Proposed change: You cannot perform offensive actions for the 24 hour period following the activation of a calming amp or the setting of a halc.



As it currently stands, at any time the player feels like they can pop out of their invincibility shield and take a shot at that sweet planet they just scanned or that alerted player they really want to pound on. An unfair thing to do, waiting until it's hugely beneficial to engage in PvP before popping out of your halc shell. This adds a bit of risk vs reward; an actual personal downside to being invincible 90+% of the time.

Days since Malevolentia, or some other Pvp malcontent has complained about halcs....3,2,1....0 Halcs and Calming Amps are fine the way they are. This has been discussed many, many times before and I really doubt anyone's position on this issue is going to change anytime soon. I also doubt the game mechanics will be changing to accommodate you any time soon in this regard, but you never know so keep tryin'

Here's a thought.....while you are flogging this dead horse, how about starting a new, fresh thread about how SSB and slow-ranking are both unfair and should be nerfed as well 'cause, you know, we've never discussed THOSE flaws in the game either. Determining an advantageous time to uncover from Halcs/Amps is a part of the game and every bit as valid a strategy as deciding when, if ever, to add decks or gain rank. It just happens that this aspect of game strategy doesn't suit you whereas you may or may not have issues with other well-known exploits in the game such as SSB and/or slow/freeze ranking.

There's a big difference between reasonable strategies and absurd things like halcs.

Halc (2 hours, minimum) + Calming amp (4 hour) = 6 hours, minimum.

Almost all the players I know can and do log in at least twice a day. That's already a minimum of 12 hours a day of invincibility. Quite a lot of people log in often enough that the only time their halc/calming amp combo would actually expire is when they go to bed.

8 hours of sleep means that, at best, their ship is not INVINCIBLE for 2 hours a day. That means 91.67% of the time they are literally impossible to kill.

I've played strategy games and I've played non-strategy games which have elements of strategy (basically any FPS).

Imagine if the spawn shield in Halo lasted 10 minutes instead of a few seconds.
Imagine if in Command and Conquer you could press a button (which was basically free and available at all times) which made you completely invincible until it suited you to attack the enemy. Sure, that one's a strategy but it's a heavily unfair strategy.

Here's an idea, start a game of Halo: Reach and give everybody infinite armor ability usage. Soon enough there'll be that one prick who takes Armor Lock and the energy sword and only ever pops out if someone gets to close to hit. Sure, there's a tiny brief window to kill them and then they're straight back into Armor Lock.


I've made a jibe in the past which implied that halcs weren't a strategy. That's because there are so many people who like to fall back on the "Halcs are just my strategy! I'm totally not just scared of losing my combat rep!"

And then I get accused of being the one wanting things easy. How is half the galaxy hiding under a halc and calming amp NOT the easy route? How is riding the combat rep of 'Insane', because nobody can kill you because you are pushing two buttons a few times a day (not something reasonable like having a genuine beast of a ship), NOT the easy route. I don't care about easy, I just don't want things to be IMPOSSIBLE.

Halcs may have potential for genuine strategic use, but they're used by the majority who are scared of their precious, unearned combat reputation and the occasional repair. They're complete and utter #&$#.

And to end my rant, you're pathetic for your ad hominem rather than actually discussing the suggestion at hand.

I did discuss your so-called point at hand. It's just more crying by you since you can't get things they way you want. Since we are making suggestions here's a couple of mine.... New arti...Ship Bot Bomb....Causes target to automatically gain decks, there is no defense Here's another....Anti-Containment Missile causes target to automatically gain rank, again there is no defense. Both will stop known exploits in the game so why not? Or is it you just prefer those exploits and have issues with the ones that you don't like? (Before you go off on some weird, crying tangent; I'm being facetious in my propositions....Just in case you didn't get that). To get back on your "point"....halcs are fine, amps are fine, and are every bit as much of a strategy as SSB and Freeze ranking. They do not need "fixing" since they are not broken. On point enough for you?

