Forums » Suggestions
I've given adequate support for why it's needed. Either you haven't the reading/comprehension level capable of understanding or you're pretending you don't see it.
I have removed or edited posts. Please focus on the suggestion at hand. Do not engage in personal attacks. Thank you.
you have given zero support for why this is needed. All you have suggested is causing more pain and fear. Why? who is to gain? how is it better for the game?
I think what YT-1300 is getting at is that people feel too free to dispose of their tridents in combat kamikaze-style. It would lead to higher quality combat if people used their tridents more wisely, as if they are important, extremely expensive ships that they are supposed to be.
If a star destroyer blew up in Star Wars, it deals the Imperial a significant blow. They don't go "oh, no problem. Here's my lunch money, use it to buy another star destroyer"
It takes a lengthy concentrated team effort to take down a single trident. For the level of effort it takes to destroy a trident, the trident owner should at least experience the roughly same level of penalty.
It's ridiculous that the same level of firepower and teamwork that it takes to destroy a single trident could destroy 200 greyhounds, yet it only costs the trident owner 5 greyhounds to buy it back without any time delay or hassle.
I think what YT-1300 is getting at is that people feel too free to dispose of their tridents in combat kamikaze-style. It would lead to higher quality combat if people used their tridents more wisely, as if they are important, extremely expensive ships that they are supposed to be.
If a star destroyer blew up in Star Wars, it deals the Imperial a significant blow. They don't go "oh, no problem. Here's my lunch money, use it to buy another star destroyer"
It takes a lengthy concentrated team effort to take down a single trident. For the level of effort it takes to destroy a trident, the trident owner should at least experience the roughly same level of penalty.
It's ridiculous that the same level of firepower and teamwork that it takes to destroy a single trident could destroy 200 greyhounds, yet it only costs the trident owner 5 greyhounds to buy it back without any time delay or hassle.
I think what YT-1300 is getting at is that people feel too free to dispose of their tridents in combat kamikaze-style. It would lead to higher quality combat if people used their tridents more wisely, as if they are important, extremely expensive ships that they are supposed to be.
Well I find that people are just as likely to use their tridents "Strategically" as they are "disposably". That SOME don't care when their trident gets killed isn't cause for concern, it should, rather be cause for satisfaction; that someone is willing to let their capital ship be destroyed rather than running at the first yellowjacket fired at them.
Since YT hasn't offered any other explanation than "WE MUST CAUSE THEM MORE PAIN", I can only assume that someone successfully made him feel like his destruction of their trident was inconsequential. I don't see why the entire risk of bringing out a capital ship needs to be hugely increased to appease the insatiable appetites of a few.
Again, if it's more risky to bring out tridents, less people will do it. Those who let you freely destroy their tridents now, or show little concern, will more likely have so much concern that they no longer afford you the opportunity.
Well I find that people are just as likely to use their tridents "Strategically" as they are "disposably". That SOME don't care when their trident gets killed isn't cause for concern, it should, rather be cause for satisfaction; that someone is willing to let their capital ship be destroyed rather than running at the first yellowjacket fired at them.
Since YT hasn't offered any other explanation than "WE MUST CAUSE THEM MORE PAIN", I can only assume that someone successfully made him feel like his destruction of their trident was inconsequential. I don't see why the entire risk of bringing out a capital ship needs to be hugely increased to appease the insatiable appetites of a few.
Again, if it's more risky to bring out tridents, less people will do it. Those who let you freely destroy their tridents now, or show little concern, will more likely have so much concern that they no longer afford you the opportunity.
Nobody is throwing away tridents, it isn't about the credits.
That SOME don't care when their trident gets killed isn't cause for concern, it should, rather be cause for satisfaction
Wrong. It's NOT very satisfying when the very same trident that you exerted a lot of effort to destroy shows up 10 minutes later, as if nothing happened.
It would be more satisfying if it stays inaccessible for longer than just 10 minutes and it should cost way more than 500k. 5m would be a good compromise.
Wrong. It's NOT very satisfying when the very same trident that you exerted a lot of effort to destroy shows up 10 minutes later, as if nothing happened.
It would be more satisfying if it stays inaccessible for longer than just 10 minutes and it should cost way more than 500k. 5m would be a good compromise.
Actually it is VERY satisfying knowing they're about to give me another trident kill.
yep, something you'd only know if you actually played jj
Remove insurance and manufacturing and make the trident 100mil and the goliath 50mil.
If a star destroyer blew up in Star Wars, it deals the Imperial a significant blow. They don't go "oh, no problem. Here's my lunch money, use it to buy another star destroyer"
I don't think you are very knowledgeable on the Empire or the Imperial Navy.
To quote Grand General Cassio Tagge; "The starfleet is a sea. It is endless, cannot be beaten, and given enough time turns even the strongest rocks to sand."
I don't think you are very knowledgeable on the Empire or the Imperial Navy.
To quote Grand General Cassio Tagge; "The starfleet is a sea. It is endless, cannot be beaten, and given enough time turns even the strongest rocks to sand."
I don't see why a person should be allowed to lose three tridents (which I'd like to highlight is incredibly hard due to the increased capswarm damage and an OP rail gun) in a few hours and the punishment being payment of very less (and exploited) credits.
People who believe otherwise, i.e. tridents are still easy to take down either haven't logged in recently, or haven't ever taken down a trident.
People who believe otherwise, i.e. tridents are still easy to take down either haven't logged in recently, or haven't ever taken down a trident.
You don't care about exploited credits, don't pretend otherwise. If this was a real economy 500K would mean something, and there would be 80% less capships.
Tridents are extremely easy to take down, they are trade boats not combat ships.
Tridents are extremely easy to take down, they are trade boats not combat ships.
lol -1
drevent do you have a cap?
drevent do you have a cap?
Hes a miner, he doesnt manu. I rarely ever see him in grey at all.
Wasnt there supposed to be a system where the more you lost your capship the more you had to pay? That seems much better than 50m or a new reactor. Price doubles each time it dies, so 1m 2m 4m 8m 16m and ect, it would reset monthtly like the race tubes.
That in my opinion would be good and it puts risk into losing your cappie and there be an actual price to pay for losing your capship over and over.
Wasnt there supposed to be a system where the more you lost your capship the more you had to pay? That seems much better than 50m or a new reactor. Price doubles each time it dies, so 1m 2m 4m 8m 16m and ect, it would reset monthtly like the race tubes.
That in my opinion would be good and it puts risk into losing your cappie and there be an actual price to pay for losing your capship over and over.
lol @ exponential price increase.... why not just cut to the chase and remove tridents from the goddamn game.
I've seen drevent once, stocking ores at N-2
remove tridents from the goddamn game.
Finally a good suggestion.
Finally a good suggestion.
+1 Greenwall
Ok... So people attack tridents cos its fun to kill them, a bit of a challenge...
Lets say devs increased the cost of replacement. Very soon, the resources of capship owners would be exhausted and then they would not be able to fly them.
So... Less combat for everyone.
Duh!
Lets say devs increased the cost of replacement. Very soon, the resources of capship owners would be exhausted and then they would not be able to fly them.
So... Less combat for everyone.
Duh!
resources of capship owners would be exhausted
Not with all the static trade route abuse they do. I agree the punishment shouldn't be 50m, increasing exponentially starting from 5m sounds better.
Rewarding a well organised group taking down a player trident is much better than imposing a harsh punishment on the player losing it. A badge (maybe unlocking some fancy stuff?) for trident kills works.
Not with all the static trade route abuse they do. I agree the punishment shouldn't be 50m, increasing exponentially starting from 5m sounds better.
Rewarding a well organised group taking down a player trident is much better than imposing a harsh punishment on the player losing it. A badge (maybe unlocking some fancy stuff?) for trident kills works.