Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 23:57:00 -
[1]
I think the changes being made warrant re-introducing the following. I've posted it before, and it's gotten good responses, but the problem is ongoing and will become worse in the next expansion.
TL;DR: read the quote box below.
BACKGROUND
Scenario: My corp/alliance is at war. Intel has indicated that one of the hostiles is camping a particular station. One of our members engages, hostilities commence in both directions, both sides are warp-scrambled. We send in reinforcements and the battle swings our way. The hostile stops firing, then docks a short time later. He undocks a few seconds later, fully repaired, and engages again. Then stops, waits out his timer, and redocks. Repeat.
Welcome to Docking Games 101, a tactic that allows players to exploit a mechanic to engage in virtually risk-free PvP. Who needs stabs when you can simply dock at any time? Traditionally this tactic is most common in empire wars, and is one of the key factors in making empire wars far more dull than they have any right to be. It is also not uncommon to see such docking games played with dreadnaughts or carriers in lowsec systems.
But with the changes to sovereignty in the upcoming Dominion patch, the problem becomes magnified. Under the new system, a challenge to sovereignty requires the attacker to disable any outpost in the system (among other things). This requirement will bring the art of the Docking Game to new heights (or more accurately, depths).
Set aside the scenario above where each side has perhaps a handful of battlecruisers and battleships. The Dominion Docking Game will involve potentially hundreds of battleships, capital ships, or even supercapitals on each side. Except that now, the defender can simply fight in the shadow of their station, docking up when they take aggro to repair the damage. And the repairs are free, since the outpost owner can control the repair fees.
Can you imagine the results? The defender is fielding a Titan (which cannot dock), along with a sizeable fleet of carriers. The carriers repair the Titan until they are declared primary by the attacker's dread fleet, at which point that carrier de-aggros, docks, repairs for free, then undocks and resumes repairs. Meanwhile the Titan is destroying an attacking dreadnaught every few minutes. Motherships would also fare well in this environment, being able to dock to repair as needed.
Sovereighty wars in such an environment will be one of the least amusing features of the game in a long time, and I include lag on that list.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:02:00 -
[2]
SOLUTION
The basic mechanic that needs to be modified is the docking/gate timer, which prevents performing those actions within a minute after the last aggressive act was committed. A common suggestion has been to simply increase the docking time, but that is a bad solution for two reasons. First, unless the timer is fairly long, it doesn't address the issue of capital ship docking games, especially the lowsec version, where the capital ship has plenty of time to de-aggro and dock. Second, the longer the time is, the more irritating it will be to legitimate attempts to dock or use a gate, for example after a fight is finished.
Here is a better solution:
Quote: Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows: * So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
That third bullet point represents the change in a nutshell. Let me clarify that point:
Currently, the timer to enter the station or jump through a gate resets itself each time you attack, and only runs down if you abstain from attacking for the duration of the timer. So if you stop attacking for a short time, you can re-enter the station regardless of what your opponents do. What I'm suggesting is that the station timer be reset any time you fire OR any time someone fires on you, so long as you have an aggression flag active to them.
This means that if you leave a station and see a camp there, you can still dock again so long as you hold your fire. But once you return fire, you are committing yourself to the fight, and the station will not shelter you if you fare poorly. If this happens, you still have the option to flee away from the station (assuming you aren't scrambled or can outrun your pursuers), and if you can avoid combat until the station/gate timer runs down, you can return to the station and dock. It also means that as long as you are flagged (aggression flag, not the station/gate timer), you will regain the full station/gate time if anyone you are flagged to fires on you. It also means that if you hold fire long enough for your aggression flag to expire, you are free to dock or jump even if you are attacked again on the way.
In short, this is not an nerf, it simply plugs a hole in the game system to prevent exploiting a technicality to engage in fights with zero risk.
Constructive criticism or other comments are welcome.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Agent Known
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:35:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Agent Known on 19/11/2009 00:35:17 After reading all the failed attempts at changing the mechanic, I am very impressed by the proposal. It's balanced to not favor those who want to exploit the mechanic, but to at least provide some way to redock if you undock into a station camp.
That being said, this should be extended to jumping as well. It's not as bad as station games, but playing ping-pong with WTs isn't exactly a fun time...
Supported.
Edit: Now with more thumbs! On another note, I also have an annoying sig.
inaftertimeflux |
NaMorham Santorin
Tech 1 Holdings Limited Superior Eve Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:55:00 -
[4]
|
MysticMonk
Madhatters Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 00:59:00 -
[5]
An end to docking games indeed. Wanabee pirates beware!
MysticMonk - Director/Diplomat for Noctiscion |
William Pierce
Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:03:00 -
[6]
CCP would be idiots to let Dominion roll out with the current system in place. With your proposed ideas, we could have a fair and eloquent solution, which does not favor any one side.
|
Evil Amarrian142
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:08:00 -
[7]
Docking games are terrible the op is right, it will only get worse with Dominion. Please listen to this idea CCP
|
Marcus Henik
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:10:00 -
[8]
supported. docking games blow. so does neutral remtoe repping, but I see that that would be added to the list of aggro items wich would help the problem at least a little.
|
Draco Carollis
The Dead Canary Mining Corporation Legion of Honor
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:24:00 -
[9]
I've seen several "solutions" to docking games, but this one is one of the better and more balanced ones i've seen.
|
Damnskippy
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:24:00 -
[10]
Supported.
|
|
TimMc
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:34:00 -
[11]
Excellent.
|
Kazzzi
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:35:00 -
[12]
Op makes much sense. Why would station docking personnel risk letting somebody dock when there's shells flying at them?
|
Rudolf Miller
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:44:00 -
[13]
this is worth logging in for to say +1
|
Don Pellegrino
Helljumpers
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:45:00 -
[14]
The only thing I don't like is that sometimes you will land 800-1300 meters off a station, so you have to approach it before being able to dock and a frigate (especially an inty) could easily agress you, thus preventing you to dock.
|
Kell Braugh
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:48:00 -
[15]
How will this not just turn the docking games currently into an overused (and abused) agro with a tank and just have everyone blob in from next door.
I also think making logistics actions aggressive with have much farther sweeping (role killing) changes than just docking games.
- In essence, any combat related activity involving damage has been 'speed nerfed' to just take 6 times longer with a predetermined outcome coined balance by CCP. |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:50:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Agent Known That being said, this should be extended to jumping as well. It's not as bad as station games, but playing ping-pong with WTs isn't exactly a fun time...
Note that while I use the term 'docking games' frequently, the modified timer mechanics I suggested deliberately apply to gate travel as well as docking.
Originally by: MysticMonk An end to docking games indeed. Wanabee pirates beware!
This is definitely not a nerf to piracy. In fact, for the most part, it has no impact on the usual pirate tactics, except those that involve exploiting gates or stations to attack superior forces in safety. In fact, enterprising pirates (and non-pirate PvPers) might take note that baiting becomes more dangerous under this system (the bait ship can't escape if it engages), but also become more powerful, as well (the target can't either, once it engages).
I should rephrase that. It becomes harder to escape. Interceptors and other particularly fast ships, for example, could burn away and evade until the timer expired, allowing them to escape, which is fine. Certain forms of EW might become useful in breaking away from combat. Stabs would still behave as normal. In general, combat at gates and stations would become the same as combat at belts.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 02:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino The only thing I don't like is that sometimes you will land 800-1300 meters off a station, so you have to approach it before being able to dock and a frigate (especially an inty) could easily agress you, thus preventing you to dock.
Not at all. If you have no aggression flag, you never get a timer in the first place. You only get a timer (and an aggression flag) if you make an aggressive act, and you timer is only reset if you attack or are attacked while you still are flagged.
In the example you gave, you could sit outside the station as long as you wanted, and so long as you don't aggress, you may dock freely.
The point of this change is not to give free ganks against unsuspecting people, it's to make the decision to engage a commitment.
Originally by: Kell Braugh How will this not just turn the docking games currently into an overused (and abused) agro with a tank and just have everyone blob in from next door.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Yes, it's absolutely true. But keep in mind that the mechanic is only initially triggered against a pilot by that pilot's act of aggression. Until he attacks, he may redock at will. If he chooses to attack without proper intel, then he may have to deal with the consequences, but how is this different from almost every other aspect of EVE?
Originally by: Kell Braugh I also think making logistics actions aggressive with have much farther sweeping (role killing) changes than just docking games.
I believe that logistics actions already generates an aggression flag, allowing those hostile to the ship you're assisting to attack you, as well. (Note that this is an aggression flag, NOT a criminal flag.)
So yes, this would also address the issue of 'neutral' logistics/RR assisting WTs and using docking games as a means to eliminate the risk of doing so. They can still do so, but are making a decision to commit to the battle when doing so.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 02:16:00 -
[18]
This is the cleanest solution to docking games I've ever seen. I love it.
|
Carai an'Caldazar
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:05:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Carai an''Caldazar on 19/11/2009 03:09:25 I like the solution... thumbs up from me...
Ambushes might take a different tone for empire wars, low sec fights, and even 0.0 station defenses... and anything to get better fights is a major thumbs up here!
EDIT: This may also mean Guardians won't have to circle gates during RR-gangs, which is a major plus as they won't be able to use Stargates as a get-out-of-death-free mechanism.
EDIT: Please Dev's take notice that Remote Repping here is a major concern, and should be an agro mechanic. ~Carai an'Caldazar~ ~Carai an'Ellisande~ -- Dawn of a new Empire --
|
Saihras
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:16:00 -
[20]
I for one dont wish to see the carrier blobs of dominion under the current mechanic
|
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:20:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is the cleanest solution to docking games I've ever seen. I love it.
No.
Cleanest solution would be to remove docking timers entirely. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Rocius
Tribal Consortium Management Services Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:26:00 -
[22]
Hell yeah, good idea.
|
Tagami Wasp
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:42:00 -
[23]
Logging in to say that Becq makes sense. Listen to the man CCP!
|
Nosenhojh
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:45:00 -
[24]
Big +1 time to get rid of some of this silly risk free PvP.
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 04:04:00 -
[25]
So long as RR is included, I see no reason why this shouldn't be implemented immediately, especially with Dominion less than two weeks away. Supported.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Tuttle SVC
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 04:04:00 -
[26]
I am in favor of this proposal.
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 04:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
* If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
Sounds good. I only see one problem.
A player can exploit the aggression timer to hold the target indefinably.
Pilot A unlocks and engages pilot B. Pilot A can not kill Pilot B. Pilot B keeps a point on Pilot A so he can not dock. Pilot A is stuck sitting on station till downtime. It's a simple example but you could extrapolate a number of other ways to exploit the mechanic.
A way to fix this issue is to have an extended deaggression timer. So Pilot A in the example above stops attacking and say 10 minutes later he can redock. If Pilot B can not kill A within 10 minutes he never will. You can also add time to the docking timers based on ship size.
Ashina Sito for CSM
|
Talr Shiar
Azriel's Legion
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 04:35:00 -
[28]
I hate the docking game, it makes empire combat so dull - SUPPORTED
|
Altaen
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 05:20:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Altaen on 19/11/2009 05:20:08 Sold.
I definitely support this proposal, and look forward to seeing the truly talented pilots rise to the opportunity.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 05:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ashina Sito Sounds good. I only see one problem.
A player can exploit the aggression timer to hold the target indefinably.
Pilot A unlocks and engages pilot B. Pilot A can not kill Pilot B. Pilot B keeps a point on Pilot A so he can not dock. Pilot A is stuck sitting on station till downtime. It's a simple example but you could extrapolate a number of other ways to exploit the mechanic.
A way to fix this issue is to have an extended deaggression timer. So Pilot A in the example above stops attacking and say 10 minutes later he can redock. If Pilot B can not kill A within 10 minutes he never will. You can also add time to the docking timers based on ship size.
Worst-case, you always have the ability to self-destruct and get away, or log off and have your ship disappear after 15 minutes. Still, I think that's a reasonable amendment.
|
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 05:48:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Ashina Sito Sounds good. I only see one problem.
