SP is based on several things and has changed several times so I don't track it anymore. WP is based on specific things that are pretty much clearly understood. A Kill is +50 which mean WP. For that matter, anything that appears on your screen as a +(number) is WP.

SP farming by MCC camping and such are being actively investigated with the intent on fixing the problem. Check the Updates in the sticky in this Forum.

You* do not appear to understand how the Red Line (which define the Red Zone) works. There are Two sets of Red Lines. One is for the Attacker and a Different set for the Defender.

Neither side can See the Red Lines that affect the Opposing side. The Mercs on the other side of Your Red Line are in their normal battle area. Which is no different then the middle of the battlefield visually. If they were in their Red Zone, they would die in 20 seconds. Just like you.

Take a look at some of the maps:

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=forum&c=235

Pick a Skirmish map and become familiar with what the Red Zone looks like. Be aware that the JPEG doesn't show all the information and the Red Line may be seriously out of date. Then as you play notice where the Red Zone is when you play Attacker. Next notice when you play Defender. The results are different and significantly so.

How can you punish someone for being in their battlefield? It would mean that everyone would die within 20 seconds after hitting the ground as they are both in Red Zones (just not their own). Considering that Red Zone violations will kill you in a Dropship means that you would die in the MCC so you had better jump fast ... so you can die in the DUST.



* And nearly every Merc playing DUST, considering how many posts there are with posters upset about Snipers (or whatever) that must be punished for being past the Red Line.

I see the MCC being out of game. But what happens when ppl get pushed to redzone just cause they are getting trounced? How do they fight back from an OOG position?

Being "redlined" is punishment enough. You're already being thrashed by a superior force so it would just be insult to injury to make the system punish you as well. We already have people who will enter a game and then immediately leave if they see that their side has been redlined. Adding a system to "punish" players on top of that, and you'll end up with games that will only last until one side has been "redlined", at which point the "redlined" team will just leave the match. Seriously. Why try at that point if I have to go kamikaze AND not get points for it. Besides, what if my team winds up winning because we clone out the force that has "redlined" us? Do we just not recieve points for that?

Redline Sniping is a legitemate battlefield tactic, made possible by that fact that most of the really good sniping positions on ANY map are usually behind the redline somewhere. Now, I agree that having too many snipers is detrimental, and will probably lead to your side losing the match, but the same is true for any other Suit Class as well. Heavies are devastating on a battlefield, and rightly so, but if you have an entire team of them, and nothing else, you're probably not going to win.

I've lost count of the number of times my team has been redlined, and come back to win the day. On the really bad times we had to clone out the opposing team, because our MCC was below half armor and the opposing team was at half shields. If we had tried to take the objectives, and win the "traditional" way, we would have lost. I've also been apart of a match where it was the same situation, but we DID take the objectives and "redlined" the enemy. The red dots would have one that match if they had just sat back behind the red line and waited us out, but they decided that the objectives were more important, and we cloned them out.

There isn't really an Out Of Game Area on the maps for that very reason. Situations change, sometimes drastically, in every battle and people need to learn to change with them. Nobody in this game should be forced into one particular playstyle. When things change during a fight, the INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS need to decide how to respond to it, not the system.

Suggestion:

Count being in MCC or Redzone as "not in game".

Reasoning:

I see many complaints on these forums about AFK farming and Redzone Snipers. I think both could be prevented by simply not counting players who are in the MCC or Redzone as participating in the match. Either get out there and fight, or don't get rewarded.

Possible problems:

When a team is "redzoned", one could argue that you're then forced into kamikaze just to get rewards. On the other hand, does it make sense to get rewarded for giving up? (even if you are sniping the enemy, if you're not leaving the redzone you won't be getting objectives...)

Kills made from redzone: sometimes you will make a legitimate kill from the redzone, especially when on a redzoned team. Not counting those would be harsh. But, sniping from redzone for most of the match and then popping out for a minute to make sure your kills count shouldn't be rewarded. Not really sure how to solve this problem, so any ideas are welcome :)

As I have said elsewhere, redline sniping while annoying is a perfectly legitimate playstyle. And to be quite honest most of the ideas I see being proposed to deal with it will just cause further problems, which will also have to be addressed and likely leave us with a complicated and stupid system. It'd be better to carry on with what we've got and fix problems like hitboxes that can affect countersniping

Which is why I agree that legitimate red zone kills should count. This could (just one idea) be realised by counting kills when no objective are held.

