Jump to content

The Bazzalisk

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

The Bazzalisk last won the day on August 17 2021

The Bazzalisk had the most liked content!

The Bazzalisk's Achievements

Seasoned Pilot

Seasoned Pilot (3/9)

6

Reputation

  1. absolutely wrong pretty much everything you have said is in the theme of 'players want to make super big groups so it should be more of an administrative pain in the dick to do so because you cant stop player psychology from wanting to make super big groups' people want to make super big groups because that's how you win. it's not an inherent trait of the playerbase that they all DESIRE to coagulate into enormous blobs, they want to 'win' and being in an omega blob is the best way to feel like you're 'winning', or at least prevent yourself from feeling like you're 'losing' changing the game mechanics so that people no longer want to be in an omega blob is the solution. accepting that players want to be in an omegablob and just trying to make it more of a pain in the ass to be an omega blob is not.
  2. No I was more asking about the other stuff. What is the context for your complaints about GMs hiding behind alts, CCP favouritism on forums? Lucas already addressed the blackmailing minors thing, I'm just getting the impression you have been scammed or ganked or betrayed or blackmailed in game and are crying foul play because you're 15 or something. So.. suppose I write to these guys complaining about a guy called Phantomite blackmailing me (or awoxing etc.) ingame.. then what happens? Space police?
  3. nothing at all to do with doxxing after being buttmad about getting ganked and losing structures during a war then?
  4. https://forums.eveonline.com/t/counter-punching-a-mercenary-attack-in-high-sec-a-potential-strategy/303491/44 https://forums.eveonline.com/t/how-new-pilots-might-keep-a-structure-safe-from-mercs-for-a-few-weeks-in-new-eden/301415/9 what are these threads
  5. OP, what the fuck are you talking about? Curious how both these threads mention this TIGA organisation for safeguarding players or whatever. Safeguarding players against.. getting ganked killed in war?
  6. The CSM shouldn't be democratically elected at all as we are not choosing people to lead design direction, we are (or should be) choosing people with expertise to inform design direction. The CSM should be replaced with focus groups consisting of people with expertise in specific areas. The CSM will continue to be a failure as long as it is a big bloc popularity contest where every year 7 or 8 of the successful candidates are there because they got everyone and their pet monkey in their null alliance to click a pre-filled ballot and vote for them regardless of how qualified or unqualified they are. Of course, it's always the alliance leaders who stand for CSM. That way they don't need to build credibility with anyone, they can just say 'vote for me' in an alliance mail and voila, all the line members who want 'our guy' to win or else 'the other guys' might be represented and 'we' won't be turn out en masse to click the buttons and vote for 7 bloc candidates regardless of how much knowledge or qualification positions 2-7 actually have. And now we're at a point where the expertise/experience is ingrained to the system, every year Aryth and Gobbins (not that I have any issue with Aryth or Gobbins in particular, just two seemingly perennial CSM names that came to mind first) can stand and say 'well I'm the right guy for the job because I have experience being on the CSM multiple times before' and there is nothing anybody who hasn't yet served can say in response.
  7. The problem with CCP is they fail to consider the role and importance of player decision making in determining the effects of the changes. For example - how can we make more kills happen? Obviously just make everything less tanky, duh. I also think a lot of the issues would require complex system overhauls, which would be expensive design/development time wise and also be risky considering how much of the playerbase is now ingrained with the accumulation playstyle. Blackout for example was a bandaid fix that was always going to be negatively received. But it allowed CCP to implement a low effort 'solution', witness the reception and then quickly revert it, which is probably preferable (for them) compared to spending years developing a complex, permanent overhaul only for it to drive away accumulators anyway.
  8. can you give me a low budget rendition of a cloaked loki camping the acceleration gate of a guristas 5/10, please show me what you got
  9. Just wanted to post this thread to collect people's thoughts on EFT given that it's also a persistent character, pvp, lose all your stuff kind of game, maybe some people who aren't sure/haven't played it can get an idea of what it's like. The basics for those who haven't played - it's a kind of realistic/immersive FPS game with persistent character/progression and looting of equipment/goodies/etc. You spawn in and your objective is up to you, whether that's killing other players, farming NPCs, completing quests, collecting loot items, etc. You can either queue in as a 'PMC' (your main character) and spawn on the map at the start of a raid with gear that you choose to take in with you (and will lose if you die), or you can spawn as a scav - generally with poor equipment, and some time will have passed after the start of a raid. ~45 minutes after the raid starts, the timer will run out and anyone remaining on the map at this point will die - so after players have done their objectives, they must leave the map by heading to one of a handful of extraction points. So my take is there's a lot of good but also a lot of bad. The good: - EFT's base game concept is unparalleled. - The maps are beautiful, expansive and exquisitely detailed (except