A player can exploit the aggression timer to hold the target indefinably.
Pilot A unlocks and engages pilot B. Pilot A can not kill Pilot B. Pilot B keeps a point on Pilot A so he can not dock. Pilot A is stuck sitting on station till downtime. It's a simple example but you could extrapolate a number of other ways to exploit the mechanic.
A way to fix this issue is to have an extended deaggression timer. So Pilot A in the example above stops attacking and say 10 minutes later he can redock. If Pilot B can not kill A within 10 minutes he never will. You can also add time to the docking timers based on ship size.
Actually, I think that this issue is already handled. The Station/Gate timer will renew with each new aggression by or against the pilot, so long as there is an aggression flag. The aggression flag, however, is unchanged, and will therefore only renew with each actual aggression by the pilot. So in the situation you describe, the pilot could wait out the fifteen minute aggression flag. Once he is no longer flagged, the station/undock timer no longer resets, which means he'll be able to redock a minute later.
So in the case of the situation you describe, Pilot A can simply drop aggro and wait 16 minutes. If neither side manages to destroy the other or call in reinforcements to help during that time, the the fight deserves to end. In an analogous case where Player B can kill Player A at any time but is drawing out the process, Player A is free to give in to the inevitable and self-destruct to speed the process (as suggested above).
Oh, and if one player in the above situation logs off or loses connection, then they'd stay in space for the 15 minutes then emergency-warp as normal. So technically you could shave off a minute via loggoffski, but I think that the 15 minute timer is generous enough that this isn't really a serious issue.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Drauqhk Shathet
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:13:00 -
[32]
Simple and elegant, I hope the code can be equally well implemented. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are |
Hjakona
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:16:00 -
[33]
I think this is a good idea, I would however like to see changes to Docking radius as well. Some stations are ok, but some stations have Docking radius that is way to large!!
|
Karn Mithralia
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:31:00 -
[34]
Gets my vote.
|
KillJoy Tseng
Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:49:00 -
[35]
I and my other account both support this. Good heavens, an end to having an aggressive force that you outnumber and can outfight but can't actually do anything about because they're sitting up a station's undock chute? Please yes. This isn't even looking at the sov-related issues brought up by the OP, just the masses of groups who use this as a substitute for ability.
|
Crevo Helion
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:50:00 -
[36]
Supported.
Let docking games die!
|
Vikarion
Chorus of Nephilim
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 06:57:00 -
[37]
Supported!
|
Kalam Orlong
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 07:05:00 -
[38]
A simple solution to something that is very broken.
|
krede
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 07:16:00 -
[39]
Very much in favor of this proposal by Becq.
|
Qujulome
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 07:19:00 -
[40]
very nice |
|
CiNi
Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 07:31:00 -
[41]
This is a nice simple solution. Good idea and thumbs up
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 07:57:00 -
[42]
What about the size of the ship determine how long it takes to dock? i.e. Interceptor 20 seconds to re-dock after last aggression and say a dread being like 2 minutes.
The bigger the boat the longer it takes to negotiate a dock right?
|
Seamus Rooke
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:04:00 -
[43]
I like this. Initial impression sees it as fairly balanced, and yes, docking games should die
|
ThAhAnZeL
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:09:00 -
[44]
This is good!! Please make it happen! |
Titus Balls
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:12:00 -
[45]
Support from me
|
Yanna Karr
Universal Army
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:15:00 -
[46]
/signed
|
Havohej
Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:24:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Havohej on 19/11/2009 08:23:48 +1
Du'uma Fiisi is Recruiting |
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 08:52:00 -
[48]
For stations this sounds good.
For gates, jumping to escape a losing battle should be part of mechanics allowed, as the winning side who cannot place tacklers ready for the otherside deserves to miss the kills. ;) -- Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today. |
Reto
The Last Resort
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 09:08:00 -
[49]
well i would sign this aswell but theres one issue which bothers me.
1. im a freighter pilot undocking from a station. i suddenly find 20 guys warping to the station. as i undock i pass one of their battleships which activates a smartbomb and hits me.
2. im a lone pilot in lowsec in warp from a gate to a station. inbetween sits a pirate with a smartbomb rokh and his mates. he smartbombs me while im deaccelerating from warp into docking range...
in both cases im royaly buttered as i cant dock due to new aggrotimer.
i must say the redocking thing is annyoing if you want people to comit to the fight. the only argument speaking against this idea is that you loose the ability to safe your ship if you dont intend to fight in the first place.
Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 09:18:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Reto well i would sign this aswell but theres one issue which bothers me.
1. im a freighter pilot undocking from a station. i suddenly find 20 guys warping to the station. as i undock i pass one of their battleships which activates a smartbomb and hits me.
2. im a lone pilot in lowsec in warp from a gate to a station. inbetween sits a pirate with a smartbomb rokh and his mates. he smartbombs me while im deaccelerating from warp into docking range...
in both cases im royaly buttered as i cant dock due to new aggrotimer.
i must say the redocking thing is annyoing if you want people to comit to the fight. the only argument speaking against this idea is that you loose the ability to safe your ship if you dont intend to fight in the first place.
In both cases you've not aggressed so you can jump / dock as normal. Re-read the proposal, it covers this :)
+1 support from me. I do think that perhaps its a bit too harsh on gates but by and large I support it and it fits with the HTFU mentality :)
|
|
Malicia IV
Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 09:36:00 -
[51]
Supported
|
Rye Contini
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:03:00 -
[52]
+1
|
Traug Desh
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:13:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Traug Desh on 19/11/2009 10:13:02 Supported! If a bait ship wants to sit on a gate he better be committed if he decided to fire back!
To comment, I don't feel ships should have different timers based on size. It just adds confusion to the game, imo.
|
Lord Makk
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:23:00 -
[54]
Supported.
The Cerbmeister |
Gahrian Ketar
SoE Roughriders Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:22:00 -
[55]
+1
|
Hawkson
Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:23:00 -
[56]
Well thought out solution! +1
|
Crazy Vania
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:25:00 -
[57]
An elegant and simple solution to a horrible problem. I'd like to point out that docking games aren't only played by pirates, but really by any side of a war that considers itself "outnumbered". This gives them the ability to believe they are, in fact, very skilled, because they are staying in space, while still being outnumbered.
How many times have I seen someone brag "you are X people against just me but you won't even engage" at a station's undock chute in a maelstrom ?
Docking games are even worse with the usage of neutral reppers, especially in high sec. Instead of it being the already complicated matter of "we need the DPS to kill that battleship before it deagresses and redocks", which usually is more than 3 battleships at point blank, it becomes: we need an incredible number of battleships to cancel this neutral battleships's repair. There is no point at shooting the neutral repper, since he's going to dock when you make him go into half armor, and then he'll have done a better job at removing DPS from the primary than by repairing. And massive ECCM keeps it from being jammed easily.
By the way, I believe the OP did not mention anything about gate games, which is very correct: gate games are more a matter of skills and organization and having the right ships, so they don't need to be changed.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:31:00 -
[58]
Do this now.
|
Khir
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:51:00 -
[59]
Supported for stations. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for gates, but still gets my vote.
|
Ablack77
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:52:00 -
[60]
|
|
Harlequin D'Earth
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:03:00 -
[61]
Agreed - it's an elegant solution in-line with current mechanics.
|
Stratio
Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:43:00 -
[62]
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Freya Gleamingstar
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:04:00 -
[63]
A clear solution which fixes a very broken mechanic.
Big thumbs up!
[color=#FF0000]{SGX}<AM> Curmudgeon and Veteran Sabre Rattler[/color]
|
Heitaro Kimura
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:52:00 -
[64]
Docking games are boring games.
Supported.
|
Solostrom
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:43:00 -
[65]
Best solution to the problem I've ever heard. Definitely required for Dominion!
|
Johnny Dexter
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:44:00 -
[66]
I don't do much PvP in low sec, but the few times I have make me feel sorry for the people who have to put up with this.
Fully supported.
|
Retromash
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:11:00 -
[67]
Supported.
PMS - It's not just for THAT time of the month Menopause - It doesn't mean THAT time of the month goes away
|
Xonus Calimar
Terra Incognita
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:34:00 -
[68]
Seems reasonable... ___________________________________ My opinions may not necessarily reflect the opinions of my Corporation or Alliance. |
Kire Moshiko
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:40:00 -
[69]
Very nice mechanic. I'm quite fed up of being wardecced only to find the "aggressors" grafted to a docking ramp.
Trit... it's as essential as blood, but far less messy. |
Evanda Char
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:42:00 -
[70]
Really, really agree with this. -Eva-
Electus Matari - taking it one bad guy at a time |
|
Dodgy Past
Lollipops for Rancors
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:42:00 -
[71]
Definitely for stations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- you seem determined to turn it into ******* Hollyoaks for neckbeards. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:48:00 -
[72]
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:54:00 -
[73]
And also make it so that ships like asplode if they try to dock more than 5 times per hour
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:03:00 -
[74]
very simple, very effective
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF 2008! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Ga'len
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:12:00 -
[75]
|
Natasha Joviche
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:20:00 -
[76]
good idea deserves to be implemented
|
Necrime Dubai
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:25:00 -
[77]
love it
|
Arnulf Ogunkoya
The Causality Vanguard Venture Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:32:00 -
[78]
Definitely supported. Regards,
|
n1231
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:34:00 -
[79]
Nice One
|
Setai Firesnake
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:35:00 -
[80]
Agreed. Should be implemented as soon as possible.
|
|
Rogue Steel
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:48:00 -
[81]
+1, great idea
|
Friek
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:24:00 -
[82]
Agreed 100% very nice solution
|
Minkert
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:25:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Minkert on 19/11/2009 21:25:27 You should make that applicable for all stations you don't own- your own station should accept you no matter what- just makes sense. BUT- to solve the problem just put a global countdown on station repair- and a time. Meaning if you do it, it takes the time- 45 sec lets say, and you cant do it again for x minutes (10, 15?) Allows normal everyday repair to act fine- no issue- and even the realistic mechanic of hiding in your own station, but not insta-repair silliness.
Edit: Spelling
|
King Croesus
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:57:00 -
[84]
great idea, supported, also how about making the docking areas of a station external so that you can just target and shoot people when they're trading/inventing/manufacturing or any other non combat things
|
Padaxes
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 00:33:00 -
[85]
Gets my vote
/signed
|
Shiroi Okami
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 01:07:00 -
[86]
Simple yet effective.
|
Seamus Donohue
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 07:16:00 -
[87]
I support the proposal of the original post. Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke. |
Taudia
Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 08:35:00 -
[88]
Simple, effective and should not even cause the servers too much trouble if implemented correctly. Supported.
|
scoutart
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 10:39:00 -
[89]
Has this been posted to Features And Ideas?
|
Tirke
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 11:35:00 -
[90]
The pirates, bears, empire warriors, low sec pvpers, and 0.0 alliances all seem to support this... It seems as though players have reached a rare thing in eve, a consensus.
Good work Becq, big thumbs up.
|
|
Mary Makepeace
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 12:26:00 -
[91]
nice idea.
|
ChronoLynx
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 13:20:00 -
[92]
Sometimes I wish I could remember; Sometimes I wish I could forget.
|
Cassini Huygens
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 13:58:00 -
[93]
|
Buggs
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 14:00:00 -
[94]
signed
|
Tryptic Photon
Mad Bombers Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:05:00 -
[95]
yep
|
Fish Mittens
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:13:00 -
[96]
Definite Support.
I really like the idea of allowing gate / station aggro to be extended by shooting at players doing station games.
I would settle for a simple extension to the current aggro timer (3-5 mins) however if it meant we would have a change sooner. Sick of risk free pvp on stations.
|
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:40:00 -
[97]
Supported.
If the change requires an RP excuse for the error text try;
"Docking Permission denied, your ships shields are in a state of disruption due to recent combat. Station authorities would prefer it if the spatial distortion surrounding your ship did not tear a hole in the station interior. Have a nice day!"