Yes of course they are. Because they are practically invincible there... I'm fine with snipers finding a good spot and having some other players protect them. Snipers sitting in an area I can't reach at all, nope....

I understand that that is a tactic. I happen to think it's a crappy one (can't win the game... I'll just sit in a safe zone and snipe the other team to death... yay, fun). Also, if the other team aren't idiots, they'll see the clone count dropping and be careful. If not, then you could probably beat them fairly as well.

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).

Is it? Why?

No. You are in-game the moment you deploy a dropsuit, and are capable of firing a weapon.




Some people may AFK farm, but some people may have a legitimate situation they need to handle in real life at that very moment. Since they shouldn't have to lose a clone for that, they can run into the safety of their base within red zone, and go take care of it.
"Redzone Sniping" is a legitimate tactic and common sense on YOUR end can stop or prevent it, just like every other form of sniping. Here are some pro tips:
1. Stop foolishly exposing yourself on the red zone, which is the same as walking around in the open in enemy territory.
2. Take cover either near an objective or within armor.
3. Grab a sniper rifle, and counter snipe the offending sniper.
4. Coordinate with a team mate to fly a dropship into the enemy red zone, on a hit and run mission. Fly in, deploy, kill offending targets, and extract yourself before the red zone avenges them.




Well done. You just produced the primary counter to your own argument.
No one is getting "rewarded for giving up". They are getting rewarded for participation, which they tried to do, and ended up getting red lined. They can either go ahead and cut their losses, and receive their pay for a good attempt (which is good for you, because you lose nothing when they don't attack), or we can say, "Begun, the Clone War has..." and the skirmish can turn into a 'race-against-the-MCC' ambush match. This all depends on the conditions leading to that team getting red lined. If conditions do not merit suiciding for an objective, and the clone counts indicate impending doom, then don't expect people to stick their heads out. You are facing human beings, not NPCs which are programmed to allow themselves to be killed by you.

A sniper kill from the redline is just as legit as a kill from any other weapon from the redline. Your inability to flank him with a close-range weapon does not change this.

Okay, full disclosure, I don't like the redline. No, I take that back...I DESPISE the redline. I despise anything that creates an artificial "frontline" that PLAYERS can't control. That being said, I'm against forcing MORE artificial rules on the battlefield. This isn't supposed to be an E-Sport, this isn't supposed to be a MOBA, it's supposed to be an FPSMMORPG. If it was advertised as being a MOBA, I would accept your (and others) ideas on making things "fair". But since it's not, I will say "Welcome to New Eden". A place where BALANCE is essential, but "fairness", "fair play", and "equality" are checked at the door.



It has nothing to do with invincibility, that's a bug that's being looked into. It has to do with Line Of Sight and current map setups. If there is a place where a sniper can see, and affect, a good portion of the battlefield, then that's where they're going to be. If that happens to be behind the redline, that's not the snipers fault. They didn't choose to put it there, they're just taking advantage of it. And again, I hate the redline, but if you want to reach a sniper, pick up a sniper rifle. There are places on maps, usually in the center, where there is a tall building that can only be reached by dropship. People get on these buildings all the time create a similar situation as "redline sniping". You can only get to them if you have a dropship yourself (which most people don't), and they are out of range for any weapon BUT a sniper rifle. I don't get angry at these people, I commend them for thinking outside of the box and taking advantage of terrian.



The objective of any match is to win. Period. How that is accomplished is up to the teams on ground at the time. You may not like their tactics, but you can't deny that they are effective. I might think shooting people in the back is a "crappy tactic", but that's not gonna stop the Shotty-Scout turning my skull to mush. And yes, if the other team is paying attention, they'll pull back so as not to get cloned out, but that makes it easier for your team to try and push forward. Remember, the tag line that this game has over anything else is: Risk Versus Reward. If the team you've redlined feels it's too risky to face you head on, they don't have to. It's up to you, after that, to figure out a way to counter their strategy.



