combat ships, I kind of look at it like a typical mmo and not eve.
Thats your problem tho, this game doesnt mimic a typical MMO. And its not a even too much like EvE, but does have similarities and was inspired by EvE and JC even if he isnt around anymore. Thats at least how it started. You have freedom to build your ships in this game. If you build them to haul mass amounts of goods, that puts you at a disadvantage against a pvp ship. Your counter is not to be caught, or have pvp ships with you. Or at the very least a set of guns to fight off 1 ship. But if a group of pvp ships start to engage you, in what [filtered]in' world would it be fair for that 1 NON pvp ship to win against pvp ships?
-
17 minutes ago, blundertwink said:
Honestly? None of your business. People have real life. You can't expect people to keep common spaces clean for the sake of other players -- not with an MMO.
Ever used a public bathroom? It's called "the tragedy of the commons" and most MMO developers know this (very) basic aspect of social dynamics and design accordingly.
You don't even need to know the term to know intuitively that the "honor system" and "being courteous" doesn't work at scale...especially in a digital realm for a paid entertainment product...especially when scarcity of parking spots is an NQ-designed issue, not an inevitable facet of the game.
It isn't like scarcity of space is a real thing in a digital world -- a billion ships could share the same space so long as they only render locally. People have discussed better options for years vs. abandonment. Years and years and years.
Basic human nature is that when you are done with a game, you log off. Not all of us have the time to relocate our ship first. Things come up. Real life happens. The schedules people have for playing are no one's business -- they pay for their time just the same and can use it as they want.
This idea that all players must do the chore of moving their ships before they log off just isn't scalable or realistic for any population at scale.
TLDR: This is NQ's fault, not players'. They literally designed this problem, they should solve it in a way that doesn't encourage people to churn simply because they didn't log in for a week.
You arent your ship, and never should be. Thats why EvE is successful. Sometimes i lose 5 or more ships a day when I play. If you forget your ship and or you are an [filtered] and leave it at a market, you lose it. So what its one of MANY, if not thousands, you will own over time. Move on.
-
11 minutes ago, Haunty said:
Yeah I think they mentioned in the past that it will not come before release. I think it will come eventually but I wish it was sooner.
Looking back with hindsight, i wonder if it would of been better to stick with their original development plans, and do AvA first. Or did they see AvA as some hurdle too big and would hinder progress thats why the switched. Not sure, but I wonder if it would of been better, that way TW and tiles would of been fleshed out better, and you could shoot people that come onto your property trying to spy and stuff.
-
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:
Here we are again with the one sides simplistic "I want me pewpew" point of view.
At present PVP is in a terrible state, it has no recourse, no counters and no value to risk running into an engagement UNLESS you are looking for such engagement. "bring guns, bring friends, take the lloong way around" is not a counter, having the ability to break a target lock, have the option to make your ship less detectable or harder to lock in the first place are.
Most players I am pretty sure are not against PVP being an integral part of the game. Most players also understand and respect the chance running the risk of encountering an engagement. Those of use who are in that corner though do feel that there is currently no vlaue in taking the risk as there is no way to counter running into an engagement. If you get locked, you are dead."We" do not come out to "PVP space" because we are "carebears" or because we are afraid to do so, we do not come out because in DU, the risk is simply at a level that there is no point and no value in taking it.
What is needed to open up the game is ways for "us" to mitigate the risk of running into "them", not to eliminate it. Your arguments are just as one sided as the one you comment on here. And I am pretty sure what @HamyMac is actually saying here is that "we" should have the means to try and release the grip "they" have and get away. And that means having a chance to break the lock and warp off, miond you and before you go and quote out of context again, I said A CHANCE here, not a guarantee.
Maybe, instead of polarizing in every sinngle response you write, you should try entering a discussion to make sure you understand what someone is saying correctly and then argue your point instead of just going off on an irant where you just throw insults around. That really does nothing but invalidate anything you say outright.im not reading any of that, you just ramble for the sake of it. You arent a pvper. all you guys say the same thing "counters" but in the end, you will still die because you arent pvpers. All haulers die in eve when caught, its the way it has always been. The counters are in not getting caught in the first place. Deal with it, this is the pvp zone.
