Jump to content
Enjoyvirtuallife

The "Holy Trinity fleet"

Recommended Posts

Could this be possible? Imagine a cargo-fleet beeing protected by the Holy Trinity Fleet.

A Tanker- bomber-ship to absorb incomming damage towards the cargo fleet, reparing ships flying around to repair tanker- and cargo ships en several smaller ships doing the dps?

 

It's like having a "Mercenary Company" to protect others in the Holy Trinity form...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? People need to protect their cconvoys. But I wouldn't count on pirates/enemies to only shoot some tank, that's stupid. They'll go for either fast loot or kill all dps and then loot everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Why not? People need to protect their cconvoys. But I wouldn't count on pirates/enemies to only shoot some tank, that's stupid. They'll go for either fast loot or kill all dps and then loot everything

Lol I would listen to what this guy has to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on the realities of the combat system. We know that combat will revolve around a lock and fire system, so one would think that "tank" ships wouldn't be a practical option. However, if locking requires line of sight on the target (which has at least been mentioned as a possibility) then I see no reason why you couldn't use large ships to block line of sight on whatever you're trying to protect. 

 

I could certainly see something like that used to control individual gun turrets, but it wouldn't really make sense for missile systems... That being said, I would prefer a system that requires line of sight to shoot a target with direct weapons like lasers and cannons, because that would add an interesting level of strategy and tactics to combat engagements. 

 

But we know virtually nothing about NQ's plans for the CvC system, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In EVE Online - the only other MMO with a single-shard that's not a joke (looking at you Albion Online) - the only way a "tank" can get aggro in PvP, is if it's an energy drain ship.

Energy Drain is like Mana Drain and Energy Neutralisation is like Mana Burn. No energy = you die.

And so the priority becomes "kill the Bhaalgorn" (the battleship class that can drain and neutralise energy like no other).

That's the only real threat that you can impose in PvP. In WoW, healers like priests were focued in Arenas, cause of their mana burn abilitiy. You needed to kill that Mana Burn spam or force the healer to go into "turtle" mode and shut down their mana-burn to sustain themselves.

And that's the case for EVE Online's model - and how it sohuld be done in DU.

"Bombers" mean nothing, they are DPS, you can sustain a lot of DPS with shields up and coordination betwen repari ships, but you can't sustain any DPS if you got no shields. So a "tanker-bomber" is something I'd laugh at and just drain it of energy, then move to the repair ships, then to the dps ships and just loot you all for spare parts. I don't need tye space turck if I can just loot their escort ships.

If you want the "holy trinity" you should be asking for energfy drain modules ;) \

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twerk, your reply is both short-sighted and lacking in imagination. 

 

As I just mentioned, there are ways to make a "Holy Trinity" matter other than energy drain (or some other form of utility). This isn't the only option by any means, and it certainly isn't the best option either.

 

Even if NQ did use your proposal as a means of encouraging a psuedo-trinity system, that's an inefficient and un-fun way of going about it. It's not really "tanking" when you force the enemy fleet to shoot you because you're a major utility threat. That's a completely separate matter from tanking and should be regarded as such. Furthermore, real tanking is about forcing the enemy to engage you on your terms, not on theirs, which is what your suggestion would require. NQ can and should institute a system that allows "tanks" to exert influence on enemy fleets by preventing or drawing damage in some way. This is more interesting and engaging, whereas the EVE and WoW systems are purely reactive.

 

You also reference EVE as though it's an example of tactical excellence that should be followed. I could not disagree more. While the strategic depth of EVE is impressive, the tactical depth is extremely lacking. Every fight boils down to 95% of the fleet being in the same ship with the same fit, and everyone shoots the same target at the same time because physical positioning and battle damage are inconsequential. This isn't a good thing. In fact, it's really one-dimensional and empty. NQ should take a step away from EVE when it comes to tactical combat and balance and encourage a system where individual piloting, positioning, and ship capabilities matter for all ships, not just the FC and certain utility ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo....If you complain about the unfun mechanics of eve (same ship, same target, same fitting) then why go back to the very boring system of tank, dps and healer? As you said: go away from those boring and stupid mechanics ("you have to shoot this ship because of some magic device which renders your weapons useless against others").

