I'm not saying they should be punished... Again, my suggestion is aimed at people sniping from the redzone or afk'ing there, while the team is not redzoned. The suggestion might need a tweak to prevent people suffering when they are redzoned (which wouldn't be too hard I think) .

But, your arguments actually prove a point: once redzoned, it's most logical to sit their and play duckhunt with the other team. I think that's a failure in game mechanics. It's just silly.

I suggest a redzoned team gets a 5 minute timer to get an objective, otherwise the match ends and the players get less rewards because the game was shorter. This decreased reward then adds on to the winning teams pool of points/isk/salvage. As you said, New Eden is a harsh mistress, right?

Wrong use of the "New Eden" card. This is New Eden, and I'm a Merc, if you stop paying me, I stop fighting. (That's not a player threat, that's just a little bit of Role Playing. Remember, this IS supposed to be an RPG).

So we agree on the whole "artificial protection" thing. Okay, cool, common ground.

Protecting "bad players". Are we talking inexperienced players here, or truly bad players. If they're inexperienced, then all you need is patience, they'll come around, get better, and start more aggressivley as time goes on. If you're talking about truly "bad" players, then no amount of rules or game mechanics is going to turn them into "good" players. Some people just suck at FPS games. There's nothing you can about that.

As for the coward comment, again, we're dealing with different play styles (assuming they're not just inexperienced, as stated above). You call them Cowards. I call them Scouts. Or Overwatch. Different Strokes for different folks.

Yet I am forced into a particular playstyle by the system. I am forced to accept that someone can snipe me from a place I can't reach because of an imaginary line created by the system. I'm also forced to accept that fellow mercs who get paid as well don't risk anything (or even do anything for that matter).

Ok... yes, you are in the game. But I don't think you should be getting credit for doing nothing.
Why is redline sniping a legitimate tactic? I think it's abusing a system in an unintended way, since it allows people to limit risk significantly.

Thanks for the tips though, nothing new but yes, they help circumvent this problem.

I also have to deal with RL things every now and then. Should I still get rewarded while AFK? No.

I'm fine with people cutting their losses, never said otherwise. I'm only opposed to people being rewarded for being AFK and people being able to kill while (almost) untouchable. You say that's wrong of me, but you offer no real arguments.

I disagree with Redline sniper kills being legit, and have stated why I believe. Why do you think it's legit?

. . .sneaking is the only way you are going to win the match, so find a way to sneak out and do something worth while.

Getting somewhere... yay! :) Yes, if I stop paying, you stop fighting. Of course. Also, if you stop fighting, I stop paying. Which is my point.

I don't care if people are bad (not like I'm all that good myself), but they shouldn't be rewarded for not performing, right?

What I mean with the "New Eden card" is that we are now debating how to make sure the poor team that gets redlined can be protected from not getting rewards. Why? They lost... try harder next time. I

Coward refers to people who chose to play from an unreachable position. I admire a sniper who finds a good spot en keeps on his toes and helps his team. I think someone who's in a safe spot all match picking of random targets is not that.

I've added a suggestion to my original post, I wonder how you feel about that.

*SNIP* post is getting to many quotes

First: Yes, but while counter sniping, an enemy can sneak up and kill me up close, which we can't do with the redzone sniper. Still unfair. I'm not saying it's an unresolvable situation or that it ruins the game. I'm saying it makes no sense to support it through game mechanics.

Second: I don't care if they go AFK, but they shouldn't be rewarded. Or, indeed, they should be at risk while doing so. That's fine too. Friendly fire obviously opens up all kinds of abuse potential, but I'm still in favor for it, because it makes sense. Having an artificial zone where you can play without playing doesn't.

Ok, here's where things get tricky. See, right now, you're focused entirely on pub matches. Yes that's most of what we have right now, but it is far from the whole game. What about Corp Matches, and FW Matches. What about Corp Contracts in general. You see Corps have (or soon will have) the ability to set up their own contracts. I'm not entirely sure how this works, but I do know that if you're apart of a Corp that stops paying you for any reason, you're gonna leave that Corp. This might not sound like a terrible thing at first, and if it's what the Corp Heads want then they should absolutely do that. But if it's forced onto them, if they suddenly lose control of their Corp's ISK, and espescially if they suddenly have to pay the opposing team whether they want to or not, you're gonna have a whole bunch of really pissed off players. Because that's what they signed up for, to own and run their own Corp, to make universe changing decisions to things the way THEY want them to be done. Take that away, and you take away a good portion of makes the New Eden universe to begin with.