The Journal; Walking The Road To Liberation |
Terai Hantir
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:41:00 -
[98]
|
Tsubutai
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:45:00 -
[99]
.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
The Flying Tigers Elysium.
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 15:59:00 -
[100]
Docking games are poo - so most definitely yes.
The only thing I'd suggest adding (because from an immersion standpoint it's very cool) is that docking timers and the like from stations should be affected by the pilot's standing with the station owner and (in high sec and in some low sec stations) by sec status.
It makes sense that the Caldari Navy are going to cut some slack to the guy with the +9.5 standing with them and try and let him in faster if they can. He's a staunch ally after all.
Concord or the Spacelane patrol should probably think twice, even in low sec, from allowing some notorious -10 sec status pirate to dock.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
|
Futuro Warr
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:09:00 -
[101]
docking games are teh fail..... SUPPORTED
|
Lycastus
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:48:00 -
[102]
A simple and elegant solution, gets my full support.
Also, on the subject of the problem of being indefinitely held by someone whom you can't kill, while being unable to dock... I don't really see the problem. This can (and does) happen in asteroid belts all the time, and has never really been a serious problem before.
In such a case, if someone can't outrun/destroy/jam/damp/neut/persuade/bribe the person who is tackling them, or call for friends to do the same, then they must face the reality of the situation: they're doomed, and have the option of self destructing if their assailant can't/won't finish them off.
|
Shamisen
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:58:00 -
[103]
Good Stuff!
|
Layna Fraggs
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:03:00 -
[104]
./signed
Given the simplicity of this it should be on sisi on monday and shiped to TQ via hotfix on tuesday next week.
|
Dante Karaal
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:11:00 -
[105]
Excellent solution. |
Everseeker
United Corporate Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:39:00 -
[106]
I like this. I would add 1 thing though... the ability to "look out the window" It is truly unnerving to undock (with no scouts outside) and to see 10+ reds wave at you... then shoot while you scramble to hit the dock key (and pray you get back in b4 that wall-o-missles hit)
WHO designed the stations without them "transparent aluminum" panels???? EverSeeker |
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:49:00 -
[107]
Your solution does not fix the scenario you were complaining about in your original post.
Carriers repping a titan would not get an docking timer to start with so shooting the carrier would not extend timers in those cases.
A better solution would be for RR to get a docking timer ( 60 secs ) as aggression currently does.
Your solution is very bad, for reason some have pointed out. Once you fire on someone , if they have a scrambler you wont be able to leave ever. Your stuck there until downtime or until they run out of ammo if they dont have the dps to kill you or you kill them.
|
50K khouri
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 17:56:00 -
[108]
Supported, Nothing more boring than docking games tbh.
|
Seliah
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 18:41:00 -
[109]
Awesome proposal. I wish i had more than 2 thumbs !
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 18:50:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Dav Varan Your solution does not fix the scenario you were complaining about in your original post.
Carriers repping a titan would not get an docking timer to start with so shooting the carrier would not extend timers in those cases.
A better solution would be for RR to get a docking timer ( 60 secs ) as aggression currently does.
Your solution is very bad, for reason some have pointed out. Once you fire on someone , if they have a scrambler you wont be able to leave ever. Your stuck there until downtime or until they run out of ammo if they dont have the dps to kill you or you kill them.
This question was brought up, previously. The timer resets for as long as you have an aggression flag. Once the aggression flag drops (15 minutes) the docking timer no longer resets. Which means that 16 minutes after your last shot, you will be able to redock. Alternatively, you can logoffski and your emergency warp will occur 15 minutes after your last shot, shaving off and entire minute!
Regarding remote repair and aggression, it's possible I'm misunderstanding the current mechanics. I believe that repairing a ship that is aggression flagged (including, for example, a war target in empire space) gives you an aggression flags you against your target's opponents, thus allowing them to, for example, shoot at you for the next 15 minutes without risk of CONCORD.
Assuming this is true, then my suggestion mechanics will work as follows: 1) Ships A and B are fighting. 2) Ship C (otherwise neutral) begins to repair Ship B, thus getting an aggression flag with respect to Ship A. No timer is current set as no 'real' aggression has been made. 3) Ship A fires on Ship C. Since Ship C has flagged itself, it's docking timer is reset to 1 minute. 4) As long as Ship A continues to fire on Ship C, the timer will continue to reset, until 15 minutes after the last repair cycle Ship C makes.
It's been mentioned that ships in nullsec do not get aggression flags. I had thought that they got aggression flags but not criminal flags, and that the aggression flags were irrelevant in nullsec. If the current mechanics don't set an aggression flag in nullsec, then the simple solution might be to change that so that they do.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
|
Lunewraith
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 19:05:00 -
[111]
Simple change, seems easy to implement. Going to be desperately needed in the age of docking Supercapitals. Easily supported.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 19:32:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
Originally by: Dav Varan Your solution does not fix the scenario you were complaining about in your original post.
Carriers repping a titan would not get an docking timer to start with so shooting the carrier would not extend timers in those cases.
A better solution would be for RR to get a docking timer ( 60 secs ) as aggression currently does.
Your solution is very bad, for reason some have pointed out. Once you fire on someone , if they have a scrambler you wont be able to leave ever. Your stuck there until downtime or until they run out of ammo if they dont have the dps to kill you or you kill them.
This question was brought up, previously. The timer resets for as long as you have an aggression flag. Once the aggression flag drops (15 minutes) the docking timer no longer resets. Which means that 16 minutes after your last shot, you will be able to redock. Alternatively, you can logoffski and your emergency warp will occur 15 minutes after your last shot, shaving off and entire minute!
Regarding remote repair and aggression, it's possible I'm misunderstanding the current mechanics. I believe that repairing a ship that is aggression flagged (including, for example, a war target in empire space) gives you an aggression flags you against your target's opponents, thus allowing them to, for example, shoot at you for the next 15 minutes without risk of CONCORD.
Assuming this is true, then my suggestion mechanics will work as follows: 1) Ships A and B are fighting. 2) Ship C (otherwise neutral) begins to repair Ship B, thus getting an aggression flag with respect to Ship A. No timer is current set as no 'real' aggression has been made. 3) Ship A fires on Ship C. Since Ship C has flagged itself, it's docking timer is reset to 1 minute. 4) As long as Ship A continues to fire on Ship C, the timer will continue to reset, until 15 minutes after the last repair cycle Ship C makes.
It's been mentioned that ships in nullsec do not get aggression flags. I had thought that they got aggression flags but not criminal flags, and that the aggression flags were irrelevant in nullsec. If the current mechanics don't set an aggression flag in nullsec, then the simple solution might be to change that so that they do.
Currently - When you shoot someone there flag is reset to 15 minutes as well as yours iirc. Or I am I thinking of something else /me scratches head.
and yeah there are no aggression flags in null. to much calculations for the servers me thinks.
Realy even 15 minutes if its made to work like that is a bit much to have someone else dictate your own game experience. 1 minute should be fine for killin something if you have appropriate fp.
Its only RR'rs that can insta dock and its only RR'rs that need fixin imho.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 22:16:00 -
[113]
Great idea!
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 22:36:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Dav Varan Any docking timer should only occur at NPC stations.
An outpost is a very expensive corporate/alliance asset. As such it should be a position of strength to fight from.
An outpost should never refuse docking request from a member of its controlling corporation / alliance, live fire/ RR or whatever that pilot has been doing.
Can you imagine any means by which a large alliance (one that can field a sizeable capital fleet) could ever lose an outpost system, if the defenders can play capital fleet docking games with 100% free, nearly instant (30 second) repairs? Frankly, I see this as a far more important problem than the current docking games. High-sec docking games are boring and annoying. Sovereignty docking games will be (in my opinion) game-breaking.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Berendas
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 01:23:00 -
[115]
Supported with all my heart, this stupid mechanic is what has been keeping me out of empire wars. There's no reason for such a feature in the game and something must be done.
|
ragnarok92
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 02:52:00 -
[116]
Well thought out, balanced, and most importantly, do-able.
Supported
|
Aniel Zaar
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 07:49:00 -
[117]
Supported. Effective and simple, as all good solutions are. *-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^ |
Kura Accipter
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 14:04:00 -
[118]
Supporting this great idea
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:05:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Becq Starforged Can you imagine any means by which a large alliance (one that can field a sizeable capital fleet) could ever lose an outpost system, if the defenders can play capital fleet docking games with 100% free, nearly instant (30 second) repairs? Frankly, I see this as a far more important problem than the current docking games. High-sec docking games are boring and annoying. Sovereignty docking games will be (in my opinion) game-breaking.
Oh, that's easy. You stick 27 Titans outside the front door, and nuke any ship that pokes its head out, cap or no cap. It'd be like the camp of PR-, except you'd need a couple trillion of ships, and you'd have to do it for every single outpost you want to take. That sounds like fun, right?
|
Ffreyn Moonflower
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:31:00 -
[120]
fully support this solution
|
|
Corian Teranos
Critical Mass Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:54:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Becq Starforged SOLUTION Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows:
* So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
make an exemption for jamming and ecm bursts as these are primarily defensive measures used to stop someone from scrambling and do not deal any direct damage.
:Its all fun and games untill your logistics guy tries passive tanking his raven: |
Doomed Predator
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:45:00 -
[122]
Clear,simple and probably easy to implement. The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again |
Kombat PL
Beach Boys Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 21:00:00 -
[123]
|
James Grand
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 21:04:00 -
[124]
Simple, elegant solution. Not sure if it should really apply to gates as well though.
-------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed in my posts are entirely my own. |
FraXy
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 21:13:00 -
[125]
Edited by: FraXy on 21/11/2009 21:14:48 Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows: * So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
---------
On one side I hate docking games like most of Eve, but the gatecamp engager in me is screaming.
Jumping into chokepoints, engaging and killing X number of campers before de-aggressing and jumping out when the reinforcement blob arrives.
I have a ship capable of tanking 3 dreads worth of DPS. Jump into the typical gatecamp of 1 tackler, 2 Drakes and ofc the mandatory Falcon. End up sitting on the gate permajammed for 25 minutes while they bring in enough reinforcement to take me down.
Unable to get a lock due to Falcon. Unable to outrun the tackler. And the refreshing 1 minute timer that will not run down with the new mechanic. A less mobile sitting duck have not been seen in New Eden.
For station games i think the mechanic would work fairly well since you can't dock in the station and boobytrap the enemy pilot's hangar.
For gates i do not think the idea is well enough thought out as there is a way to lock down the hostile by 1 ship holding aggro and follow the jump.
Then again gatecampers would benefit from this as well, so..
Meh why not. Idea supported.
One man's junk is FraXy's choice of weapon to kill you with. |
SupaKudoRio
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 21:22:00 -
[126]
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 21/11/2009 21:23:44 ^ Bring in your own friends?
On another note, how do you like your pods in the morning? |
Spyra Gryra
Liberate te ex inferis
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 22:32:00 -
[127]
Supported
My corp and alliance are the very best pvpers in the entire history of video games. |
Carai an'Caldazar
Amarr Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 02:38:00 -
[128]
Originally by: FraXy Edited by: FraXy on 21/11/2009 21:14:48 Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows: * So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
---------
On one side I hate docking games like most of Eve, but the gatecamp engager in me is screaming.
Jumping into chokepoints, engaging and killing X number of campers before de-aggressing and jumping out when the reinforcement blob arrives.
I have a ship capable of tanking 3 dreads worth of DPS. Jump into the typical gatecamp of 1 tackler, 2 Drakes and ofc the mandatory Falcon. End up sitting on the gate permajammed for 25 minutes while they bring in enough reinforcement to take me down.
Unable to get a lock due to Falcon. Unable to outrun the tackler. And the refreshing 1 minute timer that will not run down with the new mechanic. A less mobile sitting duck have not been seen in New Eden.
For station games i think the mechanic would work fairly well since you can't dock in the station and boobytrap the enemy pilot's hangar.
For gates i do not think the idea is well enough thought out as there is a way to lock down the hostile by 1 ship holding aggro and follow the jump.
Then again gatecampers would benefit from this as well, so..