 

Tank your freighters. Put guns on them. Let us use fast agile ships with weaker weapons to distract people while doing a bit of dmg here and there (so you have to deal with them nonetheless at some point). Let us use bigger ships as attack and main punching force. Let us attack anyone and everything as we see fit, maybe take out the logistics first? Or the moveable bubble generator ship? Or you go for the main dps?

Let the battlefield evolve and don't use boring mechanics as in every other game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the Trinity over EVE's static and boring meta any day. Sitting in fleet and following the FCs primary isn't engaging gameplay. It's only fun at all from the grander strategic standpoint of winning vs losing. DU should do more.

 

I'm not a big fan of the trinity either, because it is rather boring and repetitive, but simply making a list of moduals (among which one is always clearly superior) always results in stagnant gameplay. We see this in EVE every day, and don't think it's unreasonable to hope for more. 

 

26 minutes ago, Lethys said:

maybe take out the logistics first? Or the moveable bubble generator ship? Or you go for the main dps?

Soooooo, a holy Trinity? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vorengard said:

I would take the Trinity over EVE's static and boring meta any day. Sitting in fleet and following the FCs primary isn't engaging gameplay. It's only fun at all from the grander strategic standpoint of winning vs losing. DU should do more.

 

I'm not a big fan of the trinity either, because it is rather boring and repetitive, but simply making a list of moduals (among which one is always clearly superior) always results in stagnant gameplay. We see this in EVE every day, and don't think it's unreasonable to hope for more. 

 

Soooooo, a holy Trinity? :P

Well, I never said that eves system was good.

 

And no, that's something entirely different. As a possible bubble ship could be useless against small craft (they can enter for example), whereas the logistics could only be useful for large ships. 

To some extent every ship is either of the 3, but DU has a chance to not make it obvious and even better: give them thean ability to use more tactics than just: I'm tank, ugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vorengard

 We know the combat system requires ray-casting, they said it a billion times they will retrofit the digging bubbles to make a soft-lock targeting system. Deal with it.

 

Also, EVE's "static meta", is "static" cause it has 40 different variations on the Trinity, not one simpleton model of The Trinity. It's hard to change a meta, when you have enriched it so much over 15 years. 15 years of adding new stuff in the game, for small and large scale warfare. I guess what you are saying is "don't add complexity NQ, pl0x, we are simple meme farmers, no science guys". Too bad, JC said it in the GDC stream after the Q&A, they want EVE's complex ship fitting theorycrafting and spreadsheets in DU. It's what makes the game interesting. Capacitor Warfare ships are just one branch of the "Tank" role. ECM ships are notoriously tanky by nature cause when their name shows up as "Jammed by Twerkmotor" yo uare going to feel the pain.

The "Tank" role in EVE extends to :

- Heavy Interdiction Cruisers : they won't allow you to leave the fight via warp and they can deploy a mobile Warp Dirsuption bubble oaround them.
- Command Destroyers / Command Battlecruisers : they provide bonuses to tracking and other "aura" type buffs. They are flafgships and those "Auras" are the thing the enemy sees and knows "that ship needs to go boom"
- Heavy Assault Cruisers : an all around pain.
- Statis Grappler Ships : they slow you to a crawl, a weapon that coutners "speed tanks".

- and so many more!

Not to mention, the obvious Super-Capitals, like Dreadnaughts, Super-Carriers, Force Auxiliaries and Titans.

But, see, a Capacitor Warfare ship won't do much against a ship with defenses against it (i.e. Batteries, if you dont't understand why, you don't know physics or the differnece between batteries and capacitors). A Bhaalgorn Batleship can't energy drain if its Energy Drain weapons can't be used cause it's jammed.

That makes enemy ECM ships - especially the one who is JAMMING the Bhaalgorn - the Tank of the enemy side. but how do you stop a battleship from Jamming the bhaalgorn? By jamming the enemy battleship of course! How? Send in a squadron of frigates to ECM the enemy ship that can ECM, like the Black Ops Battleship Widow. 

