Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lugia3
Emerald Inc. Easily Excited
973
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 00:05:00 -
[61] - Quote
Donima wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:It seems for a 2009 char you know very little.
CCP increased the cost of deccing corps and alliance a lot. Remember when it was 2 mil for your first dec, 4 for your second and 8 mil for you 3rd war.
It is now 50 mil up to 500mil depending on the number of people you have.
Educate yourself before you post something that makes you look like you know nothing.
And as well... Thanks for adding you alliance on my list of wardecs. I'm concerned that you're not too familiar with the old war dec system. Yes war deccing a single corp use to be cheaper (which I stated) but war deccing alliances was much more expensive. I recommend you do your research my friend.
Gentlemen, we have a winner! "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |
Albert Madullier
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 10:18:00 -
[62] - Quote
marmite collective
the l33t station undock campers with their mid slots filled with sebo's
kinda sums up the war dec mechanics, like marmite its pointless and boring |
Xuixien
Attitude Adjustment Incorporated
1218
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 10:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do. This is-á a signature. |
Catalytic morphisis
Rock Huggers Inc The Pears of Anguish
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 17:10:00 -
[64] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do.
Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them... |
Paranoid Loyd
530
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 17:27:00 -
[65] - Quote
Catalytic morphisis wrote:Xuixien wrote:If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do. Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...
You completely missed his point.
The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
wilgotna
Rubtech Equity Research Group
28
|
Posted - 2014.05.31 21:45:00 -
[66] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Catalytic morphisis wrote:Xuixien wrote:If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do. Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them... You completely missed his point. The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not. indeed the majority of the caldari militia is a prime example of what happens when players who are trained primarily in the pve mechanic attempt to pvp: gallente get free killmails |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
228
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 01:33:00 -
[67] - Quote
wilgotna wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Catalytic morphisis wrote:Xuixien wrote:If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do. Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them... You completely missed his point. The fact that the two styles of flying are so far apart contributes to the ignorance of carebears. If they had to fit for PVP to do PVE they would be more likely to be able to defend themselves when the inevitable happens and PVP finds them whether they want it or not. indeed the majority of the caldari militia is a prime example of what happens when players who are trained primarily in the pve mechanic attempt to pvp: gallente get free killmails
I'm sorry, it looked like there was supposed to be a dong point to that statement, but I couldn't quite make it out. Maybe try waving it a little harder? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1636
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 08:26:00 -
[68] - Quote
Talking **** about the caldari militia is, in my experience, always warranted. |
Xuixien
Attitude Adjustment Incorporated McMorris and Associates
1220
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 10:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
Catalytic morphisis wrote:Xuixien wrote:If you play EVE as a PvP game anticipating eventual combat... all the problems you mention about "destroyed gameplay" suddenly vanish. Interesting, isn't it?
My only contention is that PvE and PvP requires such drastically different fits. I think CCP should change that - fewer rats with larger tanks and higher individual DPS (but lower overall pocket DPS) that are challenging but are able to be done in a PvP fit. Of course 99% of bears won't use the PvP fit the same way 99% of miners don't fit tank - but the point isn't what players will do, it's about what they have the option to do. Why should the whole PvE Mechanic be redesigned just because you don't like it and are too lazy/Poor to have seperate ships/fits for them...
Yes, because having a PvP ship in your hangar is really handy when your PvE boat is tackled in a mission pocket. This is-á a signature. |
Marsan
229
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 17:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Marsan wrote:
3) Drop corp* and travel to the system with the mining agent
4) Rejoin corp, and do the agent's missions while watching local.
If you drop corp while a war is active you cannot rejoin for 7 days or till that war is over, whichever comes first. So that part of your plan does not work. That being said, you can hop in a shuttle to get to your destination.
When did they start that. I remember people poping in and out of war decs all the time. Admittedly the last dec war I actually tried to fight in was long ago. (Not counting the one that lasted a only week while work was in crunch time.) Generally I just stay in wspace or LS until it's over. That's a good change for the defender because the weirdness of people docking dropping corp, undocking, docking, joining corp and so on was annoying as hell. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community. |
|
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd. CODE.
128
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 20:04:00 -
[71] - Quote
Marsan wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Marsan wrote:
3) Drop corp* and travel to the system with the mining agent
4) Rejoin corp, and do the agent's missions while watching local.
If you drop corp while a war is active you cannot rejoin for 7 days or till that war is over, whichever comes first. So that part of your plan does not work. That being said, you can hop in a shuttle to get to your destination. When did they start that. I remember people poping in and out of war decs all the time. Admittedly the last dec war I actually tried to fight in was long ago. (Not counting the one that lasted a only week while work was in crunch time.) Generally I just stay in wspace or LS until it's over. That's a good change for the defender because the weirdness of people docking dropping corp, undocking, docking, joining corp and so on was annoying as hell.