Meh why not. Idea supported.
I agree with much of above as my frame of reference appears very similar to the quoted poster... but my take on the situation...
Simple response to this would be... if you were in deep space and this was occurring, would the situation be acceptable by all parties (that is, deemed fair based on gaming mechanics)? I do not see why gates and stations should be safe havens for many, acting as a saving grace and tactical object in many situations.
The scenario far more relevant to me is flying a Guardian in an RR-BS gang using the gate as my de-aggressor when too much firepower is on me, in which I decloak and burn back to the gate, come back in, and get reps before the enemy can re-primary me. If I'm stuck on this side of the gate, I'm forced to use "non-session changing" game mechanics to find a way to survive or escape during a fight, rather than rely on get-out-of-fight-free methods due to no aggro from repping.
(already supported above but pro-fix) |
Dyphorus
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 06:27:00 -
[129]
Logging in just to give 100% support to this idea!!!
Simple fix, long overdue.
Keep up the good work OP.
|
Nuuskur
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 09:36:00 -
[130]
Agreed, this is imho, as perfect a solution as it can be.
Even the "but a player can be kept there indefinetly" issue is imho a non-issue. Just don't engage stuff you cannot kill. If you get caught in such a way then you seriously deserve it.
|
|
Arakidias
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 09:37:00 -
[131]
Gets my vote. C'mon CCP, even PIE and CVA is supporting a UK proposal :D
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 10:16:00 -
[132]
No.
It does NOT solve the problem of boring gameplay (ie. station camps) and benefits an aggressor far more than his victim/client.
Counter Solution: - Disallow use of any offensive module/drone within docking range of station. - Make RR count as full PvP aggro (ie. an offensive module). - Disallow static/anchored bubbles covering docking ports.
What this does: - Prevents the lagtastic constant skirmishes outside Empire hub stations. - Prevents RR gayness at docking ports. - Prevents RR gayness jumping gates when targeted. - Removes neutral RR gayness in high-sec/low-sec. - Removes permanent camps of stations. Still possible but you have to risk at least tackling ships. - Gives 0.0 station defenders ability to get out and engage in 'proper' combat, provided they can clear the docking tackle.
Meets your goal and solves a whole heap of issues associated with it on top.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 10:26:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Corian Teranos
Originally by: Becq Starforged SOLUTION Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows:
* So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
make an exemption for jamming and ecm bursts as these are primarily defensive measures used to stop someone from scrambling and do not deal any direct damage.
That might work. ECM ship might not be scramming, but a buddy might be. I'm all for an ECM boost though.
And OP, I was in awe of your posting. 7 |
Peryner
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 11:10:00 -
[134]
Mothermoon says: do this now, seriously.
|
George Mccloud
Helljumpers
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 11:31:00 -
[135]
|
App Olonur
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 11:33:00 -
[136]
Full support. I also liked the idea of timers being based on standing, but if that slows down implementation, just apply the proposed fix.
|
Chi Garu
Vampyre Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 12:47:00 -
[137]
I like this idea!
|
Jondo Marikesh
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 13:27:00 -
[138]
/signed
|
Gon Im
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 13:36:00 -
[139]
/signed
|
Equinox II
Nex Exercitus IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:50:00 -
[140]
|
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:39:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida YES
Additional Solution: - Disallow use of any offensive module/drone within docking range of station. - Make RR count as full PvP aggro (ie. an offensive module). - Disallow static/anchored bubbles covering docking ports.
What this does: - Prevents the lagtastic constant skirmishes outside Empire hub stations. - Prevents RR gayness at docking ports. - Prevents RR gayness jumping gates when targeted. - Removes neutral RR gayness in high-sec/low-sec. - Removes permanent camps of stations. Still possible but you have to risk at least tackling ships. - Gives 0.0 station defenders ability to get out and engage in 'proper' combat, provided they can clear the docking tackle.
Meets your goal and solves a whole heap of issues associated with it on top.
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:16:00 -
[142]
-omg-
|
small chimp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:20:00 -
[143]
I thought ccp was encouraging people for docking games? It seems they think that its exciting and good gaming!
|
Bodhisattvas
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 01:31:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Bodhisattvas on 23/11/2009 01:31:16
|
lylaal
NED-Clan Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:54:00 -
[145]
this would indeed fix alot of issues.
no more carrier ********* so you can actually start a fight and have 1 side win instead if 1 side just docking up and laughing.
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:03:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Plaetean on 23/11/2009 11:05:10 Wow, terrible idea, and I'm amazed to see so many people supporting it. Has the general consensus over eve changed that much since I played regularly?
This would remove a massive tactical element from the gameplay; the moment you agress anything you're 100% stuck in that system/situation till the fight is over and either you or the guys agressing you are dead, now either people are failing to understand that and how serious a change it would be, or you seem to think its a good idea (which it is not).
All it would mean is that people are EVEN LESS likely to fight in small gangs, due to being stuck and totally vulnerable to larger gangs the moment they enagage anything. There would be no such thing as a retreat, and fights would generally end in one side being 100% obliterated assuming people are competant with points; as there's no other way for the fight to end. This would especially be the case in situations where you're fighting people near their 'home', they can keep trickling in greater numbers until you simply become overwhelmed.
Solo pvp is dead, small gang pvp is on its way, and now you want to make anyone who fights on a gate stuck there until he's killed the entire other gang?
Jesus.
Edit: This is also especially insane as all you need to do is make stations spit outs by default.
-----
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:13:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Nuuskur Agreed, this is imho, as perfect a solution as it can be.
Even the "but a player can be kept there indefinetly" issue is imho a non-issue. Just don't engage stuff you cannot kill. If you get caught in such a way then you seriously deserve it.
Don't engage a gang unless you're sure you can kill the entire other gang before help arrives? And you think this is a good change for pvp? Words can't describe the facepalm.
-----
|
Fransua
Universal Exports Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:45:00 -
[148]
|
Tappits
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:24:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Becq Starforged SOLUTION
The basic mechanic that needs to be modified is the docking/gate timer, which prevents performing those actions within a minute after the last aggressive act was committed. A common suggestion has been to simply increase the docking time, but that is a bad solution for two reasons. First, unless the timer is fairly long, it doesn't address the issue of capital ship docking games, especially the lowsec version, where the capital ship has plenty of time to de-aggro and dock. Second, the longer the time is, the more irritating it will be to legitimate attempts to dock or use a gate, for example after a fight is finished.
Here is a better solution:
Quote: Very simply, the timers that control station docking and gate jumping after aggression should be modified as follows: * So long as a ship does not commit an aggressive act (weapons, drones, EW, remote repair of a combatant, etc), no timer applies to docking or gate use (beyond the usual session change limits). * If a ship acts in an aggressive manner, that ship gains the usual aggression flag, and the station/gate timer is set to one minute. Until the timer runs out, the ship cannot dock or use gates. * Once flagged, any hostile act whether it's by the ship in question or against it will reset the station/gate timer to the full one minute.
That third bullet point represents the change in a nutshell. Let me clarify that point:
Currently, the timer to enter the station or jump through a gate resets itself each time you attack, and only runs down if you abstain from attacking for the duration of the timer. So if you stop attacking for a short time, you can re-enter the station regardless of what your opponents do. What I'm suggesting is that the station timer be reset any time you fire OR any time someone fires on you, so long as you have an aggression flag active to them.
This means that if you leave a station and see a camp there, you can still dock again so long as you hold your fire. But once you return fire, you are committing yourself to the fight, and the station will not shelter you if you fare poorly. If this happens, you still have the option to flee away from the station (assuming you aren't scrambled or can outrun your pursuers), and if you can avoid combat until the station/gate timer runs down, you can return to the station and dock. It also means that as long as you are flagged (aggression flag, not the station/gate timer), you will regain the full station/gate time if anyone you are flagged to fires on you. It also means that if you hold fire long enough for your aggression flag to expire, you are free to dock or jump even if you are attacked again on the way.
In short, this is not an nerf, it simply plugs a hole in the game system to prevent exploiting a technicality to engage in fights with zero risk.
Constructive criticism or other comments are welcome.
This is a realy Good idea 100% love it, that is all. ---------------------------------------------- I fail At forums ٩๏̯͡๏)۶ |
Mynxee
Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:36:00 -
[150]
Docking games are maddening. I like how this proposal pushes commitment to the fight but doesn't seem to force it on those who don't aggress in the first place.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:51:00 -
[151]
I support this idea for stations but not for gates. The simple reason is that you have the option to put tacklers on the other side of a gate should the target try to de-agress and jump out but until there is a "bribe Scotty" option there isn't anything to stop them docking, repairing and undocking again in seconds.
Originally by: Plaetean This would remove a massive tactical element from the gameplay; the moment you agress anything you're 100% stuck in that system/situation till the fight is over and either you or the guys agressing you are dead, now either people are failing to understand that and how serious a change it would be, or you seem to think its a good idea (which it is not).
I agree this is the outcome for gate fights should this station concept be applied to gates.
Not only do you have the option to put tackle on the other side of the gate, but there isn't any instant repping ability with gates to prolong the fight.
Leave gates out of this change.
Originally by: Plaetean Edit: This is also especially insane as all you need to do is make stations spit outs by default.
That is an even worse idea as it promotes lazy bubblecamping of stations. Just have enough dps in station/outside to pop a BS in under 1 minute. Yes you can argue they shouldn't undock without intel and that is a fair point, but lets not give people more reason to play station games
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
CombatSmurf
Digital assassins
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:56:00 -
[152]
oO-b /////
Whats the similarity between having sex in a canoe and drinking american beer?
Its ****ing close to water. |
Halaxi
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:23:00 -
[153]
Seems a pretty sound, simple idea.
Another idea could be for CCP to sort it so that you are out of docking range as soon as you undock (read: fix the silly docking ranges on some stations). Lets see them try docking games when they end up 5km from the happy spot...
Hal.
|
Isan'na
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:36:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Halaxi
Another idea could be for CCP to sort it so that you are out of docking range as soon as you undock (read: fix the silly docking ranges on some stations). Lets see them try docking games when they end up 5km from the happy spot...
Problem is, this would tilt the balance in favor of pirates camping a station, so it's a less elegant solution than the op's idea. You pop out, they scramble/web, and you've got a *long* crawl back to safety. On the other hand, the discussed solution nerfs docking games while still preserving the capacity to disengage if not aggressing in the first place.
Overall, supported for stations, not for gates.
|
Turelle
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:01:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Turelle on 23/11/2009 17:04:00 Simple, effective. I'm supporting this. But only if it applies to stations rather than gates as the reasons for that have been said before.
|
Lucias Trask
Divine Power.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:36:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Dav Varan Your solution does not fix the scenario you were complaining about in your original post.
Carriers repping a titan would not get an docking timer to start with so shooting the carrier would not extend timers in those cases.
A better solution would be for RR to get a docking timer ( 60 secs ) as aggression currently does.
Your solution is very bad, for reason some have pointed out. Once you fire on someone , if they have a scrambler you wont be able to leave ever. Your stuck there until downtime or until they run out of ammo if they dont have the dps to kill you or you kill them.
Did you even read the thread? Or at least think through the OP? Its been explained before so i wont bother, but seriously, read and understand, then post. [PANIC] |
Lucias Trask
Divine Power.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:47:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Plaetean Edited by: Plaetean on 23/11/2009 11:05:10 Wow, terrible idea, and I'm amazed to see so many people supporting it. Has the general consensus over eve changed that much since I played regularly?
This would remove a massive tactical element from the gameplay; the moment you agress anything you're 100% stuck in that system/situation till the fight is over and either you or the guys agressing you are dead, now either people are failing to understand that and how serious a change it would be, or you seem to think its a good idea (which it is not).
All it would mean is that people are EVEN LESS likely to fight in small gangs, due to being stuck and totally vulnerable to larger gangs the moment they enagage anything. There would be no such thing as a retreat, and fights would generally end in one side being 100% obliterated assuming people are competant with points; as there's no other way for the fight to end. This would especially be the case in situations where you're fighting people near their 'home', they can keep trickling in greater numbers until you simply become overwhelmed.