So now, you got people demanding coordination to win the fight. This is how tactical prowess is shown. And this is why you don't want that, you don't want this level of tactics, cause you lack proper discipline for mass PvP. You seem to think "working together in battle" as "static meta".

Yes, apparently, the whole "teamwork" meta is terrible, lol. 

 DU can go one step beyond EVE, since Bhaalgorns are sort of rare ships to find due to how blueprints work in EVE. DU can make Energy Drain weaponry hhave really exotic minerals involved or very high-tech modules, which makes them not something you can just slap onto a ship and be done with it.

Like it or not, this is a really possible thing for DU. Mana Burn is a staple of any MMO game, in one way or another. You say "stunlock" I say "Jammed to death", you say MAnaburn , I say Energy Burn.

I will be expecting your arguement of how "Teamwork and ship doctrines and tactics will kill the game!111" and all that jazz, to be honest, you admitted you don't like disciplined warfare. 

 

Either ECM or Capacitor Warfare or Tractor Beams of Doom, The Tank will be a thing for certain ship roles. Threat is something that builds up over-time. And as you noticed all those three things I mentioned? The longer they are up during a battle, the worse the situation becomes, hence why people "prime the Bhaalgorn".. That sthing? Tha'ts not "repetitive meta", that's called "Experienced Fleet Commander knowing what the shit he's supposed to do". You know, the whole thing about "al lthe thing you do is just orbiting the FC and doing nothing else?", yeah, see, that's called "following orders", it's part of being in an organised group. Like the Band of Outlaws.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Also, EVE's "static meta", is "static" cause it has 40 different variations on the Trinity, not one simpleton model of The Trinity. It's hard to change a meta, when you have enriched it so much over 15 years. 15 years of adding new stuff in the game, for small and large scale warfare. I guess what you are saying is "don't add complexity NQ, pl0x, we are simple meme farmers, no science guys". Too bad, JC said it in the GDC stream after the Q&A, they want EVE's complex ship fitting theorycrafting and spreadsheets in DU. It's what makes the game interesting. Capacitor Warfare ships are just one branch of the "Tank" role. ECM ships are notoriously tanky by nature cause when their name shows up as "Jammed by Twerkmotor" yo uare going to feel the pain.

 It's actually a little impressive how many times you're completely and utterly wrong in just this one paragraph. ECM ships tanky? You clearly never actually played EVE. Don't add complexity? You must not have read my post because that's the opposite of what I said. 

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

- Command Destroyers / Command Battlecruisers ....  "that ship needs to go boom"

If you primary the command ships then you're a moron or you have so much DPS it doesn't even matter, which brings me back to the simplicity of EVE's warfare. Furthermore, you do love your Bhalgorn example, but it's a very rare ship that only comes out in meta compositions. So, as I said, unless you want actual tactics to be really rare in DU (like the Bhalgorn is in EVE) then you need a better system. 

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

That makes enemy ECM ships - especially the one who is JAMMING the Bhaalgorn - the Tank of the enemy side. but how do you stop a battleship from Jamming the bhaalgorn? By jamming the enemy battleship of course! How? Send in a squadron of frigates to ECM the enemy ship that can ECM, like the Black Ops Battleship Widow. 

Ok, now I KNOW you never actually played EVE. Or maybe you were just a lifetime carebear, because this scenario you describe literally never happens for a thousand different reasons. Any PvPer with enough sense to fit a Drake knows how silly this is. 

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

So now, you got people demanding coordination to win the fight. This is how tactical prowess is shown. And this is why you don't want that, you don't want this level of tactics, cause you lack proper discipline for mass PvP. You seem to think "working together in battle" as "static meta".

Once again, you clearly didn't read, because I specifically asked for more tactical complexity. But I guess words are hard, right? Congrats on agreeing with me so thoroughly and consistently. Also, everyone doing the exact same thing is the opposite of tactical depth.

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Yes, apparently, the whole "teamwork" meta is terrible, lol. 

Have you ever watched an football game (American or European)? Do all of the players on the team do the exact same thing at the exact same time, in the exact same place (like an EVE battle)? No, they don't, they each have their own jobs and roles that are essential to success. That's what real teamwork is. Not F1 monkeying. But, then again, perhaps to you pressing F1 is a complicated and brainpower-intensive act.