It changed with security 2.0. Same time they changed the war dec mechanics, added safeties, changed bounty payouts, and changed kill right mechanics. Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever. SolidX > i'm an alt IRL Guilty conscience? Buy a mining permit today. www.minerbumping.com |
Canthan Rogue
Perkone Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 02:50:00 -
[72] - Quote
War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them. |
Kaea Astridsson
Yggdrasil Woodchoppers Noir. Mercenary Group
55
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 06:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:
...low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers...
Not if they're in a wardec with each other what, then whatever they're shooting is a legitimate target. |
Xuixien
Attitude Adjustment Incorporated McMorris and Associates
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 14:16:00 -
[74] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.
The reason they don't lose sec status is because war targets are legal targets. On that note, why should faction navies intervene when someone is shooting legal targets? You might not be aware of lore, but the four empires are more or less beholden to CONCORD. There's no reason for CCP to make NPCs protect players when the players can protect themselves. CONCORD exists to punish people who aggress illegally. This is necessary otherwise HiSec would become a virtually unlivable environment.
Also, people in LowSec are free to declare war and not suffer security status penalties/gateguns. But the type of people who live in LowSec don't care about sec status, generally.
War deccing, for the most part, is fine. There's some minor mechanical issues, but that's about all. There are ways to run logistics during a war. There are ways to mine and mission during a war. There are ways to fight back during a war. But all this depends on player choice and education. If you're not willing to take that step, well... I don't see why anyone should sympathize with you. This is-á a signature. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
444
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 14:46:00 -
[75] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:But the type of people who live in LowSec don't care about sec status, generally. True, though I wonder if the faction police chasing negative sec status players makes sense anymore from a gameplay perspective.
AFAIK (never suicide ganked in highsec personally), it doesn't effectively hinder suicide gankers' hit-and-run tactics.
OTOH, it creates a kind of barrier between lowsec and highsec communities, since lowsec PVPers find it impractical to roam in highsec while highsec PVPers are careful about their sec status.
Why not make -2.0 players fair game for all in 1.0, -2.5 fair game in 9.0 and so on and just ditch the faction police?
I'm -9.5, I'd happily poke my head in highsec from time to time for a roam, creating content for myself and others. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
811
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 16:13:00 -
[76] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status,
Er... you lose sec status for illegal aggression. Aggression in a war is not illegal, therefore you don't lose sec status. There is nothing "ridiculous" about this. It's pretty basic ****.
Quote:when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion).
No, they lose sec status for illegal aggression, same as anyone else. At a mechanical level, the game doesn't distinguish between "PVPers" and "PvEers".
Quote: Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
Because all of those things are consequences of illegal actions, making your suggestion inherently stupid. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd. CODE.
129
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 17:14:00 -
[77] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them.
Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other."
That is a terrible idea. Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever. SolidX > i'm an alt IRL Guilty conscience? Buy a mining permit today. www.minerbumping.com |
Canthan Rogue
Perkone Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 00:04:00 -
[78] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:The reason they don't lose sec status is because war targets are legal targets. On that note, why should faction navies intervene when someone is shooting legal targets? You might not be aware of lore, but the four empires are more or less beholden to CONCORD. There's no reason for CCP to make NPCs protect players when the players can protect themselves. CONCORD exists to punish people who aggress illegally. This is necessary otherwise HiSec would become a virtually unlivable environment.
Complete tautological reasoning. What is legal and illegal is a matter of game design. I am quite aware that war targets are "legal" as defined by current game mechanics. What I mean is that in most sandbox games, the killing of non-combatants tends to have consequences e.g. stars in GTA, bounties in Elder Scrolls, etc. I assume the equivalent in Eve is sec status.
Xuixien wrote:War deccing, for the most part, is fine. There's some minor mechanical issues, but that's about all. There are ways to run logistics during a war. There are ways to mine and mission during a war. There are ways to fight back during a war. But all this depends on player choice and education. If you're not willing to take that step, well... I don't see why anyone should sympathize with you.
It also depends on ISK and SP. Don't get me wrong, after playing for a year and a half, I have the ISK and PvP experience to thrive in a high sec war. New players who have to PvE in high sec to make ISK and are getting griefed by t3 fleets don't have many options.
Tengu Grib wrote:Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other."
Fair point, but how many non-mutual legitimate rivalry high-sec wars with a parity of forces are there? |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
448
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 00:29:00 -
[79] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:the killing of non-combatants tends to have consequences Wardec = combatant. Either you ditch wardecs altogether, or the game must assume you're a combatant. Else it really wouldn't work, trust me.
