Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 14:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
Pboyt wrote:FireT, before you speak anymore you should go back to my post where I responded to every single point of yours and called it out as being not relevant, and not exploitative. Do that now. FireT wrote: No, your application was a giant I WANT A SECOND GANK CHANCE. Which I contest already exists in the form of probes.... which you seem to ignore / refuse because it takes SP investment and actual patience.
I'm sorry FireT. But now I have to start getting quite blunt, since you are clearly ignoring every point I am making. YOU CANNOT JUST FIT A PROBE LAUNCHER ONTO A SOLO PVP SHIP
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SKILL POINTS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENCE. You just cannot do both. As an interesting side note I found this thread about 'warp trials'. It suggests the ability to follow a target into warp. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13226&find=unread
Let me explain: YES YOU CAN YOU JUST CHOOSE NOT TO. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1840
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 14:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
Pboyt wrote:This is about giving solo pvper's and small gangs a chance to find an enemy without the need for a dedicated prober.
But...it won't *work*.
If you can lock someone long enough to cycle a module, you can point them. if you can point them, why put a tracker on them?
Also, if you're dumb enough to warp blind to wherever a guy who KNOWS he's being pursued goes, you're an idiot. If I get a tracker on me, where do you think I'll go: a safe spot to wait to die or a shoot-on-sight POS and cloak up? What if I have a friendly fleet that I warp to?
No competent gang would rely on such a module.
Pboyt wrote:YOU CANNOT JUST FIT A PROBE LAUNCHER ONTO A SOLO PVP SHIP
Actually, you can. I've done it.
But still, the point remains: you're asking to be able to lock someone and cycle a module on them so they can't get away from you and hide. That exists: it's called a warp disruptor. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Pboyt
Mentally Assured Destruction
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
FireT wrote: Let me explain: YES YOU CAN YOU JUST CHOOSE NOT TO.
Let me explain even further: You are what gamers tend to call min - maxers. You want the biggest loudest and pew pewest ship there is. You ignore anything that is outside your cookie cutter design since it would force you to think outside the box and make actual choices.
I'm sorry. But you dont actually know anything about me. You dont know what I can fly. You dont know what my skills are. You have never seen my fits. So less talk about ME and more talk about the suggested module please.
I make no effort to degrade you as a person in this thread, because I know nothing about the way you play. You should give me the same respect or dont post.
For your information I fly all HACS, RECONS, COMMAND SHIPS with Level V. I love solo pvp. Yes, there are examples of some fits that can fit probe launchers AND DPS but its usually very vulnerable in that it lacks one of the following: tank, speed, longevitiy.
So far all of your posts have been to bring the module down as useless. None of your posts actually offer solutions to the big thing in question which is - the solo pvper. So what is your solution? Do you not think that we should make things easier for the solo pvper? To give them a chance to find someone they've already engaged? |
Pboyt
Mentally Assured Destruction
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:09:00 -
[34] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: If you can lock someone long enough to cycle a module, you can point them. if you can point them, why put a tracker on them?
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: But still, the point remains: you're asking to be able to lock someone and cycle a module on them so they can't get away from you and hide. That exists: it's called a warp disruptor.
Both of these can be answered by the scenario I described earlier about the solo sleipnir hunting targets. Sometimes the sleipnir gets outnumbered as enemies come to defend the target hes trying to kill, and so he needs to run. He can tag a target before he runs, to warp back to it later.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Also, if you're dumb enough to warp blind to wherever a guy who KNOWS he's being pursued goes, you're an idiot. If I get a tracker on me, where do you think I'll go: a safe spot to wait to die or a shoot-on-sight POS and cloak up? What if I have a friendly fleet that I warp to?
Good point, never thought about it. Thats a risk. But thats where a good solopvper with a ship tracker would need to use his brain as well. He would have to find the target of his on directional scan first - no towers or station - THEN choose to warp to his target. See? You still need to think things through, this module isnt a win all module.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: No competent gang would rely on such a module.
How many times will I have to repeat myself? This module is designed for the solo pvper. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
Pboyt wrote: How many times will I have to repeat myself? This module is designed for the solo pvper.
I think right there is your problem with us. You want something for yourself disguised as your idea for small group of solo players. DESPITE us pointing out you have the choices already available.
The only thing you do is bring up is ONE SINGLE ship ship that could not fit our recommendations. You literally are too narcissistic to fly anything beyond your beloved Slepnir to actually do what Eve already offers. In which case, you are a stubborn troll that is willingly ignorant.
Your idea won't be (ever) implemented since it is a very selfish demand and CCP has a massive list of other things to worry about. Just go find their constantly updating 'to do list'.
I am done with this discussion. Tried to point out the flaws in this but the original poster is to trolltarded. Sorry but its true.