 

In summary, not only are you wrong about virtually everything of consequence in this argument, but you manage to do so while agreeing with my overarching point: that we need more tactical complexity in DU than there is in EVE. The fact that you clearly intend to insult me with your argument is even more hilarious. You are hopelessly incompetent at reading, insulting people, understanding EVE, and making coherent arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vorengard, mind calming down? I can see the heat you are generating from the next system over...

 

Now then...

2 hours ago, Vorengard said:

I would take the Trinity over EVE's static and boring meta any day. Sitting in fleet and following the FCs primary isn't engaging gameplay. It's only fun at all from the grander strategic standpoint of winning vs losing. DU should do more.

DU will do more, simply because of the ability to innovate more. EVE's system (from what I can infer) ran out of room to innovate new tactics and loadouts due to the finite amount of different 'assets' (ships, guns, etc.) available. The 'Meta' is static because the system has been analysed for over a decade with little player input to change it in a major way. Now, in no way is the list of DU's 'assets infinite', but it is MUCH larger due to it's control system and the ability for players to actually DESIGN the ships they build. Sure, standing fleets will probably follow standard protocol, but since you need multiple people to fly a ship (not counting strike fighters) not everyone is doing the same thing. The holy trinity won't really hold much sway, because unless they add a 'magic' repair beam that is effective in combat, ships will only be able to be fully repaired either when docked to a station or when they rendezvous with a repair ship (this means, no healers in the trinity).

 

For reference, I imagine that DU will act much like The Expanse (though, at quite a bit larger scale). Massive fleets probably won't be maintained by one faction (not enough effective manpower) and DU has a lot more ground to cover than those in EVE, so it is unlikely they will pool all their resources into one fight (but, if they do... I imagine several groups will take advantage of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mrjacobean said:

mind calming down? I can see the heat you are generating from the next system over...

I'm not upset at all. You're mistaking exasperation and sarcasm for anger or frustration. Where I come from excessive sarcasm is an essential part of everyday conversation, not something you only do when you're upset.

 

That being said, I completely agree with everything else in your response. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vorengard

 

You clearly never left Hi-Sec. See, in Null-Sec? Yeah, that lovely place, it's where EVE's tactical depth shows up. It's where shit like Widow VS Bhaalgorn goes down, where if you don't ECM the Bhaalgorn you will lose the fight. I'm guessing Widows are not tanky ships according to you. Just a non threatening Black Ops Battleship with a no biggy deal of "hey, that ship carries a Covert Jump Portal Generator, it's no big threat, nah, let the BlOps ship open a bridge to bring in a blob".

Since you live in Hi-Sec attend EVE University, they might explain to you how to judge a ship's strengths and how to make youreself appear less threatening as well.

See, you can't get more tactical than EVE mate. And even better, DU has no predefined ships to begin with, which makes the situation even more of an unpredictable enviroment for tactical play. In EVE, you can't fit a Drake hull with lasers, cause "reasons". In DU, you'll have to actually check what the other guy has - unless they got the turrets hiudeen with layers of armor.

Or, have a known freighter hull fitted with guns and armor, take out the cargo containers and put in ammo boxes or extra sustainability for shields. now you got a bait-ship.

 

See, you have "Hi-Sec" written with neon lights on your face, cause you clearly never done baits like that. You never used an Baiteron Mk V to bait hi-sec suicide gankers and just get them killed for teh lulz. You are too honorable for that, right? That's why you can't enjoy EVE's tactical depth - or why you don't have any knowledge of such tactics.

I can also see it now. I thought you were just another EVE hater, I can now see it clear as day - you are the kind of person who only does what the "meta"  dictates.

 

You won't enjoy DU, you lack imagination.

 

 

 


But hey the,Band of Outlaws is not beneath baiting with fake space-trucks. We love a good fight, but we love even more a fight that is not seen coming when the other guys attack us.

 

We fight with no honor, which is why we have fun (and are Drama-free).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

FC and doing nothing else?", yeah, see, that's called "following orders", it's part of being in an organised group. Like the Band of Outlaws.