Canthan Rogue wrote:It also depends on ISK and SP. Nope, it depends almost exclusively on player skill. Again, either you have a competitive game that rewards player skill and knowledge, or a newbie-friendly game that becomes boring after 2 months. New players need to seek help from vets, or spend time in a vet-run corp such as E-Uni. It takes a week at most to learn how to not get killed during a highsec wardec.
Canthan Rogue wrote:Fair point, but how many non-mutual legitimate rivalry high-sec wars with a parity of forces are there? Who decides on 'legitimacy' and 'parity of forces'? For example, how would you classify 5 experienced pvpers deccing the whole E-Uni? |
Donima
HappyPantz Inc Slopy-Drop
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 14:32:00 -
[80] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Canthan Rogue wrote:War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them. Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other." That is a terrible idea.
I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible. As far as your issue with people not making a war Dec mutual. If there's actual a territorial dispute chances are both sides will be wanting to push the other out. You can easily fix your issue with adding a mechanic that allows you to purpose a mutual war to your opponent. If they agree then and only then does that war begin
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
833
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Donima wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Canthan Rogue wrote:War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them. Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other." That is a terrible idea. I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible.
"Grief wars" are an imaginary thing made up by carebears to make it sound like war decs against them are somehow illegitimate or rulebreaking.
Like all imaginary "problems", there's no need to address them at a mechanical level. They can be addressed at the HTFU level. "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd. CODE.
134
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 20:50:00 -
[82] - Quote
Donima wrote:
I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible. As far as your issue with people not making a war Dec mutual. If there's actual a territorial dispute chances are both sides will be wanting to push the other out. You can easily fix your issue with adding a mechanic that allows you to purpose a mutual war to your opponent. If they agree then and only then does that war begin
If you don't want to fight then why would you ever agree? In which case would the war just not happen or would we be back at the previous terrible setup? In any war the aggressor has something he wants to take / smash from the defender, and the defender would really rather keep it intact. So why would he make the war mutual if NOT doing so gives him an advantage? Good attempt to fix it, but I still don't see it working.
BTW, I'm not really happy with how war mechanics work right now, but I'm not taking a liking to anything you've proposed so far. Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever. SolidX > i'm an alt IRL Guilty conscience? Buy a mining permit today. www.minerbumping.com |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 03:12:00 -
[83] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Donima wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:Canthan Rogue wrote:War decs need to be fixed, not necessarily to *prohibit* PvP, but to give new players a fighting chance.
For instance when you declare war, you are paying Concord to look the other way. This doesn't mean the faction navies should do so. Why not have faction navy NPC's warp to the aid of players who are attacked by war targets in a non-mutual war?
I also find it ridiculous that war dec'ers can kill hundreds of defenceless PvE ships and not lose any sec status, when low sec PvP'ers have to deal with sec status loss and going suspect for fighting other PvP'ers (far less criminal/piratey in my opinion). Why not have war dec'ers go suspect, lose sec status and take gate guns when attacking non-mutual war targets?
These changes would balance the war dec system without prohibiting PvP. Of course, war dec supporters will not be in favour of this because they aren't *really* interested in promoting PvP, just easy PvP that benefits them. Your ideas would reduce grief wars. However they would also kill legitimate rivalry wars. "Hey those guys we don't like war dec'd us, lets NOT make the war mutual so every time they shoot at us they go suspect and we can doggy pile them with friends and allies who are out of corp. We'll be able to kill them one at a time and they won't be able to help each other." That is a terrible idea. I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible. "Grief wars" are an imaginary thing made up by carebears to make it sound like war decs against them are somehow illegitimate or rulebreaking. Like all imaginary "problems", there's no need to address them at a mechanical level. They can be addressed at the HTFU level.
Yeah, sucking rocks for 6mil an hour is definitely worth having to remain vigilantly at the keyboard and making industrialist corps reform because someone paid 50 mil to shoot at them is fantastic game design. |
Xuixien
Attitude Adjustment Incorporated McMorris and Associates
1230
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 09:22:00 -
[84] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:Complete tautological reasoning. What is legal and illegal is a matter of game design. I am quite aware that war targets are "legal" as defined by current game mechanics. What I mean is that in most sandbox games, the killing of non-combatants tends to have consequences e.g. stars in GTA, bounties in Elder Scrolls, etc. I assume the equivalent in Eve is sec status.
And why should game mechanics change? You have not presented an argument as to why the Faction Navies should intervene or sec status should be lost when someone engages a legal target.
Canthan Rogue wrote:It also depends on ISK and SP. Don't get me wrong, after playing for a year and a half, I have the ISK and PvP experience to thrive in a high sec war. New players who have to PvE in high sec to make ISK and are getting griefed by t3 fleets don't have many options.