Everyone seems focused on Pub Matches, but they're not the game. And when they open up Planetary Conquest, no Corp is going to up with being forced into not paying their Mercs, or paying their opponents.

As for your new suggestion. Story, I'm a Merc. And I'm immortal. If they don't want to pay me that's fine. Just add in A PVE mission where I get to hunt them down and take what's owed me, and we'll call it good. Because, story wise, having a whole bunch of highly trained and well armed Mercs who feel that you owe them money is a bad thing. Since a lot probably won't care if they lost or not.

This is completely and totally fair. If you want to counter-snipe, YOU must do the same thing that snipers STRUGGLE to do: Get into an inaccessible or hard to reach place.
You think it's unfair to get shot in the back while sniping? Oh Jesus, I'm dying of laughter!
WHILE sniping a team that you're red lining...? (LMFAO)



No. If someone afk's for a moment in red line, they should not be penalized for it, under any circumstances. This is a game, not a job. We don't need to "clock out", so to speak.

If I'm going to be away for 30 seconds, 2 minutes, or 5 minutes, and i'm in-game when I need to. I will either play til I die, or simply retreat to the red zone. It is by no means an abuse, because it by no means interferes with you, nor gives me an advantage. You shut up and play your game, and I will afk and handle my business, then return when I see fit. It's a random pub match. Therefore, I owe you no respect, no allegiance, and sure don't owe you any support. When I'm there, I'll back you up, and when I'm afk I'm afk. IF I'm going to be away longer, than I will simply leave battle.

Sure, future changes might change things. However, why would a corp want to pay an AFK'ing corp member? I would assume that especially in corp matches and planetary conquest etc, you get paid for what you achieve, not just for showing up, right?

Admittedly I don't how all these things will work. But, that's also not really the point of this suggestion. It might even be that all this is completely irrelevant outside of pub matches. This suggestion simply aims to stop people taking up a spot on the team when they are not playing and to stop people abusing the redzone to get easy kills. That is all.

It's nice that you simply assume that I dislike being killed by snipers. I don't, but I won't bother trying to convince you, I know a lost cause when I see one.

I made that point, in order to indicate to you just how much you don't know what you're talking about. I know what you're asking for. I was there when we had it, and I was trying to explain to you why it doesn't work.



I agree. People should not be rewarded for afking all game. The current system was voted upon by the players though. CCP allows players a lot of sway. Some of us tried to push a more reward based system, because this AFKing all match was the main thing we were trying to avoid. One that gave you SP = WP no soft cap or any extras, but the current system is the one that won out. (Mostly because I think people didn't really understand the intricate differences between the selection. Many thought "No Soft Cap" equaled 0 extra SP, which was some of the mis-info floating around.)



lol
You spend a lot of time bringing up a point, just to say it's "not the point".
That actually IS your point. It is *SO* your point...
If you are implying that snipers need to be enabled for closer range combat, good luck convincing the others of that. lol We have more weapons coming that may fill this role.

The following is a link to a popular ambush map, after the tighter red zones, that severely limited sniping.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=48080&find=unread




Man, such bravado... Such tenacity... He doesn't dislike getting sniped. I imagine you must leap for joy when it happens. Good for you!



A small DUST history lesson:
Two builds ago, there was no Attacker or Defender red zone. We used to camp under enemy MCCs and Siege enemy home bases with firing squads and tanks and LAVS... We would set up nanohive fields and drop uplinks around them... (Some of us even stopped to play cards.) As people spawned they died. If someone lived long enough to call an RDV, we would kill him, and shoot down his RDV before it touched down. If a brave soul successfully killed a few of us, we would simply respawn and keep them pinned in their base.

There was no way to mount a significant counter-attack.
This led to BROKEN MATCHES. (Feel free to ask any closed beta vet how it USED to be!)

The *POINT* being made to you is that the inability to counter-attack is game-breaking.
If there was no "out-of-bounds" or red zone, one team would totally eliminate the counter-attack capability of another.
Match broken. Game broken. Don't even consider telling someone "don't give up".

The Attacker and Defender Red Zone saved ALL of us from a broken game.
Is that "point" clear? Does that even compute for you?

In the end, doing a search and reading older threads related to whatever concern you might have will help.
But play every class. Make an alt, and try to play that class for a day maybe two. Really experiment more, so that you don't post requests for systemic changes that really don't serve anyone else but you.

Did I say there shouldn't be a redzone?

I didn't think so.

My point is that it's ridiculous to have an area you can play from that is out-of-bounds to your enemy.

