i think you misunderstand how a simple “if they are on the same pc, block them from the site” can be overcome by using things like shadow pc, if thats what your idea is
shadow pc and other methods of spreading out clients is not a small phoenomenon
(which is also not cheating)
I think you don’t understand what I am talking about. “shadow PC”… I’ll stop here to not derail the topic any longer.
considering you arnt actually saying what you think would work i can only assume its the most suggested idea
also yes shadow pc is a literal service, you can spin up remote VMs and install eve, then tab between clients on different pcs and vms
it is a very often used service by multiboxers
If you don’t come to the most obvious solution by yourself, it’s pretty pointless trying to explain it to you. I mean, it is so simple to design a mission pocket in a way that you simply have to make decisions fast, click precicely fast, do certain things in a minimal timeframe to progress. Things a multiboxer cannot do, no matter how many accounts he has, because he is just a human being. His clickspeed, his ability to switch between clients, his ability to lock targets or give commands on different clients is limited by the human factor.
You can multibox 20 Mackinaws, because they are convenient. You can multibox 10 Alligators and a Dronebunny. You can even Multibox 10 Stormbringers or Barghests if you just bricktank them. anchor them up and have targets with lots of eHP that you can acitivate all your weapons on. Or 20 Catalysts because you can pre-activate their guns while in warp.
But you cannot multibox 20 Guardians efficiently in a Fleetfight. Because you simply have too much to do to stay efficient.
So you simply design all group content in a way, that only a group working on multiple goals at once can solve the content. Not just “more DPS” or “more eHP to shoot” which multiboxers just solve by bringing more blingy ships, more accounts, more remoterep or more DPS. It’s not that hard to implement mechanics that create pressure on multiple ships at once, with the nessessity to react correctly within seconds or you lose the ship or fail on the objective and have to start over. No problem for someone controlling only 1 ship. A huge problem for someone controlling 20 ships and having that happening to 4 of them at the same time. Easy. Peasy.
This solution was already put into the game in VPs and previous event sites, in which you had to be absolute on point with target calling to kill things in a very short amount of time, while at the same time having to rep against massive alpha and dps which could kill ships in seconds
it took about a month before multiboxers solved it, you vastly underestimate how good some multiboxers actually are
as I said, you simply don’t understand what I am talking about. I explicitly said to NOT do it with “just more DPS”.
But well, I am tired of this pointless discussion. It’s like talking to a blind man about colours. Have a nice day.
You might want to try the VPs yourself before saying its just more DPS as there are other mechanics in there, but i suspect that you wont
Can multiboxers still run the site with a dozen or more ships at once? If yes, these ‘mechanics’ are obviously useless.
All group content has to be designed in a way that it is game-mechanically impossible for any human to control more than two, maybe three ships in there. And after that he loses so much efficiency on each of them, that there is no point in bringing more.
What are you on about Kane, at no point did i say i was a dev, i work with the devs on Pochven
at no point did i say the devs don’t write code either, but you also fundamentally misunderstand the difference between devs that work on the game and engineers that work on the underlying game engine, deadspace warp mechanics will very much be part of the latters purview
you are the person that said the devs dont know about the game, not me, you asked me where i get the information from and i answered you
You accuse me of twisting words and then you come back with something i didnt say, a bit ironic mate
Tasking an engineer is very very different to tasking a game developer, its why i make the distinction because, as much as you don’t like it, nuance is pretty important
You are also the one that said devs don’t know how the game works, both the engineers and the devs understand how deadspace work in the game, you are the one making the assertion and I am the one correcting you
I also did not say it was unfixable, i said (under the current game engine) that it is not possible to make the outside non deadspace
that doesnt mean that the engineers couldnt change how deadspace works, although as per other posts in this thread people have already identified the problem with making the outside non deadspace, which you seem to have glossed over
I personally have no issue with removing the gate and let everyone warp in, but then you are allowing all ships to warp to the beacon and thus changing the entire point of why the ESS exists in the first place
Could you please englight me as CSM Candidate what would be an fix for both sides?
It depends what fix you want
if you want to be able to have non deadspace mechanics on the outside section of a deadspace area, you need an engineer, and you specifically need to code in some form of mechanism to prevent people in that area to not be able to warp over to the edge of the inside grid, which would render the acceration gate useless
If you want to remove the gate entirely and let all ships in then there isnt much to say, thats easily doable, it just changes the entire dynamic of the fight, and it also allows people to warp at range which isnt currently possible on the inside of the ESS grid, so you would again have the same issue that you are upset about now, unless you also wanted to remove deadspace entirely, then at that point why even have the ESS grid at all because unless you make the bubble absolutely massive then it is hilariously easy to warp outside of the bubble
Jeah, we could have this level the whole time and ping pong the ball and have fun.
No Running down for timers, you need to work for this.
I don´t want to have an safe space which people can chill and if i boosh on them they warp off and start working for their timer to run down. (warping from safe to Safe)
I am not talking about the Filament Timers, this is another thread and doesn´t solve the ESS Deadspace issue.
First solution is bounded to the “code”
But:
Since this not in our hand, we can limit the space like in Zar and now we get an arena like in AT 125km if you go further you get hull damage and die also will create funny booshs.
If already have this, therefore it is possible.
If you want to remove the gate entirely…
Than we can rework the whole ESS System since we unable to recreate what we currently have.
And as you said we lose the ship restriction, which is a nice tactical feature.
