Forums » Suggestions
Are you actually as dense as your post's reasoning (and I use that term exceedingly generously in this instance) indicates, or are you merely being deliberately obtuse?
Obviously there are negative gameplay consequences right now for the current ease of re-fielding tridents: the faster and easier they are to replace, the less an opponent gains by destroying one. This is true even if both sides are fielding one or more of them. Those are simply the inverse of all the gameplay benefits having a trident brings to the fight.
If there is incentive to avoiding having your Trident die, people will take you up on it.
True of any ship, and bafflingly incoherent. There is ALREADY an incentive to avoid having your trident die -- 500k, 7 minutes of downtime, and loss of equipped items. Strangely enough, there's STILL a lot of trident usage because most times the immediate benefits outweigh the potential risks.
The question, whether you want to grapple with it in a rational manner or not, is whether the incentive to avoid having your trident die is currently balanced well, or whether overall gameplay would be better served by making it more expensive or more time consuming (or both) to lose one. Not merely to punish those who field and lose tridents, but to give better balance to those who are opposing a trident-using force.
As for the used/built/you're penalizing owners whine, you're simply not making sense (a theme, really). One need not own a trident to have used one or seen the advantages offered in larger-scale PvP battles from others using them. One need not have built one to see how -- once built and locked-in as an available item for the owner -- there is a need to balance advantages of having one with the risk of temporary loss. And as noted above, this isn't really about penalizing owners for losing tridents; it's about whether destroying a trident currently offers enough negatives to offset the advantages given to a group of players who fields one.
"they have it too unspecifically good right now"
You can piddle out unsupported generalities all you like, but I see nothing to suggest that a mere 500k+7minutes downtime+loss of equipped items is sufficient downside risk/upside to successfully destroying a trident.
Obviously there are negative gameplay consequences right now for the current ease of re-fielding tridents: the faster and easier they are to replace, the less an opponent gains by destroying one. This is true even if both sides are fielding one or more of them. Those are simply the inverse of all the gameplay benefits having a trident brings to the fight.
If there is incentive to avoiding having your Trident die, people will take you up on it.
True of any ship, and bafflingly incoherent. There is ALREADY an incentive to avoid having your trident die -- 500k, 7 minutes of downtime, and loss of equipped items. Strangely enough, there's STILL a lot of trident usage because most times the immediate benefits outweigh the potential risks.
The question, whether you want to grapple with it in a rational manner or not, is whether the incentive to avoid having your trident die is currently balanced well, or whether overall gameplay would be better served by making it more expensive or more time consuming (or both) to lose one. Not merely to punish those who field and lose tridents, but to give better balance to those who are opposing a trident-using force.
As for the used/built/you're penalizing owners whine, you're simply not making sense (a theme, really). One need not own a trident to have used one or seen the advantages offered in larger-scale PvP battles from others using them. One need not have built one to see how -- once built and locked-in as an available item for the owner -- there is a need to balance advantages of having one with the risk of temporary loss. And as noted above, this isn't really about penalizing owners for losing tridents; it's about whether destroying a trident currently offers enough negatives to offset the advantages given to a group of players who fields one.
"they have it too unspecifically good right now"
You can piddle out unsupported generalities all you like, but I see nothing to suggest that a mere 500k+7minutes downtime+loss of equipped items is sufficient downside risk/upside to successfully destroying a trident.
Oh ok, so destroying a Trident right now doesn't provide enough satisfaction? Aw poor baby. What a fantastic reason. We'll go right ahead and give you what you need, Mr. Jagger.
I'm pretty sure every time ONE has destroyed my trident there was tremendous satisfaction. In fact, I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever killed a player Trident has been damn satisfied (except you, apparently -- that is, if you ever actually killed one).
I'm still waiting patiently to hear how disincentivizing Trident use is good for the game. Any time you are ready.
I'm pretty sure every time ONE has destroyed my trident there was tremendous satisfaction. In fact, I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever killed a player Trident has been damn satisfied (except you, apparently -- that is, if you ever actually killed one).
I'm still waiting patiently to hear how disincentivizing Trident use is good for the game. Any time you are ready.
1) You really need to stick to the concepts articulated in the post to which you're purportedly responding. Satisfaction was not among the things I mentioned...though I do understand why you might be confused about subjective satisfaction versus objective gameplay advantages, given your earlier cognitive problems related to that topic.