Ninja edit: your idea was poorly designed. Yours only requires a 15 minute timer. But what about range and such of the actual module. Why should it be applicable if the player warps? Shouldn't warp speed effectively throw it off? |
Pboyt
Mentally Assured Destruction
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:24:00 -
[36] - Quote
FireT wrote:Pboyt wrote: How many times will I have to repeat myself? This module is designed for the solo pvper.
I think right there is your problem with us. You want something for yourself disguised as your idea for small group of solo players. DESPITE us pointing out you have the choices already available. The only thing you do is bring up is ONE SINGLE ship ship that could not fit our recommendations. You literally are too narcissistic to fly anything beyond your beloved Slepnir to actually do what Eve already offers. In which case, you are a stubborn troll that is willingly ignorant. Your idea won't be (ever) implemented since it is a very selfish demand and CCP has a massive list of other things to worry about. Just go find their constantly updating 'to do list'. I am done with this discussion. Tried to point out the flaws in this but the original poster is to trolltarded. Sorry but its true.
Haha FireT you really are a great laugh. Scenario's are used in everyday life to help people understand points people are trying to make. All of a sudden my scenario is MY ONE SHIP THAT I CAN ONLY FLY AND NOTHING ELSE. HAHAHAH
Notice how I specifically quote every single point you make in every post and then provide a counter argument? Its because im looking at getting to the bottom of the technical application of the module.
You on the otherhand never go back and continue to explain your point. You just forget your last posts and the counter-posts I have suggested and instead you reel off a pathetic insult at me about being stupid and then continue to make more different and random points. If no points at all.
You, are the biggest troll. And your posts continue to insult me. 'Narcissitic', 'selfish', 'your beloved sleipnir', 'stubborn troll', 'ignorant'.
All of these words just in your last post alone. Thanks for being mature. Now I would appreciate you make no more contributions to this thread or I will contact mods. Your last post was pure insulting and offered no development to the module in question.
Goodbye FireT.
|
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:37:00 -
[37] - Quote
I am insulting because you came up with a half baked idea at best: something else but probing (because I do not like a high slot probe launcher).
As a few people pointed out, probing already does what you want. So why add another semi probing? Do you really think CCP has nothing better to do than to make random modules of similar types in different slots?
Hell, by the look of their latest 'works in progress list' CCP will be busy simply implementing the current player wishlist within the next 5 years.
So yes, your idea is already there: probing. You just do not want to probe.
You do not like something, accept it and stop complaining. But no, you want a second chance at a gank. That is already there: local and probing. I would ask for your stuff, in case you quit because your idea won't be implemented, but it seems you might not have much.
Sorry, but CCP's current balancing act of ALL ships being balanced takes more priority than this silly idea.
My last question: why can you not fit a probe launcher? Seriously, so far you seem hell bent on not probing without an alt. Why is that? Patience issues? I am sincerely confused. yes it takes longer than your tracker, but your tracker idea is rather half baked since you ignore the mid slot, its range, duration, and limitations. |
Pboyt
Mentally Assured Destruction
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
FireT wrote:I am insulting because you came up with a half baked idea at best: something else but probing (because I do not like a high slot probe launcher).
As a few people pointed out, probing already does what you want. So why add another semi probing? Do you really think CCP has nothing better to do than to make random modules of similar types in different slots?
Hell, by the look of their latest 'works in progress list' CCP will be busy simply implementing the current player wishlist within the next 5 years.
So yes, your idea is already there: probing. You just do not want to probe.
You do not like something, accept it and stop complaining. But no, you want a second chance at a gank. That is already there: local and probing. I would ask for your stuff, in case you quit because your idea won't be implemented, but it seems you might not have much.
Sorry, but CCP's current balancing act of ALL ships being balanced takes more priority than this silly idea.
My last question: why can you not fit a probe launcher? Seriously, so far you seem hell bent on not probing without an alt. Why is that? Patience issues? I am sincerely confused. yes it takes longer than your tracker, but your tracker idea is rather half baked since you ignore the mid slot, its range, duration, and limitations.
I will not entertain you any longer. I have answered all these already.
I think you have problems.
However, thank you for posting. Goodbye FireT. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
353
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
If they should leave the system, and have been tagged within the past 15 minutes as your device specifies, how does your module handle this?
I am assuming they have some kind of active indicator to let them know they have been tagged, like an aggression cooldown or something.
My point is, if they leave the system, will your device warp you to the gate they used to leave?
This would be a great means of ambushing you, as they would anticipate you following. They just fly circles around the system till their buddies show up next door, then they gate over with you following. You would land in a gate camp you inspired. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:52:00 -
[40] - Quote
Goodbye. Your idea should have been this:
New module: Tracker, a mid slot module that allows you to follow a marked target through a system for a set period of time. Due to the unique tracking frequency the target has an active timer counter showing the remaining time before it elapses.