On a serious note, thanks for conceding that you lost the last argument you started where you stated using Halcs/Amps wasn't a strategy. And no, you did not make jibes or "imply" that Halcs were not a strategy. You stated it. Plainly. And repetitively. Now you are here saying they give too much advantage since players can make strategic decisions on when to use them or when to un-cover. So which is it? Strategy or not? You've (tried) to argue both sides.

It's nice to see you admit that your previous contention that they are not a strategic element was a spurious argument which you lost and I won. Thank You

Yes, that is indeed a rebuttal. It's not a very strong one, seeing as I made logical points and your response was basically "No, they're fine." without reasons why.

Halcs and calming amps make PvP a boring trudge for people trying to PvP and disincentivise people from engaging in PvP because then they won't be able to halc up. They're killing a large aspect of the game.

I think it's actually a quite strong rebuttal. You've been exposed for trying to argue both sides of the issue. Strategy, or not? My position has been consistent on the issue. Yours has not and, indeed, has changed completely from saying they are not a strategy to saying they give too big of a strategic advantage because players can make choices on when to use them.

To further hash-out your points....

Players already pay a "penalty" for attacking players, planets, responding to legion alerts, etc. 24 hours after performing any of those things they cannot be halced/amped and are live targets. Your proposal seems to ignore that players already face that choice of when to halc or not and if they feel the risk/reward is worth it. Adding more restrictions to this seems needlessly excessive/repetitive to me.

About the ruining the game issue.... Perhaps you feel that way. The key being YOU. Many out there obviously don't feel that way. To go further along this line of thought..... Many feel that SSB and Freeze ranking, or some combination thereof, are ruining the game. How are their concerns any less valid? If we should nerf things to keep you happy, why not nerf everything for everyone to keep all players happy? You see halcs as a ridiculous exploit. I see SSB the same. Why nerf one and not the other?

That's not a rebuttal to the underlying argument that halcs/calming amps need to be changed as they are OP as they currently stand. That's another point which I have already conceded.

Players don't pay a penalty for performing offensive action, they get a stupidly OP reward for NOT engaging in a certain part of the game (moronic idea in my opinion, that's like giving achievements out for playing an entire game of Halo/CoD/Any sports game without scoring any points).

Using a halc doesn't prevent them from performing offensive actions. There's no trade-off; if someone is in a position to use a halc (which most people are, very often) then there is no reason to not use it.

The point between when you should nerf one thing and not another is if you can make a valid argument for one. I'm not sitting here going "hurr durr i dun liek halcs", I've built an actual argument with points and reasoning.

Ok, addressing your latest issues....

1) As I pointed out players DO pay a penalty for performing offensive actions if they prefer to use halcs. Frankly, I don't see how you are not seeing or are arguing against that fact. Anytime I, or anyone who uses halcs, performs an aggressive action they expose themselves to Pvp for 24 hours. For people who don't enjoy Pvp, or find it a bore as I do, that is the penalty they face. All your proposal will do, imo, is by expanding the penalty halc users face you will actually cause LESS activity in the game. Not more. You want them not to be able to perform any offensive action for 24 hours after setting one. That is exactly what they will do. 24 hours more of not engaging in any of the activities you claim to want to encourage.

2) As to the point of presenting valid arguments of when to nerf one thing and not another.....Here goes (at your request, I might add, although this topic has been beaten to death already, but you asked for it). Regarding SSB....It's not so much that SSB should be nerfed, it's that larger ship builds should not be penalized as they are. As I have said before, I get the idea that small ships are harder to hit, etc, etc, etc. Even buying into that, how does it follow that big, massive ships should be delicate little flowers when it comes to taking damage?