-
2 minutes ago, HamyMac said:
The fact that once engaged you're in a fist fight with no opportunity to warp is a killer... it would be better to have the ability to warp away from a fight if you have too.
Once again, Proof carebears want an ON/OFF pvp I win button. Once people engage in the pvp zone, it makes sense the VAST majority of a time there is a winner and a loser. Just a lot of people seem to be sore losers. You say GF and move on, and get better.
-
Its hilarious seeing the carebears in this thread. Anytime NQ tries to put anything in the PvP zone are start on development its just complete whining. Then making strawman arguments about "losing player base" and then just random assumptions about haulers having no counters. You do have a counter, build a PVP ship with some cargo hold.
The game is about choices. If you chose to build a defenseless hauler, that carries 40kt of weight. You are gonna be always at a disadvantage if a pvp ship finds you. ALWAYS. That was your choice. Remeber there are safe zone missions if you cant handle this.
-
10 hours ago, Namcigam said:
Nah it's called your going to run out of victims and have nothing to shoot at actually...Kind of like right now but more dramatic and more empty
You dont even know whats going on in the game. You are literally crazy if you think we already have people to shoot at. We don't. Hauler success rate is 99.9%. The rest is a few encounters at pvp asteroids, that you can completely side step and do safe zone ones.
-
3 minutes ago, Shredder said:
NQ-WANDERER: “If you don't want to use weapons, or make friends with/hire an escort or scout, or put in the 10 min of flying and maneuvering and watching radar to go around the pirates, or pay for the cells to warp past them, and still think you deserve the rewards of flying through pvp space without substantial risk of being a pvp target, you may need to reconsider what you expect from an area the player-base at large refers to as "pvp-space".”
One of the best comments I’ve read from NQ.
Did NQ make that quote tho? it seems like the guy just tagged NQ-Wanderer and said it. Couldnt find where an NQ said it.
-
3 minutes ago, Dracostan said:
I'm not saying a hauler should have the advantage over a dedicated PvP ship - that's not what I'm trying for here. I'm just trying to get game mechanics and systems that will give haulers a chance of getting away. At the moment, there is not this chance available to the defender - and with the proposed stasis weapon & changes to speed, this imbalance will only get worse.
Good, right now the game is too far tipped in favor of the hauler. You have thousands of su out of the pipe, and we have 2 su radar ranges. Time to close that gap, make the game more balanced and fair.
-
2 minutes ago, Dracostan said:
This isn't Eve - if you like Eve mechanics because it favours you, then play Eve. I'm trying to advocate for balance that gives defenders a chance, for counters to game systems and mechanics that currently skew the balance too far in the attacker favour.
They will always be that way. Always.
-
2 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
You always reason from your perspectinve yes. And refuse to see the bigger picture. These changes will only have one outcome, more players withdraw to the Safezones and only ever com out if they can warp.
Not because of "fear of the pewpew", just because it's not worth the risk and/or the effort.Wrong, just because you say that doesnt mean it will happen. Finally game is moving in the right direction.
-
1 minute ago, Haunty said:
Not really enthused about yet another resource as a pvp device. Everything else sounds good but is mostly improvements. I want some meaty updates like AvA and some survival mechanics or something.
I get the impression NQ has abandoned AvA. I hope not, but thats the feeling I get.
-
1 minute ago, blazemonger said:
No, "we" (as non-combatant players) want options to mitigate our risk when we travel through space so that if we encounter anything non friendly we have a chance to get out of the situation without having to plaster guns onto our ships and/or "bring friends". PVP players do not scare me nor do I care for them or their playstyle, regardless of that style being entirely legitimate, but I am not going to be feeding them kills for no reason.