2) You seem to think anything that disincentivizes trident use must be bad; that point, taken to its logical conclusion, would make trident replacement free and instantaneous. The reality is, there's already a penalty for trident loss that (among other things, such as incentivizing destruction of an opposing trident and defense of a friendly one) disincentivizes their use, all else being equal. But all else is not equal -- putting a trident at risk allows one and one's allies significant PvP advantages discussed ad nauseam above -- and thus using tridents is an overwhelmingly popular thing to do.
The only question, to repeat it for the slower members of the class, is whether that 500k/7min/other inherent penalties strikes the right balance...or whether a better balance might not be achieved by a greater penalty. Even granting that there might be LESS use of tridents at the margins, trident use would not plummet to zero instances if the penalty was, say, 1M/15min/other inherent penalties. And there would most assuredly be greater advantages to (and thus more activity directed at) destroying an enemy trident. So, overall, better balance.
Now, read carefully and note the absence of the term "satisfaction" in there. I'm not asking for brilliance from you, an effort at trying to keep up would be a step in the right direction.
2) You seem to think anything that disincentivizes trident use must be bad; that point, taken to its logical conclusion, would make trident replacement free and instantaneous. The reality is, there's already a penalty for trident loss that (among other things, such as incentivizing destruction of an opposing trident and defense of a friendly one) disincentivizes their use, all else being equal. But all else is not equal -- putting a trident at risk allows one and one's allies significant PvP advantages discussed ad nauseam above -- and thus using tridents is an overwhelmingly popular thing to do.
The only question, to repeat it for the slower members of the class, is whether that 500k/7min/other inherent penalties strikes the right balance...or whether a better balance might not be achieved by a greater penalty. Even granting that there might be LESS use of tridents at the margins, trident use would not plummet to zero instances if the penalty was, say, 1M/15min/other inherent penalties. And there would most assuredly be greater advantages to (and thus more activity directed at) destroying an enemy trident. So, overall, better balance.
Now, read carefully and note the absence of the term "satisfaction" in there. I'm not asking for brilliance from you, an effort at trying to keep up would be a step in the right direction.
The question, whether you want to grapple with it in a rational manner or not, is whether the incentive to avoid having your trident die is currently balanced well, or whether overall gameplay would be better served by making it more expensive or more time consuming (or both) to lose one. Not merely to punish those who field and lose tridents, but to give better balance to those who are opposing a trident-using force.
If you cared to read anything I've written you'd see that I clearly believe Tridents are fairly well balanced. If anything they need more buffs, re: scanner discussion. Tridents enhance gameplay, and giving people MORE reasons to use them will serve the majority of the playerbase. The only people it won't serve are the solitary lazy asses who refuse to grind out a Trident and instead pout about how unfair it is that everyone else has tridents but them.
As for the used/built/you're penalizing owners whine, you're simply not making sense (a theme, really). One need not own a trident to have used one or seen the advantages offered in larger-scale PvP battles from others using them. One need not have built one to see how -- once built and locked-in as an available item for the owner -- there is a need to balance advantages of having one with the risk of temporary loss. And as noted above, this isn't really about penalizing owners for losing tridents; it's about whether destroying a trident currently offers enough negatives to offset the advantages given to a group of players who fields one.
Walk a mile in another mans shoes, bro. There are somethings you truly cannot understand until you are the one in the captains chair. Add that to your usual empathy vacuum and it's no wonder my comments about this don't make any sense to you.
If you cared to read anything I've written you'd see that I clearly believe Tridents are fairly well balanced. If anything they need more buffs, re: scanner discussion. Tridents enhance gameplay, and giving people MORE reasons to use them will serve the majority of the playerbase. The only people it won't serve are the solitary lazy asses who refuse to grind out a Trident and instead pout about how unfair it is that everyone else has tridents but them.
As for the used/built/you're penalizing owners whine, you're simply not making sense (a theme, really). One need not own a trident to have used one or seen the advantages offered in larger-scale PvP battles from others using them. One need not have built one to see how -- once built and locked-in as an available item for the owner -- there is a need to balance advantages of having one with the risk of temporary loss. And as noted above, this isn't really about penalizing owners for losing tridents; it's about whether destroying a trident currently offers enough negatives to offset the advantages given to a group of players who fields one.