Seriously, calm down

I'm making suggestions to fix something I consider an issue now, in this build. If you don't agree, fine, I really don't care. But why the need to exaggerate, dramatise, insult?

You know what, I'll just assume you're an AFK'ing sniper who only ever kills from the redzone to keep his KDR up. You're just worried you won't be able to anymore. Am I right? Does it matter? Does this assuming help the discussion?

*SNIP* (too many quotes)

QQ more.

But that's exactly where the problem is, you see. A skirmish map is a skirmish map, and there is no difference between a Pub Match, A FW Match, and A Corp Match. So how does one implement the changes you propose to Pub Matches, but not have it affect the other two. And yes, a Corp can absolutely pay their people just to show up. MY point is, that you need to consider things outside the current Pub Match Dynamic, ask yourself if this will affect other aspects of the game. And if so how?

Having someone take a spot on your team and not do anything is the risk you take by playing Pub Matches, as Friendly Fire will also be a risk, when they turn that on. If you want to eliminate AFK'ing (at least on your team) stick with Corp Matches.

And again, you're trying to introduce a mechanic that prevents people from playing how they want to play. I'm against that. I'm all for Friendly Fire, and beleive me it will be used (and abused) heavily when it comes out. Team will police their own. if they don't want sniper behind the red line, they'll let them know. Most likely with a bullet. If they do, then system should allow for that. It should also allow for DS pilots who fly behind the redline to repair their ship, and for tank drivers who do the same. It should allow for Logi's to rep their team mates when they get shot while in the redzone. It should allow for Squad Leaders to call in OB's while in the redzone. And it should allow for everyone of these instances, and more to be able earn points for those acheiving these things, all while behind the redzone.

You say that redzone is abused, I say that it is only being utilized in the most logical manner possible given the current system. And I have yet to find a single place, on any map, that I can snipe from that allows me to kill with impunity but not get killed myself.

I just think that isn't how the system was intended and therefor, it's "abuse". So fix the system.

I see your point regarding other activities in the redzone and that's a valid concern. Personally, I think if a team wants a safe area to do stuff like that, they should have to protect that area. But I do see that would change the game dynamic a bit. It's something to think about, which I will.

Impressive that Hagintora has been able to reach into your head a little.
I agreed that it isn't right for someone to afk for an entire match. You cannot punish afking nor inactivity within the redzone however, because you don't want to inadvertently effect other game modes.

Sometimes corps even set up matches *against themselves* for practice sessions or other maneuvers... That isn't the time or place to fuss someone over going afk.

I don't understand why you consider combat from the redzone, especially sniping, to be an "abuse" when I have explained to you that's exactly what it's meant for.
A safe zone with which to fight back from.

I told you it's a legitimate strategy, told you why, and gave you the brief history on why it now exists.
I ruffled your feathers a bit in the process, deliberately.
Yet you started going off on tangents.

What, I wasn't as nice as Hagintora? lol


EDIT:
Considering, I explained everything, and you still persisted in your viewpoint. I then drew the conclusions about you that I have... and that I still believe:
That snipers in a redzone, blew your brains out, made you cry, and so you came to the forums to complain about it. Like so many others do.

I, felt an inherent compulsion, to counter your point, in defense of my own preferred class, because I have seen changes made to the game that have tailored to the needs of your own class, but have been detrimental to mine.

Nothing personal. Just politics.

-Not really amazing. You might not see it, but I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

-I'm not fussing over going AFK. You're fussing over not getting credit for a couple of minutes that you haven't played.

-I've explained why I feel sniping from the redzone (and maybe I should add for absolute clarity "when the team isn't redzoned") is abuse of game mechanics. I don't understand why you keep going back to "but we need the red zone to fight back when cornered!". I've confirmed that. I agree. I've even come up with solutions for that. It is, again, not the point.

-You "told" me your opinion. Your opinion is not fact (shocker, I know). You can ruffle my feathers all you like, if that's your thing. It doesn't change a thing about me disagreeing with you. If you think I'm the one going of on tangents here, I suggest you read through the thread again.

-It's not about being nice, it's about not being an idiot. But you'd probably need to not be an idiot to understand that. I see an issue there...

-You've explained your views. I think they are flawed and explained why. Most of your arguments have been based on incorrect assumptions. Again, you have issues with how people view snipers. I don't know why, but you seem to be rather insecure about it all. If you want to believe that I've made these suggestions because I am upset about being killed by a sniper, go right ahead. I've told you it isn't true, there's not a lot more that I can do.