Solo pvp is dead, small gang pvp is on its way, and now you want to make anyone who fights on a gate stuck there until he's killed the entire other gang?
Jesus.
Edit: This is also especially insane as all you need to do is make stations spit outs by default.
Dock ***ging is not a 'tactical element' besides, there have been plenty of times I have engaged targets, more warped in, and we GTFO without using a gate.
You see I call it a system scanner. I spam it, and when suddenly a horde of intys, hics and dictors shows up on it, i usually call out "GTFO!!" and then we warp away.
Sometimes someone gets stuck, cause he wasn't aligned like he should have been... and then he dies, and we make fun of him mercilessly for days. Sometimes that someone is me. [PANIC] |
Barqs
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:58:00 -
[158]
I really like this option, brings back the fight only if you think you can win stuff. Barqs-
|
Cire XIII
Ever Flow Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:26:00 -
[159]
.
|
Arcane Azmadi
First Flying Wing Inc Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:57:00 -
[160]
Excellent suggestion. Supported.
|
|
Digger One
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:51:00 -
[161]
Having been living in NPC 0.0 I can't but to support this proposal.
This should have been implemented a long time ago, even without the upcoming sov changes.
+1 to Op
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:14:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Barqs I really like this option, brings back the fight only if you think you can win stuff. Barqs-
Why on earth would you think thats a good idea for pvp?
-----
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:22:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Lucias Trask Dock ***ging is not a 'tactical element' besides, there have been plenty of times I have engaged targets, more warped in, and we GTFO without using a gate.
You see I call it a system scanner. I spam it, and when suddenly a horde of intys, hics and dictors shows up on it, i usually call out "GTFO!!" and then we warp away.
Well I for one have heard of something called a warp disruptor, and I have also heard of something called engaging a gang the same size or even perhaps bigger than yours, in which situation your gang would for the most part be pointed. All this 'solution' would do is remove even more opportunity for a close and even sided fight; as people in this thread have repeatedly pointed out, people would only enagage if they are sure to win.
And yes, docking and especially jumping gates are by definition, tactical elements of the gameplay. It just seems to me the people supporting this idea are fed up with having to use tactics themselves, and would rather their targets are pinned for them purely by the fact they engage.
-----
|
idimmu69
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:46:00 -
[164]
supported & about time
|
Don Pellegrino
Helljumpers
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:47:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
Originally by: Don Pellegrino The only thing I don't like is that sometimes you will land 800-1300 meters off a station, so you have to approach it before being able to dock and a frigate (especially an inty) could easily agress you, thus preventing you to dock.
Not at all. If you have no aggression flag, you never get a timer in the first place. You only get a timer (and an aggression flag) if you make an aggressive act, and you timer is only reset if you attack or are attacked while you still are flagged.
My bad, seems like I misunderstood.
|
Finger Puppet
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:51:00 -
[166]
This is a well needed change. With regards to having a blob wait one or two systems over for you or your gang to agress, more emphasis should be places on intel. Maybe you could buy a system scan from inside station indicating blues neuts and reds upto a number of jumps away?
|
grant manson
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:57:00 -
[167]
i think its a great solution and well balanced
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:37:00 -
[168]
This should win the simplest and most elegant award ever. I fully support this combat. It will change the game drastically into a much better battlefield.
|
Arengor
Glittering Dust Wild Hunt.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:27:00 -
[169]
Exelent solution! |
Nico Terces
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:53:00 -
[170]
|
|
Mookuh
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 11:08:00 -
[171]
I like the idea of nerfing docking-games, but giving people the option to keep the enemy comitted until one side is destroyed or has warped off(though realistically, you aren't going to get away in a battleship...) has a far too large impact on the game.
You wouldn't engage unless you can assure you can win the fight at hand.... which is hard to tell, given that the enemy can Cyno-in at will (in lowsec) or have a legion of repping alts (in high-sec).
In Nullsec, the problem of carriers re-docking is marginalized by the fact that 20+ Dreads will be able to annihilate a carrier in around 3-4 volleys, and a Titan will even be able to instantly kill one of them. If you're going up against a sizeable force of carriers and a titan with less than 20 dreads, you're probably screwed, yes, which is mitigated by the fact that the Titan costs 60Bil (uninsureable) vs. the 200Mil+fitting cost of a dread.
Carriers that don't agress and just rep are a problem without a Titan of your own, so giving ships agression for remote-repping should definately be looked into.
Also, the HP buff to all ships, and the introduction of rigs (and Abaddons ) has amplified this problem, so maybe enlengthening the dock/jump timer because of these unadressed consequences of these changes are in-order.
There's just too many downfalls to being able to refresh someone else's aggro timer to make it a good addition to the game....
------------------------------------------------
Terry 'Mookuh' Hijakosji CAIN Public Relations |
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:57:00 -
[172]
Supported.
HTFU indeed :) -=-=-=-=- Reformed Carebear.
Much bear, zero care. -=-=-=-=- |
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:17:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Emrys Ap'Morgravaine Supported.
HTFU indeed :)
More like STFU, until you can learn to read a thread.
-----
|
Zenethalos
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:01:00 -
[174]
SUPPORT!
|
foksieloy
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:34:00 -
[175]
Edited by: foksieloy on 24/11/2009 18:36:15 This man speaks the truth.
Although i would opt not to have this on gates, would make harassment of hostile territory harder.
|
Pian Shu
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:59:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Pian Shu on 24/11/2009 23:59:37 I'm totally for this; in fact, I suggested it here.
Really, it's genius. And it would solve so many issues. Don't want to engage? Fine, don't. Want to engage? Good, engage all the way.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:01:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Mookuh I like the idea of nerfing docking-games, but giving people the option to keep the enemy comitted until one side is destroyed or has warped off(though realistically, you aren't going to get away in a battleship...) has a far too large impact on the game.
I guess I'm not sure I understand this point of view in a game in which warp disruptors exist. If I'm, for example, ratting in a belt in nullsec (and not paying attention to local, which is a regularly enforced capital crime!) and a hostile lands near my and points me, then I am locked in combat until I blow up or blow him up (or drive him off if I'm carebearing with no point). And in this case, I don't even get a chance to 'commit' by aggressing; I'm locking into combat for the second the hostile acquires a lock on me.
In light of that, why do you feel it's particularly heavy-handed to create mechanics that are less severe at stations? Allowing a pointed ship to escape by docking even after being pointed (so long as they haven't themselves aggressed) is pretty mild by comparison. Allowing them to dock 'at will' with a minute's lead time seems overly easy by comparison.
And by the way, even after aggressing, you are no more 'locked in combat' by this mechanic than you are at that belt. If you are in a fast ship, or if you have the right kind of EW, or if you have some support from ships with the right kind of EW (which could include webs, damps, ECM, or even a warp scram to shut off the hostile's MWD) then you can break their point and warp away normally.
TL;DR: if you think this mechanic is too severe, compare it to being pointed at a belt.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:15:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Plaetean on 25/11/2009 00:27:08
Originally by: Becq Starforged TL;DR: if you think this mechanic is too severe, compare it to being warp scrambled at a belt.
Which is why I don't start fights I can't definitely win in a belt or at a planet. However the majority of pvp in eve happens at gates, and the point is this change would extend that situation to gates and stations as well, which is a bad idea because it means more blobbing, less willingness to engage, more falcon alts etc and more general ***gotry that sucks the fun out of pvp in the first place.
Edit: Just try and imagine for a second how much harder this would make engaging a larger gang, especially in hostile territory. Now I'm aware that is a concept that is totally unfamiliar to the vast majority of eve, but some people don't enjoy being a part of blobs, and especially don't enjoy having to avoid a fight purely because the other side brought more numbers. All this change would do, especially for the gates side of things, is make that situation even harder to manage for the smaller side. Then again perhaps that is the motivation for supporting this change, if that is the case, it makes me sad to see so many supporting it.
-----
|
Dah' Khanid
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:34:00 -
[179]
A very nice and smooth solution to what has been an annoying feature for years now.
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:34:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Plaetean on 25/11/2009 00:35:28
Originally by: Pian Shu Edited by: Pian Shu on 24/11/2009 23:59:37 I'm totally for this; in fact, I suggested it here. Don't want to engage? Fine, don't.
People won't; congratulations, you just killed all of pvp. It's hard enough getting people to engage on remotely close numbers as it is even on a station, and after 1-2 bait -> ganks it'll become totally pointless.
The amount of idiocy and self contradiction on these forums is honestly mind blowing.
-----
|
|
Draahk Chimera
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 05:36:00 -
[181]
While I dont think docking games will be a huge problem in Dominion station ping-pong (have you seen how fast someone dies in a 150 vs 150?) I do think that docking games is broken and a fix is well overdue.
Note that I think this mechanic should only apply to stations. An rrbs fleet who is loosing badly should still be able to save some guys by deaggro and jump. |
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 06:15:00 -
[182]
dumb idea. Firstly because you slyly included remote rep aggro in there.
Remote repping anywhere should not prevent you from docking or using gates - logistic ships have a hard enough time surviving as is.
Secondly, the biggest problem I have with war targets is them docking and NOT undocking, or docking and redocking before they engage. This doesn't solve that problem. Once you leave station, you should be dedicated to the situation. And there should be a timer immediately applied if anyone engages you, whether or not you engaged them.
Stations shouldn't be seen as santuary, but as a place to put your ****. that's it.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (or just stayed docked)
Not supported without an extended timer for any engagement. |
Chen Liang
Destroyer Destruction Eternus Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 10:22:00 -
[183]
/sign --
"Sometimes it is better to be lucky than smart". |
Mohenna
Caldari Knights of the Dark
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:55:00 -
[184]
Supported. I'd love to see the face on the dumbasses while they try to understand what's going on to their timer. How do I get the thumbs up icon on the left?
|
Hilder
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:34:00 -
[185]
One of the most annoying things about the PvP mechanics for sure!
/signed
|
Mookuh
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 13:56:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Becq Starforged TL;DR: if you think this mechanic is too severe, compare it to being warp scrambled at a belt.
The situations are not compareable, really. If I'm tackled at a belt, I am a) not very smart as I had enough of warning seeing you in the local channel and b) in a PvE ship, so not able to fight back with too much efficency (though if I'm ratting in 0.0, I'll have some means to try and break away)
If I engage at the station, I am willing to enter risk, however, the proposed changes would increase that risk to a degree that'd be bad for the game, e.g. noone would engage unless they can be sure to win. And with cynos (CovOps Cynos for jammed 0.0 systems), neutral repping alts and whatnot, making that sure is nigh impossible.
Currently, engagements on a station have pros and cons for the attacker and the defender. The attacker... ... can dictate the range. You can get your E-War into proper position, keep your lighter ships out of web range etc., while the defender is forced to have his entire fleet sit at the same spot. ...has the Initiative. You can roam around with the intent to horribly gank someone with having a bunch of capitals/neutral rep alts on standby, but you don't really have a swarm of similar ship ready to jump in as soon as a hostile enters local (unless you're a large, well organized 0.0 alliance)
The defender... ... has ships to match the enemy fleet in stock (ideally) ... can retreat into the station if the enemy can't break him in time(though note that the attack might aswell dock, unless it's a 0.0 outpost, whichshould favour the defender anyway) ... doesn't need to warp in, which takes a while.
Taking most advantages of the defender away while doing nothing for the attacker would imbalance this unhealthily
These proposed changes would lead to an immense increase in the usage of new "guaranteed-success" tactics, amplifying into making a cap-fleet on standby or a good amount of neutral reppers mandatory if you want to engage and stand a chance of winning. It would serve to further the usage of massive blobs. Which, given that Titans are losing their AoE DD, will be prevailent in the upcoming future, moreso than before.
------------------------------------------------
Terry 'Mookuh' Hijakosji CAIN Public Relations |
davet517
Raata Invicti Undivided
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:47:00 -
[187]
Not good.