Walk a mile in another mans shoes, bro. There are somethings you truly cannot understand until you are the one in the captains chair. Add that to your usual empathy vacuum and it's no wonder my comments about this don't make any sense to you.
Tridents enhance gameplay
Indeed they do – and not just (or even primarily) for their actual owners. Rather, they offer significant gameplay advantages for ANY players able to access one as part of a multiplayer conflict. Conversely, there are significant gameplay disadvantages for their opponents (whether they have their own trident or not).
The problem is you don’t seem able to wrap your head around the fact that this necessarily presents a question of balance that goes beyond the trident owner (i.e., focusing some kind of angst on an illusory us v. them, “ the lazy asses who refuse to grind out a Trident and instead pout about how unfair it is that everyone else has tridents but them”). Wake up: there’s nobody who doesn’t “have” tridents at this point, short of those who deliberately choose to avoid allying with any one of the many groups/players with them. Flying one is more burden than benefit; the benefit is having access to one in combat.
The "walk a mile" crap would be appropriate if we were discussing grounds for depriving someone of a trident after they'd completed the grind. We're not - I agree that would be batshit insane. Since Rin's revisions to the OP, we're talking about the current settings of the insurance mission.
You've yet to offer any cogent defense of the current settings, while plenty of critique has been offered as to why it does not offer sufficient downtime as a reward for taking out an opposing group's trident. But you being you, I don't expect much else.
Indeed they do – and not just (or even primarily) for their actual owners. Rather, they offer significant gameplay advantages for ANY players able to access one as part of a multiplayer conflict. Conversely, there are significant gameplay disadvantages for their opponents (whether they have their own trident or not).
The problem is you don’t seem able to wrap your head around the fact that this necessarily presents a question of balance that goes beyond the trident owner (i.e., focusing some kind of angst on an illusory us v. them, “ the lazy asses who refuse to grind out a Trident and instead pout about how unfair it is that everyone else has tridents but them”). Wake up: there’s nobody who doesn’t “have” tridents at this point, short of those who deliberately choose to avoid allying with any one of the many groups/players with them. Flying one is more burden than benefit; the benefit is having access to one in combat.
The "walk a mile" crap would be appropriate if we were discussing grounds for depriving someone of a trident after they'd completed the grind. We're not - I agree that would be batshit insane. Since Rin's revisions to the OP, we're talking about the current settings of the insurance mission.
You've yet to offer any cogent defense of the current settings, while plenty of critique has been offered as to why it does not offer sufficient downtime as a reward for taking out an opposing group's trident. But you being you, I don't expect much else.
Lecter, you can go ahead and tone down the "you're stupid" insults, as I am beginning to tire of them believe it or not. They add nothing to your arguments.
[the below two items refer to your post stamped 9:40PM]
1) You altered your post after I submitted my response above. Regardless, the point about satisfaction still remains intact even if you don't specifically use the word. You can talk all day about the generalities of "objective gameplay advantages", but you will be unable to provide anything specific that doesn't ultimately amount to the satisfaction of a Trident destruction being achieved. Go ahead and try.
2) Yes, it is bad if you can't prove a good reason, which you haven't. And you are right, there are existing penalties. I'm against further disincentivization. Assuming you are talking about using Tridents in combat situations, you are incorrect. The majority of owners don't use them that often, especially when there is any present risk to their loss (this is assuming their Trident is even anywhere near where a battle is taking place). Drop someone's shields and there is a 90% chance they will flee immediately. Serco nationalists generally don't ever emerge with theirs unless they have overwhelmingly superior numbers. Again, you are talking out of your ass -- you clearly are not aware of how (tactics, tendencies) people are using their tridents for combat in this game.
You've yet to offer any cogent defense of the current settings,
Honestly I don't really expect to convince you, so I'm not surprised you don't feel I've done enough in that regard. My basic stance is that any nerfing to tridents must be done VERY carefully so as to not "rock the boat" too much and give people even LESS reason to bring out their Tridents (to combat situations) than they already have. We are already in a state of gameplay where people are hesitant in their use. Personally I couldn't give two craps if it cost me 5 million everytime I replace my trident. But I'm concerned about giving the already fickle and hesitant captains even more reason to hide away. Now, I would care if I had some retarded waiting period before I could buy another one, given how much of a pain in the ass it is to go and get a new one out already. That would indeed prevent me from even bothering to bring my Trident out in most situations.