-Yes, you're protecting your preferred class... so, what, you can't snipe if you're not protected by a redzone? If that's true, than that's another issue that needs fixing, doesn't change my opinion regarding flaws in the redzone system.

-Politics... really? Stop taking yourself so seriously. You're whining and ranting at someone on a game forum... politics. That's quite funny actually.

lmao...

What's all this vitriolic response for?
Is there some other point you're trying (and inevitably will fail) to make?

*People not playing shouldn't be rewarded. This is of course mainly focused on people purposefully being AFK for the whole game just to get isk/sp, but yes, it also means that if during a match you have to deal with RL issues and park yourself in the MCC for 5 minutes, you won't get credit for those 5 minutes. (You can cry about having a life all you want, but that doesn't change that you're not playing. Why would you want credit for something you haven't done?)

*Setting up a sniper in the redzone is, in my opinion, unintended abuse of game mechanics. It simply makes no sense to have snipers playing a whole match from (and I'm choosing my words carefully here to prevent you going on a rant again) "an artificially difficult to reach location". The redzone was, as you keep pointing out, put in game to prevent losing teams being spawn killed into oblivion. The redzone was not, however, put in game to provide better locations for snipers. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like snipers. Or if snipers are viable without abusing the redzone.

In my original post, I've suggested a way of fixing these, what I consider, issues. Nothing more, nothing less. I even point out that the original intent of the redzone needs to be taken into account. I've later added ways to do that. How, exactly, do you come to the "conclusion" that I'm QQ'ing about snipers and want the redzone removed?

As I've said, this is a form of "Griefing". I know I keep hammering on this point, but it's because it is an important one. Let me explain further: As Jathniel, and I, have explained, there was a vote on how the SP system during combat should work. The current system we have now is the result of that vote. The system involves gaining Passive SP during a match, which means that I can sit in the MCC and earn points by doing absolutely nothing. There were a lot of people who were upset by this, and tried to point out the abuse that would occur if this system went into affect. These are the same people who are currently going AFK during Pub Matches. They do this to show that the system CAN be abused, and needs to be changed. Not everyone is doing this for altruistic reasons of course, but a lot are. The redzone in this case is not the problem. The SP gain mechanic is.

I understand that you feel that the system is being abused, but all of the evidence that I've seen while playing this game points to the contrary. Look at the maps, look at where the redzones are located, then look at where all the sniper positions are. The fact that, as we've said many times, almost ALL the snipers positions are either on, or behind the redline, CANNOT be a coincidence. If it were one or two maps, or if there were more sniper positions outside of the redzone, then I would agree that people are abusing it. This evidence suggests that this is EXACTLY what the Devs had in mind when creating the redzones. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a single person who looked at the maps and said "hey, these are really going to favor snipers, maybe we should think about this."

The changes that you have proposed to fix these "issues", affect far more gameplay than just "redline snipers", and "AFK'ers". All of these affects must be considered, and weighed, for possible negative effects. You and I agree that we don't like the redline. We agree that it is an artificial "invisible" line that has negative effects on gameplay. Your proposal does not aleviate the problem, but compounds it, by adding on THREE MORE artificial mechanics. Namely the "Zero Reward Behind The Redline", the "End Game Timer", and the "Extra Rewards For Match Winners". These three ideas have effects that reach outside of their intended use, and affect other aspects of gameplay that they were never intended to.

Really dont think this is a answer... or particularly a problem atm, the game is small wait till you have to travel km to get anywhere

Take out a grenade and hold the trigger... no mas problemo ya.

Because sometimes even taking the objectives isn't going to win you the match. You're too far behind, and all the enemy has to do is wait you out. The opnly way to win at that point is to "clone out" the other team. The best way to do that? Allow your team be redlined in order to create a "target rich environment". It might not be a clean win, but it's still a win. As I said, the teams on the ground at the time should decide "what's worth while", not the system.

Indeed. I agree that people shouldn't be punished further for being redzoned. Exactly the opposite: I say they should not be rewarded for staying in the redzone when they are not.

When redzoned, you still have options. If lots of people think having a duckshoot there is the best option, fine. I think it's pointless and only works if the both teams are idiots, but that's just my opinion. As said, plenty of ways to fix this issue with my suggestion.

What I find interesting is that everyone here seems to focus on two things: what if you're redzoned and sniping from an unreachable place is legit. Let's play the "but this is New Eden!!!1" card then:

If you're redzoned, you suck and deserve to be obliterated without rewards. If you're in the game, you should be reachable by anyone and everyone should be able to kill you. All this artificial protection of bad players and cowards has no place in New Eden.