 

21 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

But hey the,Band of Outlaws is not beneath baiting with fake space-trucks. We love a good fight, but we love even more a fight that is not seen coming when the other guys attack us.

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are trying to promote Band of Outlaws

Or perhaps I don't know better. Either way, I call it 'subtle'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

You clearly never left Hi-Sec

https://zkillboard.com/character/329088895/  I know you have trouble reading, so I'll give you the cliff notes: 2,164 kills, all in Low/Null (~85% of them as the FC in gangs of 30 or less), with 97.3% ISK efficiency

 

................ Yeah, totally never left high sec. That's me, 100% carebear with no imagination and absolutely zero PvP experience. Once again, your ability to put your foot in your mouth is absolutely astounding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually kind of amuzing...

This post's mindset is in line with a future project of mine that is in the works for over 2 weeks now)

If done correctly organizing a fleet in Trinity squadrons is bound to prove a highly effective strategical managment plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vorengard said:

https://zkillboard.com/character/329088895/  I know you have trouble reading, so I'll give you the cliff notes: 2,164 kills, all in Low/Null (~85% of them as the FC in gangs of 30 or less), with 97.3% ISK efficiency

 

................ Yeah, totally never left high sec. That's me, 100% carebear with no imagination and absolutely zero PvP experience. Once again, your ability to put your foot in your mouth is absolutely astounding.

 

Nice, yet in none of those you were solo PvP. You had 25 other people in all of the kills Which is not "bad", it's a team game, but how can you not see the value of tactics, when you have 7 Billion isk ships in your killboard? Oh yeah, you just blob, casual risk averse individual in EVE who only stat pads his account. 

Tsk tsk tsk. No wonder you think EVE's meta is not shallow, it's you who is shallow.

P.S. : You should be asking for no killboards if you want people to be more tactical and less "metal" and just blobing people. No wonder you haven't seen good fights, you are in NC, you guys could not do tactics even if your life depended on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mrjacobean said:

 

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are trying to promote Band of Outlaws

Or perhaps I don't know better. Either way, I call it 'subtle'...

The  Band of Outlaws is not needing of promotions good sir! The  Band of Outlaws is promoting itself with every single proof we are working efficiently without drama!

Join the  Band of Outlaws today! 

Punch a bear, blow up ships and praise the Honeybadger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now why you complain about eve's system lol

 

If all I would've seen (day in, day out) in eve is: x-up for fleet, get in ship, follow FC, press F1, fly home....

yeah, then EVE's pvp is boring AF and this stands true:

16 hours ago, Vorengard said:

Every fight boils down to 95% of the fleet being in the same ship with the same fit, and everyone shoots the same target at the same time because physical positioning and battle damage are inconsequentia

 

On the other hand there's WHs (where I lived for years) and all that shitty PVP, F1 monky-ing and the above statement are completly wrong and absent. As the mechanics there are completely different, you need highly specialized ships to do whatever you want to do. And I was tank more than once in my bhaal or widow/scorpion.

 

To come back, again, on topic:

EVE did many things right in PVP and those I want to see. But the classic roles of tank/dps/healer are outdated and should be more like a suggestion or possibility - with severe drawbacks/advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CaptainTwerkmotor as usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and clearly don't know how to read because my kill board clearly shows otherwise. It's also fun to see how your narrative changes as you're consistently proven wrong, but I digress. 

 

@Lethys You should know better than to follow Twerks lead. I was only in NC. for like three months and then I quit the game. The other 6 years in game we're spent in low sec as head-FC for a pirate alliance that routinely engaged in Wormhole Merc contracts. So yes, I have seen everything EVE has to offer, and it's still tactically stagnant and shallow. (Note: strategy and tactics are not the same thing).

 

The point is that the vast majority of people in EVE play the game as F1 monkeys. Yes, wormholes can and often are radically different, but having lived there you'll know that they represent a very small aspect of the community, and most people never deal with them at all. Furthermore, DU won't be structured like wormhole space *at all*, so it would be a mistake to follow Eve's example in hopes that you'll get a system that plays like wormhole space. DU won't have spacial modifiers or limited ship mass with which to limit engagements, so you're far more likely to end up with a system that emulates null-sec's absolute uniformity and risk aversion, rather than the free-for-all that is wormhole space. 