Better for the game is to give reasons for people to bring their Tridents out. Add enhancements, counters to those enhancements, etc etc. Encouraging people to play is the right way, not giving people more reasons not to play.
[the below two items refer to your post stamped 9:40PM]
1) You altered your post after I submitted my response above. Regardless, the point about satisfaction still remains intact even if you don't specifically use the word. You can talk all day about the generalities of "objective gameplay advantages", but you will be unable to provide anything specific that doesn't ultimately amount to the satisfaction of a Trident destruction being achieved. Go ahead and try.
2) Yes, it is bad if you can't prove a good reason, which you haven't. And you are right, there are existing penalties. I'm against further disincentivization. Assuming you are talking about using Tridents in combat situations, you are incorrect. The majority of owners don't use them that often, especially when there is any present risk to their loss (this is assuming their Trident is even anywhere near where a battle is taking place). Drop someone's shields and there is a 90% chance they will flee immediately. Serco nationalists generally don't ever emerge with theirs unless they have overwhelmingly superior numbers. Again, you are talking out of your ass -- you clearly are not aware of how (tactics, tendencies) people are using their tridents for combat in this game.
You've yet to offer any cogent defense of the current settings,
Honestly I don't really expect to convince you, so I'm not surprised you don't feel I've done enough in that regard. My basic stance is that any nerfing to tridents must be done VERY carefully so as to not "rock the boat" too much and give people even LESS reason to bring out their Tridents (to combat situations) than they already have. We are already in a state of gameplay where people are hesitant in their use. Personally I couldn't give two craps if it cost me 5 million everytime I replace my trident. But I'm concerned about giving the already fickle and hesitant captains even more reason to hide away. Now, I would care if I had some retarded waiting period before I could buy another one, given how much of a pain in the ass it is to go and get a new one out already. That would indeed prevent me from even bothering to bring my Trident out in most situations.
Better for the game is to give reasons for people to bring their Tridents out. Add enhancements, counters to those enhancements, etc etc. Encouraging people to play is the right way, not giving people more reasons not to play.
Again, you are talking out of your ass -- you clearly are not aware of how (tactics, tendencies) people are using their tridents for combat in this game.
My apologies, I have no idea how I forgot you were the sole arbiter of How Things Work In VO and that any experiences/observations inconsistent with Your Understanding are per se mistaken/made up.
The rest of your post is so much piss on the floor, and I'll ignore it accordingly.
My apologies, I have no idea how I forgot you were the sole arbiter of How Things Work In VO and that any experiences/observations inconsistent with Your Understanding are per se mistaken/made up.
The rest of your post is so much piss on the floor, and I'll ignore it accordingly.
So, there is a core design tenet of this game, which is:
Whenever possible (without creating game-breaking imbalance or a huge maintenance headache for the developers), allow the player to impact the game universe.
The concept of impact is basically allowing their actions to bring about some change or meaningful ramification within the game universe, such that the game world is not purely static, but is the sum total of the choices and actions of all the players within it.
We certainly have lots of places where we fail to achieve this (obvious development resource limitations), but it is still an over-arching goal that I apply to all of my thinking, both short and long-term.
The double edged sword here, is that difficult actions often require impact of some greater scale. If a bunch of people group up to kill a Leviathan, it doesn't just respawn two seconds later like an Orun Collector. That would be kind of insulting to the efforts and energy expended by those working to destroy a large mob. Instead, there is an impact on the universe.. that area's Hive vanishes for a period of time, and then slowly starts to grow back some time later. The actions of the players have changed the game world, at least for awhile (and the more lasting and meaningful I can make the player impact, the happier about it I am).
The thing here is that now we have PvP combat that is basically evolving into something on a much larger scale. Tridents are much more significant "mobs". Tridents are not simple fighter ships, they're strategic in value. Items of strategic value should have some degree of scarcity (difficult of acquisition, as we already have), and also some ramification to their destruction. This should be true of many things moving forward (player-created stations, defenses, etc).