Further in this regard..... much of the game centers around "earn this cool ship mod" complete this mission to get this cool ship mod. Kill so many players, earn badges, get this cool ship mod.....Etc, etc. But here's the rub.... never actually install or use any of them, 'cause, you know, you don't want to make your ship bigger because it will become a fragile little....ermmm....big thing then. So why is the game designed so that you work to earn rewards, but get punished if you'd like a ship large enough to actually use the rewards you worked for? The new bi-weekly is a perfect example of that.....engage in Pvp, kill lots of players, earn this cool new toy for your ship, just don't ever actually install said new toy 'cause you don't want your ship to get too big now.....

I think the point where we disagree on your first point is that I see 'exposed to PvP' as the baseline. You see 'halced' as the baseline. I see halcyon trap as an OP reward for avoiding PvP; not receiving a reward is not a negative. It's neutral. If I don't give you £20, then you haven't lost anything, you just haven't gained £20.

I suggested this a slightly less radical suggestion to my previous ones, though you make a valid point that this could just backfire and disincentivise PvP further. I am still a proponent of drastically dropping the timers on halcs and calming amplifiers (30 minutes for the halc, plenty of time to encourage someone hitting you to move along instead of waiting around; 1 hour for the calming amp, plenty of time to use it when you're online and actually play the game without the need for constantly defending your ship).

I don't disagree with your point 2. If you want to build a reasoned argument and promote benefits for LSBs then go ahead, I'm not going to stop you or tell you you're wrong without actually rebutting your points (I am a proponent of giving benefits to LSBs myself anyway, so I probably wouldn't attack your argument anyway). The game is about trade-offs and weighing the pros against the cons; the problem is that in some regards it does a bad job at this.

Effectively permanent invincibility -VS- Playing a certain aspect of the game which I don't want to play

Large and get to install some more new, shiny things -VS- Insanely hard to kill



In both these scenarios, one side is much more favorable than the other side.

We can agree or disagree on what the baseline is or should be and it will make no difference. The simple fact is many players play this game for many different reasons and enjoy certain aspects while disliking others. All reasonable players will seek to maximize the time performing the in-game activities they enjoy while limiting the time exposed to the parts they dislike, whatever those may be. Those who enjoy Pvp will always seek to tip the game mechanics in their favor. Those who dislike it will seek ways to avoid Pvp.

I wouldn't be surprised if the existence of Halcs and Amps actually provides more, yes more, targets for the Pvpers. How so? If I really, really wanted to take part in other parts of the game, but avoid Pvp I just Halc up and get to do what I like. Occasionally I will miss setting or re-setting a halc or amp if life intrudes or if there is a action/reward available that I feel is worth un-covering for. This provides a certain number of targets for the Pvpers who find normally halced players who have had their halc tripped, but haven't been in the game to reset it, or those who have chosen to remove their halc/amp through offensive actions. Who among us has not found a pacified player and left him tabbed until his timer expires?

Now, lets imagine a world without halcs and amps. Totally remove them from the game. Congrats. You've got exactly what you want as an ardent Pvper, right? Not so fast. What do those who dislike the Pvp aspect of the game do now? How do they combat this? They "cluster" their activity to when they have a full tank of energy and then, and only then, do they repair and play the game. They maximize their playing time, and minimize the number of times they will be killed by playing until they completely exhaust their energy. Then they stay down forever until they completely recharge to continue the cycle. Virtually anyone can defend while online, so no easy kill for you then. They go offline; you get your kill. Situation normal, right?

Here's the issue. With the existence of halcs / amps players who want to play a little bit several (or many) times a day can pop back into the game here and there as they see fit use a bit of energy, do a few things, and go offline for a bit, back a bit, etc, etc, and be protected -- usually-- but not always. Timers and such you know. A certain number of times they will miss their timers and be targeted. Remove halcs/amps and players simply stay down longer, and it becomes a lose/lose situation. You now have less targets and more players just staying down, those who dislike Pvp get discouraged from playing several times a day and maybe play only once a day, activity levels decrease, and decrease, and decrease.... I think you see where this is heading.