Allowing all ships in simply means the design space of the ESS is no longer there, you are removing an engagement area simply because you personally do not like it, which is an absolutely awful game design decision
on the other side you could adopt the damage area on the outside, although you would need some sort of lore reason for this, but lets say you do: the result would be the people would simply go inside and fit for that engagement area, and you have even less engagement tools than you do now, which is just you making your own experience worse (it also has a saying in the UK, “cutting off your nose to spite your face”)
yeah.
Totally removing the ESS and turning a part of the bounty of Nullsec NPCs into the wrecks (Tokens, Dogtags etc…) would have been the better idea right from the start.
It forces the Ratters to collect the loot. In case attackers appear, they will have to fight for their MTUs/Loot. Or if they don’t give a fight, the attackers take it by force. So basically the same system of motivation for the defenders and reward for the attackers if they don’t get a fight.
If you now add to each site some “miniboss” that contains a bigger part of these tokens, you even shift the motivation for the runners to actually form to push away the attckers, so they can finish the site and collect their loot.
PvE in wormholes has proven for years that this works very well. It is also a good change to the game because the amount of direct ISK generation shrinks, instead the Tokens can be destroyed on their way to the NPC-buy station. They can also be looted, stolen or whatever. It encourages (hostile) player interaction.
Hi Kane!
I completely understand the frustration you experience when dealing with groups kiting away on deadspace grids like the ESS. Indeed, I was - not too long ago - your colleague and fellow Brave standing fleet member. Of course, I find myself more frequently on the other side of these engagements now.
But, please let me assure you that - as Drake and other commenters have pointed out - there are already many methods available for a larger fleet in their own staging system with access to more and stronger ships than a ‘nano group’ to catch these groups pulling away away on deadspace grid. The 500MN Lachesis is one of the simpler yet still somewhat effective methods that even a solo pilot can pull off without much coordination, and there are more involved methods that are even harder to counter.
It seems from some of your earlier replies that you want a way to mechanically force a fleet to engage you, with your justification being that you are the sov holder. I don’t think this a healthy approach to game balance. Short of a SIG from a bloc or a full deployment from a smaller alliance, a fleet engaging a sov holder in their staging will almost always be disadvantaged. They are willing to fight because they wish to have the content and because they can exploit improved mobility over stronger, heavier doctrines to escape overly unfavourable fights. If you could mechanically force a fleet to engage whatever fleet you form, for most of these groups the ‘juice no longer becomes worth the squeeze’ and there would be a significant fall in skirmishing content - even between null groups.
You joked earlier that Eve is a team game that rewards team action and that your standing fleet can sometimes be uncoordinated. I think you strike some truth in your humour - there are actions a coordinated group can take to effectively force off or catch a group kiting away on the ESS, and my opinion is that the game should not be balanced such that such coordination is not necessary.
You also claim that methods that force groups to warp off the ESS (ie, methods where the group kiting away from the ESS are forced to warp off to escape) are not satisfactory, but I would disagree. At the point a group is forced off the ESS, by deploying a HICtor or dictor at the ESS and preparing a small able fleet there (which can even be smaller than the gang you are hunting) you make the ESS essentially unavailable to the kiting group - effectively removing the ESS from that scenario, and it seems you would accept removing the ESS as an acceptable ‘fix’ for your concerns in general. I’m sure you’re familiar with the ‘bubbling the ESS for up to an hour straight and spamming D scan’ tactic.
I encourage you to consider El Profii’s perspective that, should a group kite thousands of kilometres away from the ESS, they are effectively a non issue until they warp off the ESS (say, to filament). Notice that in this scenario it is effectively the same outcome as if the ESS did not exist for standing fleet, since the kity group would (if the ESS did not exist) continue to insta-bounce safes and are effectively unprobable until they stop at a safe to filament. In both cases you have, and only have, the filament timer on their final safe to combat probe and warp to them. I’m not sure if you believe that forcing a group to continually bounce safes instead of burning 1000+ km off the ESS - given in both scenarios they are effectively uncatchable until they stop to filament - is good game design.
For what it’s worth, I think adding a ‘tournament bubble’ or ‘Zarzakh gate bubble’ to the ESS as some other commenters have proposed may be an interesting and (possibly) beneficial change. Though, I believe the size of the radius bubble should be at the very least 500-1000 km which allows both the kity group and the hunting group to engage in play and counter-play once capital booshes and chain booshes are considered. A bubble of 250km, as some have proposed, might just lead an overzealous warrior to boundary in their HAW PNI Nidhoggur. (Edit) That being said, I’m sure there are ramifications I haven’t considered and I’m not opposed to the ESS remaining in its current state.
Note that it’s only ‘effectively the same’ if the edit: nanogang group is capable and makes no mistakes.
If they make a mistake and warp back to a burned bookmark or if a fleet member is slow they can get caught, which creates 15 minutes of cat and mouse gameplay for the group running and the chasing group with probes.
This is content.
Compare this to the ability to burn endlessly on ESS grid with zero risk if you are fast and far enough, and you’ll notice that even though the outcome if played well is the same, the content isn’t.
So if there was an edge of the ESS grid at say 500km, you could still fight while kiting and you could also as you say still bounce safes to filament later.
So, such a change to the ESS grid would not make it impossible for roaming groups to stay out of the hands of locals, and you would still have the ability to fight on your terms in deadspace.
With a limit to the deadspace grid we’d get more interaction and skill from both sides, and less ‘endless burning’ wasting everyone’s time.
i’m not sure that “we’re not as good” is a valid defence of begging for an equaliser.