I think Greenwall's contention is something like "If you make Tridents take longer to respawn, people will use them less, and therefore the game will have Less Content, which is a Bad Thing". I don't really buy into that. I would rather have the careful usage of Tridents have greater meaning, and the destruction of a Trident also have some meaning for those who expended the time and effort to do so.
So, if people use Tridents less.. that's ok. I can make more content to draw them out. This game is a constant work in progress.
And that should be the real takeaway here. One of the biggest challenges of Suggestions is that 90% of the feedback I get from the player base is tightly focused on the game they're playing now. But that only figures into a small percentage of my own thinking, as I'm focusing on the game they're going to be playing. And if, to get from here to there, people stop using Tridents for awhile.. that's ok? I'll find other ways to draw out Tridents, it's not a big deal.
Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about ridiculous ramifications, I respect the huge time investment people have made in Manufacturing their Tridents in the first place. But the whole "500k credits and you instantly get a new Trident" thing.. that was always temporary. If you assumed that was going to last forever, best change your expectations.
Greenwall's other contentions were things like "the station takes so long to fly around, replacing a Trident is terrible as it is", etc etc. But those issues have already been covered in other threads, where I said I was willing to rotate the station and so on. I think we can safely just examine Tridents, in this discussion, on their own merits, with most or all of the old difficulties falling away, and being almost as simple to replace as a base Vulture.
Whenever possible (without creating game-breaking imbalance or a huge maintenance headache for the developers), allow the player to impact the game universe.
The concept of impact is basically allowing their actions to bring about some change or meaningful ramification within the game universe, such that the game world is not purely static, but is the sum total of the choices and actions of all the players within it.
We certainly have lots of places where we fail to achieve this (obvious development resource limitations), but it is still an over-arching goal that I apply to all of my thinking, both short and long-term.
The double edged sword here, is that difficult actions often require impact of some greater scale. If a bunch of people group up to kill a Leviathan, it doesn't just respawn two seconds later like an Orun Collector. That would be kind of insulting to the efforts and energy expended by those working to destroy a large mob. Instead, there is an impact on the universe.. that area's Hive vanishes for a period of time, and then slowly starts to grow back some time later. The actions of the players have changed the game world, at least for awhile (and the more lasting and meaningful I can make the player impact, the happier about it I am).
The thing here is that now we have PvP combat that is basically evolving into something on a much larger scale. Tridents are much more significant "mobs". Tridents are not simple fighter ships, they're strategic in value. Items of strategic value should have some degree of scarcity (difficult of acquisition, as we already have), and also some ramification to their destruction. This should be true of many things moving forward (player-created stations, defenses, etc).
I think Greenwall's contention is something like "If you make Tridents take longer to respawn, people will use them less, and therefore the game will have Less Content, which is a Bad Thing". I don't really buy into that. I would rather have the careful usage of Tridents have greater meaning, and the destruction of a Trident also have some meaning for those who expended the time and effort to do so.
So, if people use Tridents less.. that's ok. I can make more content to draw them out. This game is a constant work in progress.
And that should be the real takeaway here. One of the biggest challenges of Suggestions is that 90% of the feedback I get from the player base is tightly focused on the game they're playing now. But that only figures into a small percentage of my own thinking, as I'm focusing on the game they're going to be playing. And if, to get from here to there, people stop using Tridents for awhile.. that's ok? I'll find other ways to draw out Tridents, it's not a big deal.
Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about ridiculous ramifications, I respect the huge time investment people have made in Manufacturing their Tridents in the first place. But the whole "500k credits and you instantly get a new Trident" thing.. that was always temporary. If you assumed that was going to last forever, best change your expectations.
Greenwall's other contentions were things like "the station takes so long to fly around, replacing a Trident is terrible as it is", etc etc. But those issues have already been covered in other threads, where I said I was willing to rotate the station and so on. I think we can safely just examine Tridents, in this discussion, on their own merits, with most or all of the old difficulties falling away, and being almost as simple to replace as a base Vulture.
So, as it sounds Inc, you are intending to make trident loss more painful, I would much prefer this to be in the form of a "you cannot get a replacement for 24 hours"-type penalty rather than any other.