The system as proposed is vulnerable to being exploited with logonski attacks. I undock, you shoot at me, I shoot at you, then your five buddies log on, e-warp to the station, and I'm toast.
You could fix this and make it more viable, though still somewhat vulnerable to logonskis if you made it so that my timer resets and I cannot dock as long as someone THAT I AGRESSED is still shooting at me.
That way, in the scenario above. I undock, you undock, I shoot at you, you shoot at me, your five buddies logonski, my five buddies undock and pop you, or I pop you myself. I dock.
Yes? ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out. |
Shemmy
7th Space Cavalry
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 20:23:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Shemmy on 25/11/2009 20:26:27 Gains a thumb from me.
Edit - still keeping my thumb, but the idea above my post is very very good.
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 21:31:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Mohenna Supported. I'd love to see the face on the dumbasses while they try to understand what's going on to their timer. How do I get the thumbs up icon on the left?
Not until you learn to read.
-----
|
Slave 775
Ministry of Punishment Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:09:00 -
[190]
I have to agree with this minmatar terrorist.
Centuries ago, the Bible warned of dangers posed by evil men described as master[s] at evil ideas and scheming to do bad. (Proverbs 24:8) PRIVATEERS Officialy nerfed by CCP 05/07 |
|
Beau Heem
Cool Ninjas of Awesome Ownage Suomi Finland Perkele
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:48:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Beau Heem on 26/11/2009 00:48:28 I have mixed feelings about the "simple solution approach" to this problem. Docking games most definitely constitute problem that needs to be solved or, rather, should've been solved ages ago. "Gate jumping games" are not such a problem as they should - as someone mentioned - be taken into consideration by both sides of a potential fight anyway.
However similar the docking game problem is on paper in empire as in null sec, I claim that the situation cannot be solved in both with a single change in game mechanics.
Disregarding the empire side due to not coming up with any great ideas (perhaps the OP's suggestion works fine there): in 0.0 the owner of a station should have serious advantageS [sic] to the attacking forces, and IMHO the docking game approach is a part of this advantage (unless ofc the owner lets the attacker dock, too
So, for small stuff, stick with the existing game mechanics, please.
But then the big BUT: Large or gigantic camps on dwellings are called sieges. A siege is a way to deprive the inhabitants of a dwelling of new resources (food, water, energy, and what-not) as well as waste disposal (causing diseases etc.).
As regards the docking game, my 0.0 proposal would consist of 1) not changing the current mechanics in day-to-day gameplay (or maybe change the timer from 60 to, say, 120secs), i.e. small and medium-sized fights would need to take place elsewhere unless the other side wishes to let the station owners dock at will (after 60secs) 2) implementing "station siege" where a significant attacking force could disable station services by keeping energy and nutrition from coming to the station. After besieging a station over a CONSIDERABLE time with a CONSIDERABLE power, the station services (such as repair facilities and clone upgrades - I'm sure all 0.0 dwellers have jump clones somewhere) would one by one cease to function, making docking games a practical impossibility. A smaller force could besiege a station, too, but then it would take longer for the station services to fail (r-click a station when in appropriate proximity of it, choose "siege", or "whatever the term once my vocabulary gets fixed", and the size and amount of the besieging ships could determine how long it takes for station services to fail. 3)Once a station is sieged up to an extent, it will be impossible for ANYONE to dock at the besieged station attempting to do so gives out the msg "Running out of food and water, go find your destiny elsewhere" (pod pilots constituting only a disappearing percentage of the inhabitants of a station, this would be rather appropriate). Undocking is possible at all times, ofc - thus making a call backup+undock combo a good way to counter the siege. 4)the player stations really do need windows (but not ones that directly tell how many ships there are, make 'em poor besieged count 'em manually...). 5)once a siege is over - no matter if the station ownership changes as a result of the event if other station ownership change requirements are met - the owner of the station can hasten the renewal of the station services' operation by bringing in "station revitalizing stuff" that could be sold, for example, at nearby NPC stations during and after a siege (and disappearing so that it cannot be stacked "just in case", or some other way of making this idea feasible).
I support the OP in the short term - the original idea seems a whole lot easier (read: faster) to implement, but as mentioned by critiques in this thread, it has its downsides, too.
I sure hope I like my idea tomorrow
B A thread a day keeps podkillers at bay |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 08:47:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Lusulpher on 26/11/2009 08:47:26
Originally by: Plaetean
Originally by: Nuuskur Agreed, this is imho, as perfect a solution as it can be.
Even the "but a player can be kept there indefinetly" issue is imho a non-issue. Just don't engage stuff you cannot kill. If you get caught in such a way then you seriously deserve it.
Don't engage a gang unless you're sure you can kill the entire other gang before help arrives! And you think this is a good change for pvp? Words can't describe the facepalm.
This is the point. You commit, when you commit, you can guerrilla all you want just don't expect to do so in the shadow of a station and be fine.
This is the new law for pirates, wardeccers and cowards.
Ever heard of a siege? Someone corners your group and you all hold up as long as you can, but eventually you have to go outside and fight to the last man, or scatter in all directions, or stay docked and cry.
Bring enough ECM and an FC and your guys can get away. But the winner will not be decided by who can squeeze back through the castle walls before they get hit with a calvary charge.
RL, look it up sometime. Under "War is Hell." Undocking is still consent. HTFU
7 |
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 14:18:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Plaetean on 26/11/2009 14:27:12
Originally by: Lusulpher
Bring enough ECM and an FC and your guys can get away. But the winner will not be decided by who can squeeze back through the castle walls before they get hit with a calvary charge.
RL, look it up sometime. Under "War is Hell." Undocking is still consent. HTFU
best be trolling, especially with the classic real life analogies 'fight to the last man!' 'cavalry charge!', 'war is hell'. This is a game; its not a cavalry charge, its a blob. Fight to the last man = get ganked. War is hell = pvp is **** (thanks to this change), and has about as much relevance to real life as your post does to fixing docking games.
'bring enough ECM', so we want falcons online back already? And you have totally missed the point about only engaging if you're guaranteed to win. Both sides can't be guaranteed to win the fight, so where the **** do the fights come from. But anyway at least you have confirmed my point that people supporting this change are the people who do not want fights in the first place, but want a quick gank with their massive blob of thundering ******s (the cavalry charge you were referring to, not quite as poetic but far more accurate) so they can get back to their business of pretending to be in a castle or farming the fields or whatever it is you think you're doing.
But anyway its all a waste of breath until you can learn to distinguish between a game and real life, and not make game design changes based on situations in real life warfare.
|
Foolish Bob
The Interim In Tea We Trust
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 16:33:00 -
[194]
Before we get to it, let's just clear up some of the language and misconceptions that are muddying this.
Aggression Timer This is the 15 min timer you get when you perform an act that is deemed aggressive to a third party. This includes attacking him directly, or else aiding someone with whom he is currently egressed. THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE. They just don't show it in 0.0. There is an amusing exploit you can test this with - aggress someone in 0.0 on a lowsec gate and both jump through (once Primary Aggression (see below) has cleared). Engage your target again and gate guns ignore you because you are continuing aggression, not starting new aggression. (old bug is old and is bound to be fixed eventually, and it may not always happen, so make sure you test with something that doesn't insta pop)
Primary Aggression This is the 1 min timer you get when you perform an aggressive act on another party, ie weapons(/drones), scram or ewar. It is impossible to dock or jump a gate with primary aggression. REMOTE REPAIR OF A TARGET DOES NOT GIVE YOU PRIMARY AGGRESSION.
The OP has proposed the following: Once primary aggression is acquired, the timer can be reset by committing primary aggression on the initial aggressor
The naysayers response is summarized as:
- OMG I have to risk my ship in combat. NOWAI THAT SUXXORZ!!eleventyone!
- If I undock then I won't be able to dock again it's not fair!!
The second fear is valid, but misunderstands the aggression mechanic as described above. As long as you do not aggress you will always be able to redock in docking range after 30 seconds.
In order to make the first point, people say such things as "Oh but what if you aggress something and can't kill it - it just keeps you there till his friends arrive from 20 jumps away." If you're aggressing something you can't kill, though, Darwin REQUIRES that you loose your ship at the very least. If you undocked and there was a small fleet outside which you drove off apart from a tackler, well, then the same applies unless you have friends. If you can't find friends to help you kill or drive off a single tackler in the time it takes people to come 10-20 jumps (ie at LEAST 10-20 minutes) then you're playing the wrong game. If you want to play by yourself then can I recommend Privateer: Elite 2, or one of its more recent descendants.
As initially proposed the OP's idea would not stop carriers repping a titan from re-docking when they got aggro unless RR was counted as primary aggression, and there's a valid debate to be had about that. In all other ways, forcing someone to commit to their act of aggression instead of hiding behind a docking mechanic to mitigate the risk to his ship can only be a good thing.
Bear in mind that the trap works both ways too - you undock your bait ship and reapproach the station remaining unaggressed. They open up on you, and your fleet undocks and pins them to the very wall they were pressing you against, allowing you to totally destroy them rather than just 1 or 2 that can't dock before their primary aggression expires.
There's no way that this is a bad thing ----------- I am me. I am not the corp I've joined nor the alliance I fly in.
I'm also not a unique and special snowflake.
Everything I say should be taken in that context. |
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 18:47:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Plaetean on 26/11/2009 18:51:30 Getting so sick of repeating the same stuff, but here we go again.
Originally by: Foolish Bob
If you're aggressing something you can't kill, though, Darwin REQUIRES that you loose your ship at the very least.
I don't give a flying **** about Darwin, that has absolutely no relevance as we're discussing game mechanics here and what is best for the state of the game.
Originally by: Foolish BoB
If you can't find friends to help you kill or drive off a single tackler in the time it takes people to come 10-20 jumps (ie at LEAST 10-20 minutes) then you're playing the wrong game.
Its not about a single tackler, its about your gang being stuck unable to either jump or dock to avoid an incoming blob. You're advocating the removal of any tactical retreat from pvp, therefore favouring pure escalation of numbers over any thought and planning (it becomes irrelevant as there's no way to avoid getting blobbed). There's no such thing as 'lets go and see if we can get a fight, if they blob us, we can always reapproach and deagro to split their numbers or get out', there's just 'if they blob us, we lose our ships'. Thanks for demonstrating that in the bit I quoted; the only options left are to either not engage, or to get more numbers. I'm saying this is a bad thing for pvp. I don't like flying in large gangs, I don't like their structure of the fc basically playing a rts and everyone else sitting there like a moron simply following orders. And as a result, I don't want to be forced into flying large gangs by people looking for some free and easy bait n ganks.
Originally by: Foolish BoB
In all other ways, forcing someone to commit to their act of aggression instead of hiding behind a docking mechanic to mitigate the risk to his ship can only be a good thing.
No, see above for full details.
Originally by: Foolish Bob
Bear in mind that the trap works both ways too - you undock your bait ship and reapproach the station remaining unaggressed. They open up on you, and your fleet undocks and pins them to the very wall they were pressing you against, allowing you to totally destroy them rather than just 1 or 2 that can't dock before their primary aggression expires.
This bit actually made me laugh, as all you are doing here is complaining about the inneffectiveness of blobbing someone because they can just dock up on you. There was a time in eve when trying to boost the strength of the numbers game was a bad thing, I guess those days are over and the reign of the tactless morons has long since begun.
-----
|
Foolish Bob
Caldari The Interim In Tea We Trust
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 13:15:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Plaetean
I don't give a flying **** about Darwin, that has absolutely no relevance as we're discussing game mechanics here and what is best for the state of the game.
Sorry, but in a game that actively promotes survival of the fittest, Darwin has no relevance?!? Oh my god are you playing the wrong game. Hello Kitty is that way, sir -------> Failing that give me isk and I'll give you 10x back. Darwin has no relevance to the game mechanics. I mean come on! Really?