So yes, PVP ships will generally be tankier, Haulers however would have ways to prevent getting caught and oversizing engines to be able to "speed tank" a potential engagement is entirely within the reasonable range of options in that regard.NQ is once more going to apply an "easy fix, just a number in the database" carpet bombing "solution" where a more "specific to purpose" solution is needed to actually drive game play and make non combatant players venture out to where you might have a chance to try and engage them.
Look at EvE, your risk mitigation is in to not being FOUND, or caught. In a decade in eve ive never lost a hauler kill that i got a warp scram on. Never been jammed by them. And majority of time people arent solo, as its an MMO. Once I get on grid against a hauler and im in a pvp ship, i will always have the advantage. Always.
-
10 minutes ago, Dracostan said:
I'm not looking for a get out of Pvp button - I'm looking for balance between haulers and warships that enable a chance for the defender to escape - what NQ has handed to the PvPers with a stasis weapon (and potential speed changes) is a golden gun. There needs to be a counter for these mechanics, these additions make the balance worse for the defender.
Anyway you think a hauler can escape, the pvp ship will use the same tactics, bring more people. This fantasy you have of some hauler being better is delusional, because haulers are built FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. How you gonna go faster than a dedicated interceptor pvp ship? If you jam my radar, ill bring a group of 5 and we will jam your radar first. PVP ships will always be better.
-
15 minutes ago, Dracostan said:
"To better balance PvP, we are adding stasis weapons and altering the behavior around a constructs’ maximum speed. With these sweet guns, big armored ships with powerful rockets will no longer have an advantage that allowed them to escape more agile smaller designs."
Another mechanic addition that benefits the attackers with NO counter for the defenders. All this does is shift the balance further to the advantage of aggressors. How does NQ not know it is the Pvp ships that have the more powerful engine configurations - not the haulers ?
Your hauler will always be second class. A semi not gonna be able to handle a tank. Pvp ships are built for war. Your hauler will be slower cause its carrying more. It's always been this way in any game. You just want a "get out of pvp free" button...in the pvp zone. Not gonna happen buddy.
-
4 minutes ago, Serula said:
This all sounds very cool and interesting. I'm curious to how the alien cores will work and the space map.
One question though.
With the big ships being slower than smaller ships, how will L war ships still be viable now that smaller ships can also have an L shield? Sounds like they will only be usefull in a defensive situation.
Agreed. I think with L core being slower, they should be defacto highest tank. Maybe only they can use L shield, or have a higher CCS cap/curve, and maybe more resist pool. Stuff of that nature.
-
And kiss that shitty skybox gone forever I hope.
- marxman-1, Eviltek2099, Shaman and 1 other
-
4
-
Need dev blog on mechanics of how the speed changes are coming and more on stasis weapons. Same with these alien cores, need more info on rewards and how we defend them, and how we find them.
-
What a surprise, non-pvpers not wanting any safe zones to disappear. Color me shocked.
-
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:
If NQ would remove the safe zones now, there would only be one outcome, the majority of what's left of the player base will not leave the permanent safe zone around Alioth/Madis/Thades and the rest of the game world will be.. empty.
Asking for the removal of these in the state the game is in now just means your perspective on the impact this has is rather short sighted.The safe zones around the outer planets must stay in place until NQ brings in both offensive and defensive options for combat focussed and non-combatant players alike.
No, im talking outer planets. And they can do it now. This is alpha and we need to test. They can start with 1. Just make it so right when u leave atmo u are in pvp space. im not talking about the blue circle, the outer planets.
Thanks for stealing all i had
in General Discussions
Posted
Yes i but i feel like thats never happened ever, and if happens once i dont care. But it comes down to lack of funds for NQ we all know it, they tell us all the time they are a small indie studio. In a more perfect scenario if you left it there 7 days, it would then be "held in virtual jail" for another 2 days (for possible exploits idk) then you could retrieve it to be re-deployed but a significant fine. If your ship is crap you can choose to let it die in there, or pay the fine. But NQ would have to develop all that shit. This was their easy way and not caring about fringe problems of someone leaving a ship at market.