Any change that necessitates more manufacturing will see most dents disappear from the game - I don't think that is what you want
Any change that necessitates more manufacturing will see most dents disappear from the game - I don't think that is what you want
I think raising the cost to repair now to 5 million credits sets the stage for an alternative option later on whereby players could repair their tridents with manufacturing either done in advance or after the ship has been destroyed, or some other work required that comes to less than the work needed to earn the 5 million credits. I would perhaps leave the initial rebuild at 500k and subsequent rebuilds should begin at 5 million, but I'm good with just changing to a flat 5 million.
Getting players accustomed to a substantial cost for rebuilding their tridents now will make alternative methods not only more palatable for players later, but also have players encouraging those methods.
500k was reasonable when tridents were extremely rare. Now that they are common, building them is much easier for most players that don't piss people off or don't know how to work through an alias to accomplish their goals. With the substantial efficiency that a trident gives a player, I firmly believe 5 million is a fair new rebuild price.
Getting players accustomed to a substantial cost for rebuilding their tridents now will make alternative methods not only more palatable for players later, but also have players encouraging those methods.
500k was reasonable when tridents were extremely rare. Now that they are common, building them is much easier for most players that don't piss people off or don't know how to work through an alias to accomplish their goals. With the substantial efficiency that a trident gives a player, I firmly believe 5 million is a fair new rebuild price.
I'll be honest if I have to pay 5 Million to replace a trident it needs to have better shields and useful weapons and way more cap stations to dock at for trading otherwise it's just going to stay parked in a station.
I would add that there should be an exemption for tridents lost by players involved in Deneb battles.
I think Greenwall's contention is something like "If you make Tridents take longer to respawn, people will use them less, and therefore the game will have Less Content, which is a Bad Thing". I don't really buy into that. I would rather have the careful usage of Tridents have greater meaning, and the destruction of a Trident also have some meaning for those who expended the time and effort to do so.
No, my contention is not that the game will have "less content" generally, it's that it will have specifically less of the most valuable (and already greatly diminished) type of content (large group pvp). Availability and frequency of large group PVP situations is quite possibly the most meaningful thing to me at this point, and it's why I hit so hard on it in these discussions and others that relate to it.
I don't think it's a far fetched thing to say that MOST people look forward to a large group PVP situation when they decide the play the game. As they play, they quickly realize that there is little joy to be found in mining, hauling, or trading and eventually even PvE situations lose their appeal because they are too predictable. The only thing that remains unpredictable and exciting and full of opportunity and possibility is PvP, and, the absolute BEST form of PvP in this game is when shitload of people come together to fight.
I can understand that challenge of balancing your vision with the momentary whims and desires of players who can only comment and opine on the game as it is "now". Perhaps, if you want to remove certain things from the focus of this conversation (like station distance being part of the pain of Trident recovery), then you could at least say you WILL change M7 instead of you "can" or are "willing to", and then we can take that firm commitment into account. Without either a very firm, near term commitment or actual change in game, it's impossible to remove them from the equation because of the Soon(TM) phenomenon.
I would only hope that through all the strong disagreement and debate that occurs the biggest take away is that most of us only feel this strongly because we love this damn game.
No, my contention is not that the game will have "less content" generally, it's that it will have specifically less of the most valuable (and already greatly diminished) type of content (large group pvp). Availability and frequency of large group PVP situations is quite possibly the most meaningful thing to me at this point, and it's why I hit so hard on it in these discussions and others that relate to it.
I don't think it's a far fetched thing to say that MOST people look forward to a large group PVP situation when they decide the play the game. As they play, they quickly realize that there is little joy to be found in mining, hauling, or trading and eventually even PvE situations lose their appeal because they are too predictable. The only thing that remains unpredictable and exciting and full of opportunity and possibility is PvP, and, the absolute BEST form of PvP in this game is when shitload of people come together to fight.
I can understand that challenge of balancing your vision with the momentary whims and desires of players who can only comment and opine on the game as it is "now". Perhaps, if you want to remove certain things from the focus of this conversation (like station distance being part of the pain of Trident recovery), then you could at least say you WILL change M7 instead of you "can" or are "willing to", and then we can take that firm commitment into account. Without either a very firm, near term commitment or actual change in game, it's impossible to remove them from the equation because of the Soon(TM) phenomenon.
I would only hope that through all the strong disagreement and debate that occurs the biggest take away is that most of us only feel this strongly because we love this damn game.