That's why I say halcs and amps are fine and do not need to be nerfed. It seems to me that a reasonable balance has been struck where they are at right now. I also think the complaints about the death of the game because of the lack of Pvp targets due to halcs/amps are off-base. It's hard to reconcile people saying there are too many halced/amped players while others, at the same time, are saying "I get 50 kills a day" or some such when they choose to Pvp. For the record, I fall into that camp. I rarely Pvp, but when I do I get easily 30 or 40 kills a day, if not more...so how broken can Pvp be, really?

I halc and Calm just to piss off the population. This new daily mission its going to be fun.

You are pretty much implying that without halcs and calming amps these players would find it near impossible to actually play the game.

Let's make a list of things that would happen if halcs/amps had their timers drastically nerfed:

Still able to remain pacified indefinitely whilst actually online.

Would have to click those buttons every hour and a half instead of every six hours (the horror, an extra dozen clicks a day in a game of clicking)

Would have to... Sorry, let me take a moment, this one almost makes me puke... Players would have to repair their ships when they logged in.

PvP would no longer be a trudge through dozens of halcs just to get individual kills. There would still be halcs, yes, but nothing like the numbers we see at the moment.

Lol....Beat me to it I'm LOVING this new bi-weekly.... Gives me the chance to burn through some of my accumulated halcs

As to the others.... Sorry my use of halcs pisses you off. Foolish me, I didn't realize it was my job to alter my game play preferences to make you happy. Neener, neener, neener Come get me.... oh, that's right...You can't

Let me offer counter-points to your issues....

1) It's hardly a trudge to removed halced players from your BT. 1 click, zero energy spent, and they are gone.

2) If they could still remain halced indefinitely (per your own assertion) what are your changes really accomplishing? You say they'd just log-in more often to reset them. I say many would just stay down longer. Regardless of who is right, you aren't getting any more easy targets either way so deal with it.

3) As I have just recently stated (and so have plenty of others) PvP is hardly broken. Even with a comparatively weak ship I manage a substantial number of kills any time I actually decide to partake in PvP. How can it be harder for a supposedly beastly PvPer such as yourself to earn PvP kills than it is for a modest ship like me?

4) Tons of people complaining there are no targets for them while PvPing. Simple fix.... all the whiners just target each other. You are all out there trying to PvP, but can't find any targets. Just go after each other since there are so many of you active Pvpers who presumably aren't halced yet, somehow, you can't find anyone who isn't.

5) For all those hardcore Pvpers out there; I'll give in. Remove halcs and amps completely. Just 1 minor modification to game mechanics to go with it.... The only ships able to be targeted for PvP are players who are actually online and in the game at the time. For all you hardcore PvPers out there this shouldn't be an issue at all since your ships are beasts and you enjoy the player v. player aspect of the game. Or is it that you are just looking for easy targets who can't defend themselves while offline while proclaiming to be such a fan of PvP?

om fuqquing lord... i read the first like 5 posts then skipped to here.

I did laugh my ass off about the ship bot spam to add decks to a ship w/o their consent.

I have to tOTALLY -1 this idea. The whole idea of strategically leasving halc to ass slap someone makes total sense. This is how real life would be. Why would you give up any advantage until it served you best.

Players gonna play play play play plya
HAters gonna hate hate hate hate hate
Im just gonna hit halcs halcs halcs

I like this guy. Same things I've been saying for 3+ years when this sort of topic comes up.

A real easy change to the Halc Situation, Only the person setting off the Halc is affected, by not been able to attack for 2 hours. Unless someones also under a Calming amp then there fair game, (Wont happen of course)

i posted this in another thread also. your complaint about not enough targets isnt about pvp its about npc'ing player characters who are off line. if you want real pvp then the only people who should appear on a bt are people who are actively playing at the same time you are. then you can start calling it pvp

I kind of like the halc only affects one person thing.. amusing... Eat that trap for the greater good!

I recall the gold old days...you could literally shank the crap outta 50 ships, steal a planet, zero someone, THEN toss up a halc on the fly. BOOYA!!

Talk about naughty! Now its more Ghandi-esque.