Accepting that someone can snipe you at any time, from places beyond the range of your current weapon, is not a playstyle. Accepting that Mercs can get paid for "risking less" is not a playstyle. I'm a sniper, and the ONLY TIME I can go "anything/0" is when NOBODY SHOOTS BACK. Now the people who "aren't doing anything", I'm going to assume are Farmers, and that's another issue entirely. Personally I think it should be allowed. Ya it sucks, but it seems to be a form of griefing for Dust. And as this is New Eden, and griefing is allowed, it's just something we'll all have to get used to until they turn on Friendly Fire.

You make fair points, however I think they don't really address what I'm trying to say here. I think AFK'ing shouldn't be rewarded and I think that if you're playing the game you should be reachable by other players to kill. Even if you're a sniper. I think the redzone is not intended as a special place for snipers and/or people who want SP/ISK but don't want to play. None of what you've said counters that, I think.

you have no business being in your red zone except to spawn when there is no where else to spawn. I am quite ok with you getting nothing for being in the red line/MCC, that includes no kills. You got red lined?? well back up your team or if thats not helping the other team is too powerful and sneaking is the only way you are going to win the match, so find a way to sneak out and do something worth while.

It is legit because it does not take an unfair advantage from the game mechanics, the redline is there for a reason and that redline covers most of the best sniping spots on maps. Tell me what is the difference between redline sniping and sniping from a really tall building you can only reach with a dropship. And what you say about them not risking enough, it is their choice how much they risk, I'm a dropship pilot every time I call a dropship in, I put 450k isk at risk. If I decide not to call in a dropship 1 match dies that not mean I am limiting the amount of risk I expose myself too?

Then I will try to explain further.

First: Redline Sniping.

If he can shoot you, then can shoot him. Yes you might have to switch (or have someone on your team switch) to a sniper rifle, but it still holds true. In order for a sniper to be able to shoot at you, he must expose his position. Track him, kill him.

Second: AFK'ing

Yes it sucks to have people go AFK during a fight, but like I said, it's griefing. Griefing is a time honored (and often lamented) tradition in the universe of New Eden. But CCP isn't the type of company that puts limits on players. They have players police themselves. So, like I said, when they turn Friendly Fire on, things will change drastically for the Farmers out there. You won't have to worry about people going AFK, because if you see it (and know for certain that they ARE AFK, and not checking their map for an OB, or something) then feel free to shoot them and put an end to their farming. If they respawn, shoot them again. And then again, until you see that they actually are doing something, or they leave the match on their own. We don't need rules to make things "fair". We need the tools, and the space to play how we want, when we want. If they want to farm, then that's fine. I might want to TK that game. It's just the risk they take.

Ok, I see your point. I disagree because I do think it's abusing the mechanics. As said, I don't believe the redzone is meant to hide in. But, I haven't designed the game so I can't say for sure.

The difference between the tall building and the redzone is that both the sniper and myself would need to use a dropship to reach the building, whereas I can't go in the redzone while the sniper simply spawns there. Fair versus unfair, in my opinion.

Every activity has a risk involved. A sniper is usually less at risk even in a normal situation. Virtually eliminating that risk completely by (again, in my opinion) unintended use of a game mechanic is something completely different then choosing to risk expensive stuff with the chance of greater rewards. (current dropship risk/reward balance aside)

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.

Okay, seriously, stop using the word "fair". It has no place in New Eden.

Yes, a sniper risks less than the others who put themselves in the thick of the fighting, but they also gain less. Snipers can't take installations or Objectives. They can cover them, and prevent the enemy from taking them, but if they fail they have two choices: Come down from the mountain and take it abck, or wait for their team come over and take it back. So while you may see a sniper go 10/0, 15/0, of even the fabled 30/0 (which I've never see from a sniper in any of the games I've played by the way), the most WP's they're gonna earn is 1500 at 30/0. The ones who are down in the fight, and take objectives, an whatnot, are always the ones at the top of board a the end of the match. So they're earning more SP and more ISK than snipers. So ultimately, yes, it's a balanced trade off.