An easier way to get this to work, which someone could post to another thread if the idea is good, would be to have a 120cu milinar computer hacking module that gets docked into the trident when it's hull is under 10% with a moth. The moth wouldn't need a key, but upon docking everything in the dent is ejected and the docker would get an owner key to the trident or the option to give control of the trident to the original owner (to allow the owner and his guild to retake the trident). When the ownership of the trident changes hands, the person who was in control gets ejected in the last ship he/she had along with all the cargo that they had in the dent. If there are no ships in the trident, the person is sent back to wherever they were homed.
I would guess it would be difficult to accomplish such a task with your guild defending. The original owner should be able to see the location of his dent still which can keep the battle going. The original owner cannot get a new dent until this one is destroyed, docked in a non corvus capship station or abandoned (for example, by logging off). If the dent is docked in a capship station other than corvus, the station returns the dent to the owner (except corvus, where the owner can regain access if he goes to that station while the dent is docked there with a mission which would be available to prove ownership).
This would also give us a way to share, rent or even steal dents with/from each other by the owner allowing someone with a key to dock with the hacking module.
I would guess it would be difficult to accomplish such a task with your guild defending. The original owner should be able to see the location of his dent still which can keep the battle going. The original owner cannot get a new dent until this one is destroyed, docked in a non corvus capship station or abandoned (for example, by logging off). If the dent is docked in a capship station other than corvus, the station returns the dent to the owner (except corvus, where the owner can regain access if he goes to that station while the dent is docked there with a mission which would be available to prove ownership).
This would also give us a way to share, rent or even steal dents with/from each other by the owner allowing someone with a key to dock with the hacking module.
That is completely unrelated to the goal this thread is trying to accomplish.
All I see is lazy fucks wanting a way to get a trident without doing the damn work. You can't steal somones prom or valk why should it be any different for a dent just because you have to build it.
How about you lazy greyhound jockeys keep flying around killing newbs as that is all you are clearly capable of.
How about you lazy greyhound jockeys keep flying around killing newbs as that is all you are clearly capable of.
You can't steal somones prom or valk why should it be any different for a dent just because you have to build it.
I have to agree with HWW on tridents not having unique vulnerabilities/conquerable aspects. Of course, we'll need to pull tridents' shields, repair abilities, reload abilities, and the ability for anyone to dock with one other than the owner...because, you know, proms and valks don't have those unique abilities and why should tridents be any different?
How about you lazy greyhound jockeys keep flying around killing newbs
As long as we get to keep killing moths, taurs, atlases, and everything else carrying cargo too.
I have to agree with HWW on tridents not having unique vulnerabilities/conquerable aspects. Of course, we'll need to pull tridents' shields, repair abilities, reload abilities, and the ability for anyone to dock with one other than the owner...because, you know, proms and valks don't have those unique abilities and why should tridents be any different?
How about you lazy greyhound jockeys keep flying around killing newbs
As long as we get to keep killing moths, taurs, atlases, and everything else carrying cargo too.
Overall -1000
"All I see is lazy fucks wanting a way to get a trident without doing the damn work."
All I see is somebody who didn't bother to actually read the discussion they're trying to participate in. The main point of this suggestion was never about being able to steal Tridents, and I already agreed that the theft feature of the OP was bad and removed it from the revised suggestion. Nothing in the revised suggestion gives me a way to get a Trident without doing the work.
Perhaps next time you should try "doing the damn work" of understanding a discussion before you call other people "lazy fucks".
All I see is somebody who didn't bother to actually read the discussion they're trying to participate in. The main point of this suggestion was never about being able to steal Tridents, and I already agreed that the theft feature of the OP was bad and removed it from the revised suggestion. Nothing in the revised suggestion gives me a way to get a Trident without doing the work.
Perhaps next time you should try "doing the damn work" of understanding a discussion before you call other people "lazy fucks".
Hi all. I have done a considerable amount of pruning here and have informed the devs of my actions.
Please see: https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/31059
Attack each other's arguments, if you must, but please refrain from personal attacks. The Suggestions forum is a place for the civil exchange and discussion of ideas.
Please see: https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/31059
Attack each other's arguments, if you must, but please refrain from personal attacks. The Suggestions forum is a place for the civil exchange and discussion of ideas.