Just because you're incapable of seeing any tactics for strategic retreat or splitting forces other than jumping gates or docking, doesn't mean the rest of us are so limited, and frankly if you took even 1 tenth of 1 second to check on killboards and realise what my background is you might consider that I'm not wholly inexperienced in the theatre of small gang work. There is almost not a single kill that my gangs get that is on a station because docking games bore me to the extent I rarely bother. All of the fights I get then are at gates or belts, in ships which don't have the luxury of tanking 20 man fleets for 1 minute in order to jump through in systems where I couldn't dock at the station even if there was one to dock in, and yet here you are ranting about how your favourite toy would be taken cruelly from you and that there'd be nothing but blob warfare left. Well, having just last week turned back not 1 but 2 40-50 man BS fleets with a fleet of 10 frigates and 4-5 support (no prizes for guessing which frigs) I can tell you that there is plenty of non blob fun to be had still in this game. If you truly can't see that then you have my pity.
The reason you keep having to repeat yourself is that we utterly refute the central thesis of your objection, as I just did once more. Merely repeating it ad nauseum won't suddenly make you right. If it truly is your contention that docking games are the ONLY means of prosecuting the kind of warfare you favour, the burden lies on you show that there are no other tactics to try to make your point.
The axiom of this argument is that docking games, as defined by undocking aggressing a target in the hope of an opportunistic kill and redocking before the dps of any support can break you is not big and not clever and requires exactly as much skill as that required to pick your nose without giving yourself a lobotomy. We here (if the other supporters will allow me the liberty) consider it to be too close to consensual PVP which goes against the very essence of what EVE stands for.
Unless you have a new argument to put to espouse your theory that docking games are the ONLY way of controlling the battle space whilst outnumbered, your options pretty much are to repeat failed arguments again, concede, or (and something tells me, perhaps unfairly, that this would be your preference) try and argue against the premise of the axiom I defined.
Which it is I leave to you. ----------- I am me. I am not the corp I've joined nor the alliance I fly in.
I'm also not a unique and special snowflake.
Everything I say should be taken in that context. |
Evanga
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 13:22:00 -
[197]
Fully supported!
|
Chilton Haynes
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 00:29:00 -
[198]
Aye
|
Hashin Kyojin
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 01:11:00 -
[199]
|
Merdaneth
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:46:00 -
[200]
Tactical Retreat and the Blob With the new mechanic in place tactical retreat requires you to shake of any points, either due to destruction of scrambling ships, jamming, neutings, sensor dampening or getting out of scramble range. Today's tactical retreat merely requires you to have lots of EHP. I don't think Carriers, Dreads and Battleships were designed and meant to be ships good at performing tactical retreats. New tactical retreats may require you think and act, rather than to wait for a timer and spam the dock button.
Also, the dock button isn't a tactical retreat, it is a strategic retreat. There are no counters to it, you cannot be chased and cornered.
The current docking mechanics favor escalation of numbers, since as soon as larger ships are involved, you know that the hostile will have enough time to dock if the fight doesn't go his way unless you bring on an extreme blob very fast.
At least, this is what I tell my pilots when I'm FC and someone is playing docking games: 'Unless we can bring at least 20 gank battleships, don't bother engaging his Abaddon, he will just dock if getting in over his head'. I need 20 to 1 odds to kill a docking gamer. If anything, docking games promote blobbing.
And you know what, if a docking gamer isn't able to dock and is going down, you know what most pilots that are taking it down will do? Call in their friends? Of course not, most pilots don't want extra ppl on their killmail when they could have taken down the docking gamer themselves.
The only odd situation is where neither ship (at a docking game) is able to kill each other or escape. Then again, if you, as a docking gamer attack a ship that you can't kill *and* cannot escape from, *and* you cannot call in your own blob before they call in theirs, then you deserve to die.
If you are concerned about hostiles calling in backup (through logon traps or not) just think that you can do exactly the same, and your docking games ship will simply be a bait ship.
The new mechanic should not apply to stargates, just at stations, after all, a superior attacker (aka blob) already has options to try and catch a de-agressing ship at a stargate. ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
|
Yristor
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 11:24:00 -
[201]
Supported. I'm ambivalent about the amendment proposed in [27]... the idea of a timer cutoff to prevent stalemates with points is a good one, but it might take that long to wear down a carrier or other cap that engaged a small gang.
|
Kfal
Core Research Expedition C. O. R. E.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 12:15:00 -
[202]
Sounds like a great solution to an annoying problem.
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 13:01:00 -
[203]
Wow, you're bad at this. But here we go again anyway.
Originally by: Foolish Bob
Sorry, but in a game that actively promotes survival of the fittest, Darwin has no relevance?!? Oh my god are you playing the wrong game. Hello Kitty is that way, sir ------->
Actually, Darwinism is based on minute genetic mutations that take place over thousands to millions of years, allowing one mutation of the species to be more adapted to their environment than the other, in which case the other dies out and the process continues. Stop hijacking an idea you think sounds cool because it makes your game sound hard.
Originally by: Foolish Bob
Just because you're incapable of seeing any tactics for strategic retreat or splitting forces other than jumping gates or docking, doesn't mean the rest of us are so limited, and frankly if you took even 1 tenth of 1 second to check on killboards and realise what my background is you might consider that I'm not wholly inexperienced in the theatre of small gang work.
First of all going to nip this in the bud - I actually looked at your killboard before I posted my first reply to see if they were worth taking into account. They weren't. I would advise you to try and stick to reasoning and leave your 10:1 ratio out of this.
There are 3 ways of getting out of a fight. 1, MWD out of point range and warp out 2. jam everyone pointing your gang and warp out, 3. jump out or dock
1. requires you to be in fast ships that can be useful in a fight while staying out of web range, a few hacs/recons and frigates. 2. requires you to be an ECM *****, in which case you can go die in a fire in the first place. 3. is what we're discussing now, and the complete removal of with the propsed change; jumping or docking.
Originally by: Foolish Bob
Well, having just last week turned back not 1 but 2 40-50 man BS fleets with a fleet of 10 frigates and 4-5 support (no prizes for guessing which frigs) I can tell you that there is plenty of non blob fun to be had still in this game.
oh my god, you managed to stay out of point range of battleships with a frigate gang? All you did here was employ strategy 1., staying out of point/web range. This is not possible if you want to fight with a small battleship/command gang, or even hacs, hence why you see so few in 0.0, and therefore they rely on the 3rd strategy if they get blobbed. Here's an example of my most recent fight:
3 of us in battleships in low sec. We came across a local gang of about 8, who were happy to engage us in a belt. The fight went well, but we were low on cap boosters and armor, and local started spiking just as their last ship dropped. So we warped to a gate into a system we had eyes in, that we knew was clear. The first part of their gang followed us to the gate, where we engaged, and they did in response. After one of their ships went down, we deagrod and waited out the timer while just about tanking their ever increasing gang. I jumped out just as I was hitting structure as I was primary, the others came as well and we warped out to a station to restock and reset the fight.
Now if they weren't terrible, they could have sent a tackler or two to the other side of the gate to pin us, and our situation may have been different; they could certainly afford the numbers. But as it was, they didn't, so we had a chance to tactically retreat, reset the fight, and come back and do this. My point about this chance is, without that ability to jump out and reset on a blob like that, we simply would have been overwhelmed by their sheer numbers despite the fact they're too useless to even send tacklers to the other side of the gate we're on. It was a gamble we took by engaging their gang on the gate, that they too might agress and not deagro in time to follow us over, with the risk that they might either kill us before we can jump or send tacklers to finish us off on the other side.
-----
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 13:13:00 -
[204]
Continuing from my last post:
Originally by: Foolish Bob
The axiom of this argument is that docking games, as defined by undocking aggressing a target in the hope of an opportunistic kill and redocking before the dps of any support can break you is not big and not clever and requires exactly as much skill as that required to pick your nose without giving yourself a lobotomy.
Unless you have a new argument to put to espouse your theory that docking games are the ONLY way of controlling the battle space whilst outnumbered, your options pretty much are to repeat failed arguments again, concede, or (and something tells me, perhaps unfairly, that this would be your preference) try and argue against the premise of the axiom I defined.
No **** sherlock, you say I said something I didn't, they say I'll say that I didn't. I have not once said docking games are good, it is totally your misinterpretation and failure at comprehension that gives you that idea. If you're still struggling, how about taking quotes out of my posts and arguing against them instead. It would save everyone a lot of time, and you might learn something in the process. This is why I keep repeating myself, you seem incapable of reading; I'll try again though.
Docking games are not good, as defined by people repeatedly redocking in a fight to go from structure to 100% shield/armor instantly, and need to be fixed (simply docking in the first place to avoid a fight is not a docking game). However, all my posts in this thread are arguing that regardless of how bad docking games are, this fix is even worse because of the implications it has for situations not even remotely assosciated with docking games, especially with relation to the total nerfing of small battleship/command gangs, and the far increased risk that would now come with attempting to engage someone while in a smaller gang.
I had actually taken it for granted that frigate gangs would remain largely unaffected by this, but judging by the example you posted, apparently it had to be spelt out for you.
-----
|
Qoi
New Eden Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:39:00 -
[205]
|
Gamrikis
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 20:30:00 -
[206]
I like
|
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 21:49:00 -
[207]
Destroy docking games for good
|
Siddy
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 01:51:00 -
[208]
Originally by: davet517 Not good.
The system as proposed is vulnerable to being exploited with logonski attacks. I undock, you shoot at me, I shoot at you, then your five buddies log on, e-warp to the station, and I'm toast.
all boils down to the allseeing local chat.
remove it and there is no need for logonski
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
p4rky
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 12:05:00 -
[209]
Just make all Stations kick outs \o/
|
Cetida Chiya
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:45:00 -
[210]
|
|
Anewb N'eve
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:24:00 -
[211]
|
Rain Kaessinde
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 03:33:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Rain Kaessinde on 30/11/2009 03:32:49 +1 for sweet station-hugger tears, and making empire wars suck a little less.
Also, nice troll.
|
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 05:17:00 -
[213]
+1
|
Jaina Proudmoar
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 06:07:00 -
[214]
This is pretty funny, lots of familiar names in this thread.
Whenever the issue was raised in the last year regarding docking games in highsec, these are the same people who would flame with "l2p" or "go to 0.0!".
Not supported. Let them experience how ridiculous docking games are firsthand. :)
|
Krylis Nok
Scan This
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 08:22:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Krylis Nok on 30/11/2009 08:22:18 Supported!!! Bump
|
Cheer Up
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 10:38:00 -
[216]
Sounds solid. Resetting the timer on every aggro is a good proposal.
|
iam nameless
Disgruntled Pilots Syndicate Retribution.
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 12:18:00 -
[217]
great idea sir your spot on !
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 13:08:00 -
[218]
On the first sight I was not in favor of this solution. I always was thinking of some kind of ship mass/dock timer dependency. However after a few thoughts I think the proposal finally will prevent all those childish docking games at all. Either you fully commiting to a fight or stay docked. Aproved.
|
Insa Rexion
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 20:37:00 -
[219]
--------------------------------------------
DOMINION ! Welcome to Amarr Online the sequel, last buff was business, this time it's permanent |
Ariel Dawn
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 21:10:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 30/11/2009 21:09:59 +1
|
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:00:00 -
[221]
This idea is neat and tidy. [Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
Neu Bastian
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:12:00 -
[222]
one minmatar terrorist supporting another!
Quote:
Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
|
davet517
Raata Invicti Undivided
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:19:00 -
[223]
Edited by: davet517 on 01/12/2009 17:24:38
Originally by: Siddy
Originally by: davet517 Not good.
The system as proposed is vulnerable to being exploited with logonski attacks. I undock, you shoot at me, I shoot at you, then your five buddies log on, e-warp to the station, and I'm toast.
all boils down to the allseeing local chat.
remove it and there is no need for logonski
You are right, if local chat were removed there would be no need for logonski, becuase nobody in their right mind would ever do anything but dock if they were agressed at a station. Without some way of assessing the threat you're facing, one has to assume that the attacker is doing so because they're confident they have more backup close by than you do.