Type: mid slot
Length of time: 15 minutes of having the chance to pursue and try to hunt down target.
Limitations: the target is ware of being marked. The tracker only functions within the same solar system. If the target leaves the system the tracker does not work (though finding the same target with the tracker in an adjacent system would allow for continued pursued. Similarly the tracker does not work if target is within a station (station hull density and internal communications prevent signals from leaving the station).
Counter: The current tracker does not have an active counter / module counter except the time limit.
Any suggestions ladies and gentlemen? |
|
Atfal alNudjum
Black Watch Guard
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 03:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
Personally I don't like the idea for the following reasons;
The other guy evaded you....That is, in a contest of combat he has managed to disengage.
As a result it should not be easy for you to pin him down full stop. What you are saying essentially is that because he was able to get one up on you, you should be allowed to obtain a second chance at a fight.
Being able to disengage or create the opportunity to disengage, is just as important as being able to dictate when a fight occurs and at what range the fight occurs.
This modules biggest exploit...ganking miners in high sec easily...You hit him with this and he has to either;
A) Try to get out of a camped gate B) Log off, but because you had him locked in combat he can't do this as you will be able to warp to 0 on him rather than bring in a scanning alt C) Dock, if there is a station in system
It costs you what, 1 frigate concorded with a mid or high slot that's it?
|
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
174
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 07:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
I don't understand why you think you deserve a second and even easier shot at someone after you failed to lock down a target on the first attempt? If they warped away, that's your fault. You didn't lock them down or they were prepared for the scenario of your attack more so then you were prepared to catch them. They thus deserve to escape because they thought ahead further than you did.
If you want the utility of a probe launcher, fit a probe launcher. There are plenty of ships with utility high slots. If you're unwilling to compromise on your fit to include a launcher, that's your fault. Fitting is about compromising and finding the best balance of what you want to do vs the effectiveness of doing it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Even from a lore perspective this idea falls apart. The whole reason we have probe launchers is because space is vast and its thus very hard to isolate the signal of an individual ship or structure. From a lore perspective, "tagging" a ship would at best simply make it easier to probe down. Though how such a tag would even adhere to a ship designed to repel high velocity projectile rounds? Nevermind attach to it undetected. It would need to transmit one hell of a powerful signal to justify what you propose. Which would easily be detected by the tagged ship.
So no, bad idea. Either play better the first time around and lock your target down or make a compromise on your fit. If you're so diehard for a 1 on 1 but with extra utility, fly a Recon.
|
Spugg Galdon
Love for You Broken Toys
142
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 08:42:00 -
[43] - Quote
Hey Pboyt.
You fail at EvE.
End of message. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 13:54:00 -
[44] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Highjacking this topic: Why does this saying exist? It makes no practical sense to me. It is cake that you own. What other function does cake serve beside being delicious inside my tummy? Seriously, why is that saying so prevalent? Cake is meant to be eaten.
Back on topic, I think the module could have a limited application for cloaker tagging. But as some already pointed out warp scramble does the same. So why add another module for second chance. |
Pboyt
Mentally Assured Destruction
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 01:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:I don't understand why you think you deserve a second and even easier shot at someone after you failed to lock down a target on the first attempt? If they warped away, that's your fault. You didn't lock them down or they were prepared for the scenario of your attack more so then you were prepared to catch them. They thus deserve to escape because they thought ahead further than you did.
If you want the utility of a probe launcher, fit a probe launcher. There are plenty of ships with utility high slots. If you're unwilling to compromise on your fit to include a launcher, that's your fault. Fitting is about compromising and finding the best balance of what you want to do vs the effectiveness of doing it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Even from a lore perspective this idea falls apart. The whole reason we have probe launchers is because space is vast and its thus very hard to isolate the signal of an individual ship or structure. From a lore perspective, "tagging" a ship would at best simply make it easier to probe down. Though how such a tag would even adhere to a ship designed to repel high velocity projectile rounds? Nevermind attach to it undetected. It would need to transmit one hell of a powerful signal to justify what you propose. Which would easily be detected by the tagged ship.
So no, bad idea. Either play better the first time around and lock your target down or make a compromise on your fit. If you're so diehard for a 1 on 1 but with extra utility, fly a Recon.
I have RECON V. I fly pilgrims, rapiers, arazu's and soon falcons. I know about the fits and designs you are describing.
This thread is an idea thread. Every pilot has different ideas and different opinions. I appreciate posts like this where you try to explain the reasons behind the opinions.
Spugg Galdon wrote: Hey Pboyt.
You fail at EvE.
End of message.
Trolls are not welcome here. Edit this post to something more relevant to the topic. Try to explain your opinions like Xhaidon Ora has. Im not having children interrupting conversations between grown men (or women). |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |