|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
   |
Posted - 2012.12.22 10:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
"Drop uplinks" is a cop out. If they truly do want the game to rely on drop uplink usage (which I honestly don't think they do), this needs to be drilled into players that it is a requirement, not just frosting on the cake. Literature should read something to the effect "place drop uplinks to establish a foothold against the enemy", BPO militia drop uplink needs to be standard on the starter fits, creators should be able to self-destruct camped uplinks, any number of things they could do. But something needs to be done. As it is it's simply frustrating and not much fun.
Here's what I know: You can claim that you need to be involved in a corp and must be a team player to win. Maybe. But I know I'm not heavily involved in a corp, I only got comms recently, I'm a casual player, and I have a blast playing Skirmish. For Ambush, this isn't so. Which is too bad because, ideally, Ambush should be the perfect mode for PUG's. But I think they actually take more team cohesion for success than Skirmish at the moment. Which, again, if that's what CCP wants, then fine, but somehow I think they don't want to ignore the more casual PUG gamer, which tends to be the great majority of FPS players. As it is, Ambush is a major turn-off for that. You can write it off as whining or being a bad player, but I assure you I understand how to counter it and like the game in spite of these problems. But "in spite of" is the key phrase; seeing as this is a beta, I think it's perfectly valid to state our views on how the game plays. I don't see why claims of "use droplinks" as the way the game should be are any more valid than "fix spawning" as a way the game should be. Both schools of thought are valid, and both can be further worked on to make them better, respectively. Shouting down the side you don't agree with is unproductive. |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 10:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:
The "problem" this thread is describing is something which everyone deals with equally, and for which there are in-built counters already in the game. It's also a problem which has been acknowledged by CCP, has been worked on and improved, and is continuing to be improved. If you aren't using the tools provided, that isn't the game's fault. If you're using the proper tools, but the enemy are still spawn camping your team, then you got outplayed. Either they found your Uplink and are camping that too, or they destroyed it to camp the other spawn locations (fixed or random)
So... it's not a problem, but CCP has acknowledged it's a problem and has constantly been improving the problem... that isn't a problem. You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. Either it is a problem, criticism is valid, but it's getting better... or it isn't a problem, and they need to HTFU. But the two are pretty mutually exclusive. Otherwise it's pretty silly to tell someone to HTFU for pointing out an acknowledged issue. |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 10:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Heinz Doofenshertz wrote:Hence My sugestion the question shouldn't be is it a problem, it should be bug or intended operation.
In general I think this is fair. However, if "intended operation" is reliance on drop uplinks, I still think there are a number of improvements that could be made to that end, that would both satisfy the need for teamwork and make it a little more approachable as a game. It really just depends which way CCP wants to take it.
EDIT: In other words, I think it would be valid in either case to state a "problem" exists... either way you look at it, either the spawning is broken, or drop uplink reliance isn't well-implemented at this point, if so many people are having problems (which the amount of complaining should make obvious is so). |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 11:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Veronika Pollard wrote:[quote=Tinodi]
I don't like HTFU on the principle that it's a spiteful thing to say - the assumption is that the target of the comment is soft and "unworthy". I don't think anyone needs to "HTFU", but rather the people who feel the need to use such hasty and degrading terms need to "GTFU".
G = Grow
You can argue that it's not all you like, the bottom line is that people are going to be offended by saying such a thing, and if you don't know that or can't understand why, well I'm afraid ignorance is no defence for ignorance or general dickiness.
FWIW, I think the HTFU and image-building, waxing on Eden's ethos is absolutely ridiculous. This is a video game, I'm here to have fun, not commit to some deep-seated principle in a fictional world. I don't know why, but so many EVE players walk around with a chip on their shoulder. I think maybe it's less people needing to HTFU, and more people needing to LightenTFU. |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 11:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Tinodi wrote:So... it's not a problem, but CCP has acknowledged it's a problem and has constantly been improving the problem... that isn't a problem. You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. Either it is a problem, criticism is valid, but it's getting better... or it isn't a problem, and they need to HTFU. But the two are pretty mutually exclusive. Otherwise it's pretty silly to tell someone to HTFU for pointing out an acknowledged issue. It isn't a severe problem, because there are workarounds for it in place already, but they're still trying to fix the remaining minor issues with the system. "HTFU" is a valid response for the claims that it's "unfair" to be spawn-camped, because there's already a way to avoid that, and because everyone has the same "unfair" problem to deal with, which negates the claim completely.
So your whole complaint was over semantics? Why not just acknowledge that it is a problem, it's being worked on, and move on? |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 10:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:
It was advice for someone who sounded like they were taking another person's "HTFU" comment far too seriously.
I think the "LTFU" comment from your previous post is probably a more helpful response to all involved (myself included, unfortunately. Consider me suitably chastised).
Also, +1 to the LTFU comment. Lastly, I don't play EVE. I was providing an explanation for the term being less about actually insulting anyone and more about emphasising that New Eden is always going to be cruel and horrible.
FWIW, I totally didn't mean for that to come off as directed at you, just general ranting on something I see a lot in the EVE universe. My bad. We can hug now... then brofist, so it won't be weird. |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 22:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gunner Visari wrote:1. Okay here is the problem everyone is neglecting. Even though the random spawns suck in that it can often get you killed before you can react, it can also spawn you behind enemies who have no clue you are there and can wipe out an entire squad with a few nades and MD fire, so it effects everyone equally.
The question isn't whether it affects everyone equality... obviously, it does. In the scenario you describe, that might be cool for the guy spawning, but not so fun for the squad now screwed through no fault of their own. Still certainly arguably a broken spawn. Honestly, I feel like a simple dont spawn in x meters of enemy would go a long way. doesn't stop sniping, but I think it would stop the silliest cases,and it's such a simple change. |
Tinodi
Doomheim
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 08:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Beld Errmon wrote:Tinodi wrote: In the scenario you describe, that might be cool for the guy spawning, but not so fun for the squad now screwed through no fault of their own. Heh if 1 guy takes out an entire squad its entirely their own fault ambush is chaotic and they should be watching their back not all facing the same direction and bunched up.
 Well, that's true, but I was working with the scenario given :p. The point is that spawning in a way that allows you to screw people you spawned behind isn't really a good counter to spawning in front of them. It still has the same effects of the silly spawning, it's just the joke is on the other guy. I don't think that's a valid reason for spawn being OK... that it might work for you, too. Either way I'd be annoyed, and either one is a symptom of crappy spawning... they don't cancel each other out or something.
I still say whether they intend to rely on uplinks, or whether they rely on a better random spawn, they could improve things either way to make it less frustrating for everyone. |
|
|
| |
|