Shoreline that map is garbage). - The quest system implementation is basically perfect - even though the quest dialogue is a meme and some of the actual objectives are a bit dull (collect x items) the impact they have on player decisions and incentivising movement around the maps is brilliant. - The scav system is also well implemented, particularly the new scav karma system. The bad: - Pay to win aspects - paying more money to buy the game allows for a bigger stash off the bat, a significantly bigger prison wallet, and extra rep with the traders so progressing them to buy better gear is attained earlier. - Flea market in general - early wipe is the best part of the game as people actually need to find specific items and value their gear as it's not easily attainable. When players get access to the flea market, this entire mindset is stripped and replaced with finding whatever items are worth the most money to sell so that you can just buy what you actually need. This leads into the next problem of.. - Static loot spawns - the loot spawns on the maps are pretty unchanging, so people know in advance the best keys to get, the best spots to rush, etc. in order to grab the highest value goodies and leave before much real action has occurred. This needs to be remedied to restore more dynamic player movement around the map rather than rushing a particular spot and fucking off afterwards. and by far my biggest gripe.. - the gunplay. Man for an FPS game they really tried hard to make the actual moving and shooting part of it bad. I know it's supposed to be realistic/immersive but god does it feel like everything else has been sacrificed at the altar of realism, even if it makes the game just a pain in the dick. I really thoroughly DETEST the use of 'realism' as a design justification - there are many things in Tarkov that are designed to be realistic or at least pseudo realistic, and many things that aren't realistic - if you ask the Tarkov community why the first is the way it is, you will probably be told 'for realism, duh!' If you ask them about the second category, it will be that way 'for gameplay reasons'. For example - why is the aimpunch so severe when getting shot at? Because it's a 'realistic' game! Okay, so why can I fully cure from a bullet wound in 30 seconds, why does vaseline let me run on a broken leg, why don't I need to periodically stop to take a shit? For gameplay reasons! If you imagine making a game as realistic as possible, it would suck absolute balls - thus every single 'realistic' game still has to make sacrifices to the realism for it to not be total garbage. The question is where the line is drawn, and the fact that this line exists at all inherently shows that 'realistic' doesn't automatically equate to 'better'. This wipe they changed it so you can no longer go prone in the middle of a bush. This is both realistic AND a gameplay improvement, but these two aspects are not related to each other - it hasn't made the game better BECAUSE it's more realistic. My issue with the gunplay is everything feels so clunky and clumsy. Moving is slow, awkward, and loud, and shooting while moving shakes your reticle around like your character has Parkinson's. Getting shot at fucks you with aimpunch AND blurs your screen so trying to shoot back is often futile, meaning whoever shoots first usually wins an engagement. High tier ammo is far more accessible than armor that resists it, so most kills happen in an extremely short TTK (for realism!) despite it seeming to be a common sentiment that EFT gameplay is at its best during early wipe when the TTK is longest (!) due to an absence of this ammo. The joy of early wipe gameplay is quickly pushed out of the way to make space for more realistic gameplay. I think the game would be significantly more fun if the FPS elements were a) increased TTK (contrary to realism) so that getting the first shot in isn't of such paramount importance, and b) more reflective of actual player vs player inputs (moving, aiming, recoil control), as opposed to [player vs game] vs [player vs game], as in, whoever deals better with all the 'realistic' implementations like aimpunch and weapon sway and screen blur winning a given encounter. So, with that rant out of the way, thoughts on EFT?
  10. Like Joshua said, some 'playstyles' are oppressive to the rest of the game if they become ubiquitous. Whatever happened to 'there is no best ship in eve as they all have a niche use'? Supers/capitals should have a niche use, not be a main line general purpose 'I'm in space doing stuff come get me' ship. This would be an improvement on the current situation, but I think the ambition should be to facilitate content creation beyond player A ratting in a cap/super, -> group B jumps on them -> see whether or not alliance A reacts to it - if they don't group B gets a super frag and if they do group B gets hammered and bails to go look somewhere else. Neither outcome is particularly desirable - alliances want to protect valuable assets like supers and so won't softball people attacking them for the sake of either party's enjoyment.
  11. I think the people crying out for 'carrier/super content' kind of want their carrier/super to become a 'daily driver' and I think it's very bad for game health to make changes with this attitude in mind. These ships should have a niche in capital escalation, not be the kind of ship you undock on a whim to do a combat site or whatever. I feel these kind of players are of the mindset of 'I paid for this toy and now I should be able to use it or else CCP is scamming me'.
  12. I do actually unironically think the best option at this point would be releasing 2012 EVE with everything reset and everyone having to start from fresh, ala OSRS. I don't think CCP are capable or even willing of putting the genie back in the bottle .
×
×
  • Create New...