Because the "death penalty" in Eve is relatively severe, most tactics revolve around luring an opponent into a fight that's stacked in your favor, and unfortunately folks aren't above meta-gaming (logonski) to do it. The current mechanics allow the target of the meta-gaming tactic to disengage. The proposed mechanics don't.
Removing local will just make the population in general more risk averse, becuase, again, it will be difficult to impossible to assess the threat you're facing. The net result would be less willingness overall to PvP.
I think docking games are lame too, and I'd like to see them go away, but there is a serious hole in this proposal that needs to be addressed.
---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out. |
Yankunytjatjara
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 14:51:00 -
[224]
Supported make station campers cry
|
Soldis
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 17:05:00 -
[225]
Just make all stations kick outs, else, blobs will be the real winner.
This is not a good idea. Make all stations kickouts, that's fair to all parties.
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 19:11:00 -
[226]
support - please include rr.
Also if your not agressed the time it takes to redock should be exponential. It allows quick undock/dock but repeated abuse will quickly lock you out of the station for a long time. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Krystal Flores
Sinister Elite
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 07:52:00 -
[227]
docking games are lame
|
Greg6
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 17:24:00 -
[228]
Elegant solution to a very annoying problem.
|
Slyckback
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 03:52:00 -
[229]
Outstanding idea. To hell with docking games.
|
Tahkayun
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 18:23:00 -
[230]
Seems like the best idea yet. -Supported-
|
|
Hailey Sunweaver
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 22:37:00 -
[231]
signed
|
Hellfury Resurrected
Incura HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 23:41:00 -
[232]
-------------------------------------------
|
Manivald Kostaja
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 00:34:00 -
[233]
supported
|
Ozone71
Kamikaze Fleet Command
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 01:16:00 -
[234]
I agree with you that there is a problem here for Dominion, so I am throwing in my support for a fix to Docking games.
On the other hand, I am not sure that an extended aggression timer is the solution.
In normal space, why not let people dock up to escape pirates, combat etc. If you do not have a GCC then run for a safe zone. Pirates just need to tackle better to prevent you from doing so.
As for player SOV space, think of it this way (for the Dominion Patch). You are fighting on their home turf, so they get the home ground advantage of local repairs. It just means that you need a bigger force to over come them.
The "infinite" repairs is an issue. I see no reason that a person can't dock, repair, and region the fight, it's the fact that they can do it indefinitely which is the problem.
Consider these 2 tweaks to the system.
1 - Repairs are not instant. Armour & structure take time to repair, and shields and capacitors need time to recharge. In a station, you pay, and it may take 5-10 minutes (depending on damage) for the repairs to complete. Players should get the option to cancel repairs at any time, if they are in a rush, but this leaves them with some damage, and a loss of any ISK they forked out.
The rate of repair is should be equivalent to about 2-3 times the largest remote repair module.
What this also provides is time for you, the aggressor. While they dock and repair, you get time to repair as well. Their repair (station based) is going to be faster than yours (ship based) but not immediate. Just make sure that you bring several logistics ships with you in a conquering fleet.
2 - Repairs are limited. Give the station a limited capacity to repair, just like manufacturing. You need to wait for a slot in the repair bay. Starbases in normal space have a huge limit, (to keep mission grinders happy) but player controlled stations and outposts have very few repair slots. (Which could be another part of the long term SOV upgrade... adding more facilities such as improved repair bays) Stations should also have an equivalent to a "Capacitor". In normal, day to day operations, this will remain stable at close to 100% as they would have a cap recharge rate to remain stable even with half of the repair bays in use. In a large defensive campaign, however, when you have ships of all sizes docking up, all repair bays are in use and there is a queue forming...the cap will drop and eventually run out. Then repairs stop until the station can replenish its battery banks.
What this provides. It does not set out to solve docking games at a normal station. If a pirate goes after someone and they do not have a GCC timer, then they should be able to dock and reach safety. I do not see a problem with this at all. If you are hunting someone and they dock up.. then wait, get a better tackler, or choose a different target.
What it does provide is a limitation on player held regions of space. If your cap fleet arrives to take on their cap fleet, then you can take them down. They have the home ground advantage, but its not infinite and immediate. You just need to make sure you have an overwhelming force.
Issues? This could be extended to all parts of the game, not just player controlled space, but would impact on mission runners trying to repair and head back to a mission. IMO ... tough. Eve is not safe.. so learn to minimise damage and warp out before its too late. "Ozone is blue and smells faintly of geraniums." (Qi, BBC TV) |
Siddy
Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 12:40:00 -
[235]
Originally by: davet517 Edited by: davet517 on 01/12/2009 17:24:38
Originally by: Siddy
Originally by: davet517 Not good.
The system as proposed is vulnerable to being exploited with logonski attacks. I undock, you shoot at me, I shoot at you, then your five buddies log on, e-warp to the station, and I'm toast.
all boils down to the allseeing local chat.
remove it and there is no need for logonski
You are right, if local chat were removed there would be no need for logonski, becuase nobody in their right mind would ever do anything but dock if they were agressed at a station. Without some way of assessing the threat you're facing, one has to assume that the attacker is doing so because they're confident they have more backup close by than you do.
Because the "death penalty" in Eve is relatively severe, most tactics revolve around luring an opponent into a fight that's stacked in your favor, and unfortunately folks aren't above meta-gaming (logonski) to do it. The current mechanics allow the target of the meta-gaming tactic to disengage. The proposed mechanics don't.
Removing local will just make the population in general more risk averse, becuase, again, it will be difficult to impossible to assess the threat you're facing. The net result would be less willingness overall to PvP.
I think docking games are lame too, and I'd like to see them go away, but there is a serious hole in this proposal that needs to be addressed.
you sir are right that local chat removing whuld make it more intresting.
But bear in mind that removing local is two edget sword that swings both ways.
You dont know if they got more, they dont know that either. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Siddy
Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 21:45:00 -
[236]
Docking Games Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Astria Tiphareth
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:04:00 -
[237]
Wish I'd seen this before, very elegant. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
|
Ozone71
Caldari Kamikaze Fleet Command
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 13:31:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
This means that if you leave a station and see a camp there, you can still dock again so long as you hold your fire. But once you return fire, you are committing yourself to the fight, and the station will not shelter you if you fare poorly. If this happens, you still have the option to flee away from the station (assuming you aren't scrambled or can outrun your pursuers), and if you can avoid combat until the docking timer runs down, you can return to the station and dock. It also means that as long as you are flagged (aggression flag, not the docking timer), you will regain the full docking timer if anyone you are flagged to fires on you. It also means that if you hold fire long enough for your aggression flag to expire, you are free to dock even if you are attacked again on the way.
I wholly support a change to the Docking Games, but your solution has a serious flaw.
Imagine if you will, a non-combatant ship (Miner trader etc) arrives at, or tries to leave a station, only to find themselves in the middle of a camp. Of course, the Station represents safety, so they immediately attempt to dock.
If you are flying to a station, you are pretty right. You should be able to dock straight away.
If, however, you are leaving the station, then you have a 30 second session timer that you must wait out before you can re-dock.
What do you do during that 30 seconds?
Under your proposal, nothing, just do what you can to dock and hope that you survive. (assuming that you are scrammed and cant just warp away anyway)
The problem with your proposal is that you are not permitted to defend yourself.
Obviously, a mining or trading ship or even a smaller combat vessel will not be able to dent you, so within 30 seconds, it can't kill you before you kill it.
What it can do is simply try to survive. This will quite likely include aggressive tactics such as ECM, Sensor jamming, or taking out any drones that you use. Anything that drops your DPS by even a point might just be the difference between surviving the 30 second timer or not.
What you are proposing is that ships that undock are not permitted to defend themselves in anyway other than all out combat - which is not what many ships are designed for. You may as well be shooting fish in a barrel.
I support a change to docking tactics, as I see it as a huge problem for Dominion - you are right on that point.
I cannot, however, support your proposal as is.
"Ozone is blue and smells faintly of geraniums." (Qi, BBC TV) |
Demus DaVet
Minmatar Tides of Silence
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 18:51:00 -
[239]
Edited by: Demus DaVet on 08/12/2009 18:52:36 Would be alot easier to add a docking timer that scaled upwards in relation to ship size or ship type. (think someone else said this too)
This firstly changes nothing about the Gate games, which are fine imo.
For combat purposes, if you've engaged you have not only your Docking timer but also the additional Agro timer to take into account. If you have not engaged, you mearly have your Docking timer to worry about.
It relates to the fluff of EVE, as larger ships take more time to manouver and more time to park.
Players undocking only to re-dock once shot are never really going to stay undocked, so with the above rules, they would either stay docked or un-dock and take the risks. None of this, in-out-in-out, whack-a-mole type gameplay.
The only problem i can see initionally is the innocent Industrials and the like that get ****d after warping to a station, but then again, people would argue if your putting an industrial in that situation then its your own fault.
I personally feel its better than a purely aggression based timer, and keeps, if not improves tactical options.
Although there are bound to be holes galore in there but meh - if you find them, fill um. ---------------------------- Implement Racial Fleet Setups
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 20:37:00 -
[240]
|
|
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 21:39:00 -
[241]
|
Vaneshi SnowCrash
|
Posted - 2009.12.10 06:36:00 -
[242]
People seem convinced that docking games are limited to high sec and low sec, 0.0 is somehow to pure to engage in this tactic.
WRONG.
End these shinannigans and let the good times roll.
|
Gaogan
Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 03:38:00 -
[243]
Yes! Let there be an end to docking games once and for all! Once you agress you should be comitted to the fight, win or loose.
|
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 07:59:00 -
[244]
supported
+++????+++Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start+++ |
Ozone71
Caldari Kamikaze Fleet Command
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 12:28:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Gaogan Yes! Let there be an end to docking games once and for all! Once you agress you should be comitted to the fight, win or loose.
Not at all!
Pilots should be allowed to make a fighting withdrawal where offensive tactics, such as ECM or taking out drones reduce your DPS just long enough to make their escape.
Stop putting forward these ideas that are just about making kills easier for you.
If you want a quick kill, get a better ship and choose an appropriate target. "Ozone is blue and smells faintly of geraniums." (Qi, BBC TV) |
Comari Vokha
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 18:31:00 -
[246]
supported
|
Omega Flames
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 18:53:00 -
[247]
|
Raspar
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 20:35:00 -
[248]
I support the original post. This would be as much desired in null-sec as I'm sure it would be in empire space.
|
Allan Sheperd
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 09:38:00 -
[249]
|
Voddick
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 08:06:00 -
[250]
|
|
Mocam
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 10:22:00 -
[251]
You could reverse it in a fashion. This comes from a "practical" bug standpoint. Bugs crop up and cause problems for folks at times... This suggestion of yours is decent (thus my support for it) but a bug... someone could get locked out of a station -- until a GM responds (which has been known to take days with some issues)
Instead of locking them out, you'd lock them in for the duration of the aggression timer -- up to 15 solid minutes locked inside or locked from a gates use. They cannot undock or use that gate again until the timer expires.
So if they want to run, you have to hunt them in a gate situation. At a base, you have up to 15 minutes until they can undock to do anything you feel like in that system -- including flying off to another system to get repairs because they *CANNOT* leave that station (extended ship undock timer).
The information would be stored at the station/gate. Dock with an aggression timer -- that's recorded at the station. Undock and redock before that first timer is expired -- with a refreshed timer -- and you are stuck there until that timer is completely gone. You know how long they'll be stuck because it'll be 1 minute shorter than your timer...
IMO, from a "something bugged out" perspective... It'd be better to be locked in a station than locked out of one. You can do things in a station but what happens if you cannot get back into a station to get another ship, get parts, etc? Once you undock, you're stuck in space... The reverse and you'd be stuck in the station -- not good but at least you can access jump clones, buy stuff, sell stuff, fiddly fart around with your ships, etc... vs being stuck in space -- potentially in a pod.
|
KrazyTaco
Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:30:00 -
[252]
|
yani dumyat
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:59:00 -
[253]
+1, pure common sense solution to docking games and easy to code too. _________________________________________________ Lifeboat ----> + Human |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |