Have you ever tried to solo it in a T1/T1 destroyer? I’m certain you would be able to do it. it’s a bit slow of course - IIRC you only get 25-odd net dps past his regen rate - so you’d only ever want to do it once
All that’s needed is:
Choose tank, weapons, and ammo that match
Optimize your weapons for dps and fit dps-improving modules
Fit for one kind of tank (speed tanking works)
I’ve taught genuine newbies how to do this via chat many times. IMO getting boosted unnecessarily means the new player misses out on an important lesson.
BTW: Dagan can be killed using any natural combination of tank and dps. I’ve helped people solo him using ships and weapon types I’ve never used myself. I think that’s quite good evidence that the scenario was designed with this particular lesson in mind.
I have an Alpha account and believe you can enjoy the game even if you’re limited to small and medium empire faction T1 or Navy hulls. I think the Alpha experience would actually be improved if CCP took away the large hulls, weapons & drones and gave some of the SP back in additional support skills - i.e.: fuel economy, resistance phasing, etc… I also don’t think Alphas need access to pirate hulls.
A problem with granting the ability to easily earn the ISK needed to PLEX an account is that you encourage botting. The small/medium empire faction T1/Navy hulls are all you need for the PVE content Alphas are allowed to participate in and these ships can serve useful roles in fleet engagements. If you want more - subscribe.
WTF ? why do you ask me if I did this or this thing in that way ?
I tell you, dagan is designed to make people request help. This makes people socialize and bittervets help newbros.
You don’t need to do it but it’s much easier that way.
depends on your skills. I can easily kill it with a T1 corax meta0 but having all skills to V helps a lot in that. a newbro is likely to have caldari destroyer II or III and light missiles II, warhead not injected, not enough range to remain out of neutra, not enough shield buffer to passively tank it.
nope. That’s not a lesson that is taught in the arc. The lesson that is taught is “sometimes you can’t do anything”. And then you ask for help.
A newbro will not find alone a correct fit with his subpar skills. The game will not help him find the fit. He needs to find people to help him.
People may take the lesson as “you lack skills” and that is a bad lesson in eve. Or also “doing anything in Eve requires hours” which is also a bad lesson. Or else “just play in eve is enough, you should be happy with being able to spend your time here” . Same, it makes people feel like Eve is not worth it.
On the opposite, I’ve given T1 ships to newbros for them to lose them in LS/WH, I’ve given faction fit ships to people because they were nice and interested in the game, I’ve made newbros join roams with fits I paid for to be sure they can feel at ease, I’ve paid newbros in null farming fits after they lost theirs.
I think the social interaction is the most important part of eve. And that’s something you learn when you can’t pass a boss and someone comes in a cynabal and obliterates the boss. or when rats point you and start chewing your noctis, and a corp mate comes in a tengu and frees you.
Or when you are noob and find a “red light district” in HS and someone does it for you in his mach, without touching the final can, and instead paying you a salvage destroyer to salvage the ded site. Eve is a nice solo game but is better when you play with more people.
I’m not sure this is a discussion either of us will benefit from, but perhaps it will inspire one new player …
I first soloed Dagan in a T1/T1 ship on a trial account back in the days when trials were only two weeks.
I showed a couple of guys with similar SP levels how to do that mission in T1/T1 ships about two years ago, when Alphas were brand new.
I can’t prove the mission is designed to be instructive for players at that level, but it doesn’t seem likely it’s a coincidence. BTW I think the same is true for the notorious “Hive Queen” mission, famous for being the first time many players lose their ship in a normal (non NPE) mission.
The more freedom you give Alphas, the less incentive players have to upgrade to Omega.
Long-term, actively playing Alphas cost CCP real money (they use game infratructure without providing income), so encouraging them hurts CCP’s bottomline.
I agree that we could use more affordable options that have more freedom than Alphas, but giving more freedom to Alphas makes EvE financially unsustainable.
If anything, CCP should severely restict Alphas and introduce a state between Alpha and Omega that costs half what Omega does but looks rather like a current Alpha (keeping certain skill paths blocked off, but without the SP limits or slower training time).
I agree that Alphas should not be too powerful, and that a “Lambda” clone would be interesting (M and N in the middle are "Mu and “Nu”, so I went for one that looks better
I actually think the “No Suicide Ganks in an Alpha” idea (being discussed (kinda in another topic) is the kind of thing that could be used to limit them (along with some ships, some kinds of activities (like L4’s) etc.
While tuning ships perfectly for Omegas is probably impractical, removing capabilities from Alpha Clones the instant they become misused isn’t necessarily a bad idea. So if e.g. if a given ship or ship type proved to be capable of being an effective and profitable highSec suicide ganker, why not just remove it? e.g. I wouldn’t be against removing high-dps destroyers from Alphas (I play Gallente, so Catalyst comes to mind).
Of course it will still be possible to gank frigates with larger ships, but that’s not profitable. Ship or skill limits will never be able to stop griefing by high-ISK-income players.
But IMO the right kind of “tuning” of Alphas, where CCP don’t bother about non-paying customer’s egos or ISK wallets when they change the Alphas abilities or limits, would be practical, fair (easily achieved with non-paying customers :), and would (after a while) close off the worst possibilities for abuse of Alpha clones by experienced players.
This kind of response, where someone makes a claim, such as "alpha should not be misused ", and then takes personal offense (for some reason) when asked to explain it, finally outright refusing to address the point, is one of the most common failings that I’m noticing here on the forums. People are more than happy to sit in their echo chamber and chat about how the game is unfair when they won’t even take the time to DEFINE the very words they use.
Since all you’re doing now is attempting to derail the topic, I’ll go ahead and define it for you. You’re using the word “misused” to describe scenarios where you personally feel attacked.
For example, you would define an Alpha character flying a ganking Catalyst and attacking a freighter as “misuse.”
For example, you would define an Alpha character being used as a scout by Cargo Scanning haulers as “misuse.”
This approach is a mistake and is bad for the game. There is no good reason (your hurt feelings are not a good reason) why Alpha characters should be barred from engaging or participating in Combat-based activities, even in highsec. The security status drop still influences Alphas the same if they engage in criminal activities and they still acquire the same aggression timers and get blown up by Concord just the same.
I would define “misuse” to cover scenarios where, for example, an Alpha character is used to spam VNI bots in rental space in Nullsec while being run in VMware to bypass the 1-Alpha-Logged-In rule and farming hundreds of millions of ISK per day. Because this goes expressly against rules that CCP has set out.
I would NOT define “misuse” to cover situations where an Omega pilot tells his friend, “hey, check out this cool game called EVE Online, it’s subscription based, but you can play for free as an Alpha, come on, I’ll give you a ship and we can blow up some other ships!” and they both decide to join in on the fun together.
Scoots this is getting old. I’ve laid out for you more than a few time the abuse cases that have arisen or been made worse by alphas. You ask for direct evidence knowing full well CCP hasn’t released it so we can only go off logical actions taken by people who already have a complete disregard for the rules and lack of respect for the players around them (botters, multibroadcasting, etc).
These people doesn’t care if they use multiple VM/VPNs to make use of multiple accounts in an attempt to keep their actual account hidden. We also know that they are well aware that it is not a question of if I will be banned, but when. Therefore there is never a reason to put more at risk than needs to be, ergo use of free, unlimited, alpha accounts. They can already use the best tool for the job of isk generation, the VNI. They can also mine en masse, and freely train.
I’ve already pointed out as well that omega accounts that are used for botting were usually purchased and drained down to them 5m SP level and used as skill farms until they get caught. We actually already know that such accounts that are clearly omega (those using carrier/supers) are quickly becoming more scarce with the majority being VNI/mining bots at present. With the current market around plex/injectors I can’t say for certain they keep these accounts omega after draining, I’m literally just making the logical assumption that they would to make every amount of isk they can from the account while it is active.
Like many others I want more information to be released by CCP so we can put these arguements to rest. Until that time comes all we have to fall back on is logic and what information we actually have. Seeing large number of renter alliances popping up on the list and looking at loss histories we can see the majority were indeed VNI pilots, with fewer having ties to mining. Miners typically being those we can assume to be high sec bans due to where their few losses were accrued (not great evidences for them being high sec bots, but it’s again down to logic - you’d lose more ships where you fly most often).
Seriously though man, I’ve tried to let it go until more evidence comes out because I hate not having direct proof to show this was for sure an alpha/omega. But you need to realize how flimsy your own argument is for the exact same reason. You have literally no evidence to say the contrary. Worst of all your statements aren’t backed up by any logical following of what we can see and have been shown. You literally use anecdotes from fools that just complain about minor inconveniences in their play, not examples from people trying to explain the greater picture of what a can of worms they created.
Giving them more access to higher level ships and skills may be great for the player who follows the rules, I can’t argue that point aside from it’s unfair to Omega players. But just like in society rules and restrictions are not made for those that would “play nice” and follow said rules (look at gun rights in most countries). They are there to give law enforcement (CCP) a clear rule set and way to act against those that would seek to commit acts society deems detrimental to its continued existence. You don’t solve a problem by handing the criminal more tools with which to abuse you. Especially if it would take half a year for the police to actually catch and stop them.
All of this is cute, and I can appreciate the effort, but all of this is also off topic. The issue is not specifically about bots.
The issue is what is “misuse” of an alpha character.
Nice try though, next time, let’s say on topic with the discussion.
Clear violations of CCP’s rules should result in the same thing, punishment by bans or account suspensions and the like. There’s no argument here.
But again, the point that was being made was “Alphas should not be able to engage in combat” and the example that was brought was were Catalysts because they were “high-dps destroyers”
And because it seems like you’re really prone to missing the point, here’s a TL;DR:
The point I’m making is that Alphas, as they are, are currently fine. We should be looking to punish people who attempt to misuse Alphas (like botters), and we should not attempt to restrict what Alphas can do (like engage in high sec PVP with Catalysts).
Scoots is a fan of forum “bait and switch”. He can never be worth a long response (unless OFC you needed an “anchor” post in order to write something useful for other readers).
His reply was off topic at best, and a weak attempt to derail at worst. The issue is not whether someone can tell who is a bot or not. The issue is whether such a use would be considered a “misuse” of an alpha character.
All of this is off topic, as well is the rest of the post. The thread is on a discussion of whether alpha should be given “more freedom” and it is not a discussion about renter alliances using VNI bots.
Perfect! I could create an Alpha, train cloak and cyno within hours [at worst] now I have a free / disposable intel gathering hot drop toon I can use throughout Low and Null. I can replace it every 6 mos all for free? Awesome! Sign me up.
I don’t like the odds of EvE remaining a competitive game for very long but hey, fun while it lasts, right?
If anyone ever said Alphas should not be able to engage in pvp they’re a fool. Alphas need the ability to experience nearly every aspect of EVE. This does not mean the best of all aspects, just enough to get their feet wet much like how they can currently do exploration-but not cloak, they can mine-but not at peak efficiency, etc.
It wasn’t really off topic. They are claiming that we should give alphas more freedom, I’m making a case as to why that is a really bad idea and why we should actually be doing the inverse and looking at ways to add more restrictions specifically targeting (logically assumed) abused facets. And as you noticed I pointed out that by giving them more tools we are at the same time giving those who would abuse it more tools of which to do it by. Once we figure out how to fix current issues we can talk about loosening said restrictions, I have no intention of backing any idea to just pile more onto the heap without addressing known issues. So again, how is that off topic? I’m literally counting his non existing point for just giving them more access with no argument as to why.