 

Essentially, if I wanted to play an EVE clone, I'd just play EVE. DU would benefit greatly from learning how EVE succeeded (it's strategic depth and excellent fitting/modual system), and should avoid it's failures (tactical ship positioning being virtually meaningless, clearly stratified ship classes, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vorengard I scrolled through your killboard - that's not following "twerks lead" .....

 

My argument on WH space wasn't because I think DU will be like w-space. I just wanted to give my thoughts on your (very generalized and simply wrong statements):

17 hours ago, Vorengard said:

ECM ships tanky? You clearly never actually played EVE.

 

17 hours ago, Vorengard said:

Or maybe you were just a lifetime carebear, because this scenario you describe literally never happens for a thousand different reasons. Any PvPer with enough sense to fit a Drake knows how silly this is.

 

There's more to EVEs combat system than "F1, same ship, same fit" - even in Null.

 

In DU NQ has the oppertunity to do something new - and not recycle age old mechanics. They can adapt and improve those mechanics to get a new, immersive, hard to master "scissor, rock, paper, spock, shotgun, rifle, sniper, thief, king, ninja, ...." type of gameplay - and not just "tank, dps, healer".

Will people break that system and come up with various "best" ships for each encounter/situation? Most likely - people will blob and use the most efficient way to kill others - if that means everyone flies the same ship then it's going to be that. If it means everyone flies in small fighters - so be it.

We just don't know which mechanics NQ planned here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lethys

 

Don't even bother with him anymore.

 

I'd point out that Vorengard is just breaking down as this thread goes by.

Does Vorengard even know that ships in EVE do need tactical placement? Has he ever even seen a bomber fleet doing a drive-by during a fleet engagement? Does he know how bombs work in EVE even? 

Has he ever even deployed a cyno???

 

I am pretty sure tactical positioning comes down to scouts doing their job right. Has he even ever done scouting or does he only fly Caracals to stay "Isk positive" ? I ber he only flies Caracals, Thrashers and - maybe - Machariels. Anything else? "Not in the meta".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lethys said:

if that means everyone flies the same ship then it's going to be that. If it means everyone flies in small fighters - so be it.

This is exactly the type of outcome we need to avoid. Gaming as a whole can do better than everyone flying the same thing because that thing is best in the current patch. Thats simply bad game design and balance, and it's the biggest hallmark of EVE. This month it's the Ishtar, next month it's the Machariel, then masses of Whelp-Canes, and on and on. Maybe you're happy with that type of meta, but I find it oppressive.

 

I don't pretend to know how to solve this issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. I only hope NQ can find a way to institute systems that make ship diversity and playstyles competitive without having to institute a constant Nerf merry go round just to stop certain setups from dominating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vorengard said:

This is exactly the type of outcome we need to avoid. Gaming as a whole can do better than everyone flying the same thing because that thing is best in the current patch. Thats simply bad game design and balance, and it's the biggest hallmark of EVE. This month it's the Ishtar, next month it's the Machariel, then masses of Whelp-Canes, and on and on. Maybe you're happy with that type of meta, but I find it oppressive.

 

I don't pretend to know how to solve this issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. I only hope NQ can find a way to institute systems that make ship diversity and playstyles competitive without having to institute a constant Nerf merry go round just to stop certain setups from dominating. 

Thing is, this is a non-issue. NQ provides the tools, we shape the meta. The very fact it's not "1 man 1 ship" in DU, is evident of that.

For an EVE player you failed to realise one of the golden rules of EVE : "there's no right way of playing EVE", that's why you can't see the beauty of EVE's depth, cause you trhink "Isk positive" means "good player".

Will there be scrubs who only fly "The Edgelord Kewl Ship" ??? Yes, that's the flaking point with the in-game market and blueprint. Tha'ts where it's based, that people LIKE one particualr ship and buy it all the time. Those ships may be cost effective, they might be REALLY blinged out ,they might be really coo looking  or w/e. Tha'

ts PART of DU's selling point for builders - make the best ship, become rich.

What are you even doing in this commuintiy if you hate one of its core game features which is heavily reliant on a meta existing to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...