I don't fault anyone for doing it, because you'd be silly not to. I fault the game for supporting it. Again, the situation when redzoned is a possible issue with what I'm proposing. I've mentioned a number of solutions as well. Ultimately, I think a stationary shoot-out on an invisible line is daft, but if everyone really likes those then I'm just an exception I guess. I would prefer other viable options when redzoned. (Which usually there are, all it takes is one player circling around and hacking an objective/CRU or even dropping a mobile CRU and you can have the game going again. Might still not win, but you might have an actual enjoyable game...

This, right here, are most the reasons you don't (and shouldn't) further punish people when redzoned. One or two players thinking outside the box will help pull a team out of the redzone and back into the fight. The others, I've already mentioned but they all boil down to individual team strategies. The team decides that they can't win against an obviously superior force, so they decide to clone out behind the redline. Does that make that particular match fun? Probably not. Should it be allowed? Yes. Because that's their playstyle, that's what they want to do. They other team can adapt, or not, as they see fit.

You have to remember that enjoyability is subjective, so what you consider a fun and exciting fight, someone else considers boring and mundane. Because we've been there seen that on every other FPS. Or they think it's frustrating and stressful (seriously, they're there), so they start playing how THEY want to. The mechanics of the game are set up to reach the broadest player base possible for an FPS. It's set up so you can create what you want, and then play how you want. Everything in this game is geared toward that.

get rid of the red zone.

problem solved.

Peace
B

[
Ok, let's not call it "fair". Let's call it "logical". I think an artificial system protecting you outside the "new eden universe logic" is weird and doesn't suit new eden. Do you?

Yes snipers only get kills. However, if they get 20/0, they get 1000 WP (which in most PUB matches is somewhere at or near the top) and spend 0 isk (or do you lose the dropsuit you spawned in even if you don't die? I've never not died, so I don't know really...) Their SP/ISK gain wil be quite alright. And, they get huge KDR's which mean a lot to some people. You're almost making me feel sorry for the poor old snipers who can't get proper rewards... oh, no, you're not actually.

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.

I've already said that I hate the Redline. But hating the redline and suggesting that people people should be punished just for occupying it, are two different things. We can't see our own redline (the one everyone complains about), so unless you've suddied the maps you'll never know if you're outside of it at all. Yes, that's an easy fix, but the way I see it is that it's a solution without a problem. Most of the time, when a team gets redlined, it's game over. As I've said earlier that's not always true, but it's true often enough that people have dedicated entire threads on how much it sucks to BE redlined. Adding more ontop of that is unneccessary. Even if you make it so that you get "legit kills" if you have no Objectives held is bad. Be cause what if you do take an objective? Yes, you can spawn on that if you die (assuming it's not Spawn Trapped, which is also a legitemate tactic). But the problem is; you have to die first. So your team mates take an objective, and suddenly your earning no points (even though you're STILL redlined), because you now have ONE objective. Why would I want to take objectives under those circumstances. I'm better off, once again, staying behind the redline, and cloning out the enemy team.

And yes, if snipers go 20/0 they will earn a good amount of SP and ISK. I pointed out the WP's because most of the time, snipers don't get that high. Most of the people earning the high rewards are assaut suits in the thick of the fighting. Which is how it should be.

And if someone's got a hardon for their KDR score, good for them. They'll soon learn that it's not that important in this game. New Eden is a harsh mistress.

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.

I've already said that I hate the Redline. But hating the redline and suggesting that people people should be punished just for occupying it, are two different things. We can't see our own redline (the one everyone complains about), so unless you've suddied the maps you'll never know if you're outside of it at all. Yes, that's an easy fix, but the way I see it is that it's a solution without a problem. Most of the time, when a team gets redlined, it's game over. As I've said earlier that's not always true, but it's true often enough that people have dedicated entire threads on how much it sucks to BE redlined. Adding more ontop of that is unneccessary. Even if you make it so that you get "legit kills" if you have no Objectives held is bad. Be cause what if you do take an objective? Yes, you can spawn on that if you die (assuming it's not Spawn Trapped, which is also a legitemate tactic). But the problem is; you have to die first. So your team mates take an objective, and suddenly your earning no points (even though you're STILL redlined), because you now have ONE objective. Why would I want to take objectives under those circumstances. I'm better off, once again, staying behind the redline, and cloning out the enemy team.

And yes, if snipers go 20/0 they will earn a good amount of SP and ISK. I pointed out the WP's because most of the time, snipers don't get that high. Most of the people earning the high rewards are assaut suits in the thick of the fighting. Which is how it should be.

And if someone's got a hardon for their KDR score, good for them. They'll soon learn that it's not that important in this game. New Eden is a harsh mistress.

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.

Guess what?
This is precisely what the red line, and red line snipers enables.

Something has to kill you guys, to get you out of the f**king defending teams face first.

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.

no this is not what red line snipers enable. when I am red lining a team and I only see snipers I cant reach the first thing I do is go look for where the other players might of gone.

and as far as your post about the poor sniper and how the assault AR fucks you, you can shove it, snipers are the least affected by AR Assaults, and that post is disingenuous, considering you ***** about having to go AR and then expect SMG/HMG/SG/SP/NK....... to switch to sniper to deal with, what is a broken mechanic.

no the redline is meant to provide a safe place to rally and attack not hide in you should get nothing for sitting in it. I certainly would never pay for a merc squad that used that tactic as it would lily result in the loss of that territory for me.

I have seen sniping used to great effect but not from the redline.

I have never seen a red line game go to clones except maybe for the team that is red lining. being red line is NEVER a tactical advantage you be come fish in a barrel.

most of the time its true because people give up when red lined not because they can't win. I dont think it should be made harder for them to win, but they shoul dget nothing for staying in the red line or there should be a way for force match end by capturing all points fighting through the enemy and capturing a point behind their mcc before they capture any other points.

and if you stop fighting for me i stop paying you. Get out of the red line and do something useful, the likely hood of winning a match is inversely proportional to the player hours spent in the red line.

you sit in the red line I don't want you in my corp. simple as that.

Apparently, this issue cannot be resolved with reason. lol

It's better to get rid of the red zone. Take it away. Bring things back to how they used to be.
After ONE day, I guarantee that these forums will be filled with much grief and lamentation, with people pleading to have the red zone brought back.

The complaint is with: "bad players". Changing the red zone, will not fix anything they do.
They will afk a whole match.
They will snipe, and not hit anyone.

That exists in nearly every shooter in existence.
So how is no red zone or a red zone penalty supposed to fix that?

lol these people don't care about the arbitrary sense of "honor" or "sportsmanship" that you guys think they SHOULD have. lol

Changing anything about the red zone won't fix one thing, and all you'd end up doing is removing or damaging a defensive tool for a team that really is trying it's best. lol

I said before, to try other play styles, and see how they fit into the current system, before recommending a systemic change.

The red zone was meant to prevent matches from breaking, by allowing people a place to fight from if they are losing, but if a whole team can use something for safety and buffer room, then a single individual can use it for that purpose as well.

Say there is at least one assault on an enemy team, or one squad, he/they does/do absolutely nothing else but dedicate himself/themselves to finding snipers and shooting them in the back, this is a legitimate strategy of course. These people care for nothing else, but finding snipers and shooting them in the back. They will put off grabbing an objective just to take a detour and kill the sniper, first.

Sniper hunters, as inefficient as they can make themselves, can be so dedicated to their craft that playing as a sniper in a match becomes nearly impractical.
Sniper flanking is a legitimate strategy, therefore a sniper placing himself in the red zone, to counter this is a legitimate strategy. Especially, if all other obscure perches have been compromised by sniper hunters. The penalty the sniper pays for this is reduced effectiveness at longer ranges. Majority of snipers have a difficult time hitting anything from the red zone, hence why so many red line snipers actually don't help their team. The sniper hunter's job was successful, and the enemy sniper's effectiveness to the match has been reduced. If there was no red zone, a sniper's role in a match on many maps, could potentially be completely eliminated.

Before you say, "well he should pick up an AR and make himself more useful", wouldn't that be 'forcing someone into a different playstyle'? The very thing that you say you detest?



You can taunt snipers that do this all you want, but you are killing them out of their element, with your playstyle. If your playstyle, running around the map with impunity, is not kept in balance, then the sniper's playstyle could potentially become obsolete. This has little to do with player tenacity, and everything to do with game mechanics.

A sniper has limited CQC capacity, and some have fittings where they have NO CQC capacity, they can adjust for an individual like this by pulling back to the red zone if absolutely necessary, and continuing to snipe.

On some maps, this may be necessary, especially if the sniper does not see fit to raise his costs further by trying to get to more obscure positions. He is the only class that can make use of the red zone tactically at will.

If a team is losing, there is the red zone. If an individual is losing, there is the red zone.
Asking a sniper to expose himself, is the same like asking a team to kamikaze on a red line. Especially, if you are free to actively look for him. Have you not seen this on any matches you played?

The sniper is doing what he can to participate, as circumstances allow.

I have. Several times in fact. I'm not saying that this is a regular occurance or anything, and it is situational at best. But several times when my team has been redlined, with no chance of winning even IF we capture all the objectives, we've been able to clone out the opposing team. Last time it happened, we had like one or two points of armor left on our MCC, and four clones. They had still had a few points of Shields left, and when they redlined us they were twenty clones up.



Forcing a match end DOES make it harder for the redlined team to win, and will increase the likelyhood of players giving up. As will their inability to earn SP/ISK. If this game was being advertised as a MOBA, I wouldn't have a problem with any of these suggestions. But it's not. It's supposed to be an MMORPG, and as such, I think it should always be up to the players as to whether or not they continue with a battle. Stacking the system AGAINST a losing team, will make it so that almost as soon a one team is redlined, the game will be over. People will leave the match, because why would they take more of a risk with what will ultimately be less of a reward.



If you're the CEO or a director of a Corp, you should absolutely be able to do this. Stop paying your Mercs, if you so choose. What I'm against, is FORCING them to stop paying Mercs. This, for the most part, is also a problem stemming from the current SP gain mechanic. As people are still fighting from the redline, technically they ARE trying to do something useful. The ones that are actually doing nothing is another problem entirely, separate from the redline issue.



No one is arguing that people should be allowed to sit in the redzone and do nothing, we're arguing against the system PUNISHING them for being there. And if you don't want somebody in your Corp for ANY reason, I'm ok with that. I think that Corps should be allowed to police themselves. At all times, and in every way imaginable. I'm AGAINST a system that forces players, and Corps, to into a particular playstyle or strategy.

If they AFK the whole match and don't get credit for it, I'm fine with that.

If they snipe and not hit anyone, I'm fine with that.

These are, again, not the problems I'm suggesting to fix.

Suggestion:

Count being in MCC or Redzone as "not in game".

Reasoning:

I see many complaints on these forums about AFK farming and Redzone Snipers. I think both could be prevented by simply not counting players who are in the MCC or Redzone as participating in the match. Either get out there and fight, or don't get rewarded.

I don't care about "honor" or "sportsmanship". . .

And I'm not proposing to punish people for being in the mcc or redzone. I'm proposing not to reward people for sitting there without reason. That has nothing to do with play style or strategy, unless you call cheating a play style and afk'ing a strategy...

Quit retracting on the *points* you are trying to make, it doesn't reflect well you.

That much is obvious. You clearly haven't cooled down from my ruffling your feathers a bit last night.
I gave you a little . To let you know everything is cool.

Recommend you chill out before we both get banned.


My deliberately passionate debate against your points was not meant to anger.
Try to be a good sport about rubbing egos eh, OP?

I've bothered to even converse with you this long, and explain what I have, because I know anyone that bothers to post in these forums must really care about where the game is going.

I was simply communicating with theater.

Don't take yourself so seriously. You're starting to seem so concerned with trying to offend me, that you're fumbling over your own points. It's not necessary.

and if you stop fighting for me i stop paying you. Get out of the red line and do something useful, the likely hood of winning a match is inversely proportional to the player hours spent in the red line.