Yes they do. They can join a larger corp which can offer them protection and participate in a supporting role - as logistics or ewar. This is-á a signature. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
858
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:58:00 -
[85] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:
Yeah, sucking rocks for 6mil an hour is definitely worth having to remain vigilantly at the keyboard and making industrialist corps reform because someone paid 50 mil to shoot at them is fantastic game design.
If someone chooses to suck rocks for 6 mil an hour, it doesn't magically make war deccing them an act of "griefing". "Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
463
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:11:00 -
[86] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Voyager Arran wrote:
Yeah, sucking rocks for 6mil an hour is definitely worth having to remain vigilantly at the keyboard and making industrialist corps reform because someone paid 50 mil to shoot at them is fantastic game design.
If someone chooses to suck rocks for 6 mil an hour, it doesn't magically make war deccing them an act of "griefing". I agree with you but I think Arran's point was that it seems that there are many, many people that do enjoy sucking rocks (for some reason I personally cannot fathom).
In 'peacetime', they get a puny reward for their low-risk, low-effort activity. Seems reasonably balanced, so far.
Then, a wardec will suddenly either dramatically increase risk and effort (anything is easier to do during a wardec compared to mining), or force them to 'metagame' their way out of it (corp dropping/reforming).
From their perspective, it is a bizarre game mechanic.
Still, I personally think that's not a good enough reason to change wardecs. To a die-hard highsec miner, i'd say 'mate, I understand that all this wardec thing doesn't make much sense to you, but trust us, it's good for just about everybody else in the game. Just accept it, drop corp for a week, and mine away!'. |
Donima
HappyPantz Inc Slopy-Drop
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 23:03:00 -
[87] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:Donima wrote:
I agree the grief wars would end which would be the biggest improvement to war decs possible. As far as your issue with people not making a war Dec mutual. If there's actual a territorial dispute chances are both sides will be wanting to push the other out. You can easily fix your issue with adding a mechanic that allows you to purpose a mutual war to your opponent. If they agree then and only then does that war begin
If you don't want to fight then why would you ever agree? In which case would the war just not happen or would we be back at the previous terrible setup? In any war the aggressor has something he wants to take / smash from the defender, and the defender would really rather keep it intact. So why would he make the war mutual if NOT doing so gives him an advantage? Good attempt to fix it, but I still don't see it working. BTW, I'm not really happy with how war mechanics work right now, but I'm not taking a liking to anything you've proposed so far.
It's a good point, I guess I was coming from the perspective of two corps/alliances that both want each other gone from an area. But maybe a better idea, going with the faction navy helping idea, is that the faction navy sides with whichever corp/alliance has a higher standing with that faction. i.e. if the aggressor has a higher standing then the faction navy would leave the war alone and not interfere. But if the defender has a higher standing then the navy will get involved to help defend. The strength of the faction fleet's forces can increase based on the standing difference.
This would give high-sec war deccing alliances another aspect to keep in mind before war deccing someone. It also gives the defenders a boost to pvp power based on the PvE stuff that they enjoy to do anyways. It would also promote the aggressors to try and build up their standings thru PvE as well. Just a thought. It would also promote staying active during wars to try and raise standings in order to steal the navy's assistance.
P.S. (The reason the navy doesn't interfere if the aggressors have a higher standing is because the aggressors are choosing to fight, and the target that they're attacking, so they're already at an advantage.) |
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
3949
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 23:30:00 -
[88] - Quote
Bring in NPC's?
Are you another one of those... " I don't have enough friends and need help from AI" type of people.
Basicaly you then want to force people to PVE. Something I have never done in this game.
But the people in the defender corp can still leave corp if they want nothing to do with the war and continue with their missions and mining.
You cannot pidgon hold one group while another group is still able to completely ignore the war if they chose to. Your trying to fix a people issue with mechanics which will never work. We all know wars have their issues but unless CCP finds a way to make both sides happy it is going to stay 1-dimensional and left to the players to resolve conflict under themselves. Which is the preferred way. "Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk |
Isabela Valentine
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
39
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 23:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
As Cannibal said, theres always the option of folding the corp and starting a new one and making them spend another 50m to war dec the new one. ALSO, you could just join a larger alliance and make it extremely expensive to war dec you. You'd still get decced im sure but less frequently I'd think. |
Donima
HappyPantz Inc Slopy-Drop
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Bring in NPC's?
Are you another one of those... " I don't have enough friends and need help from AI" type of people.
Basicaly you then want to force people to PVE. Something I have never done in this game.
But the people in the defender corp can still leave corp if they want nothing to do with the war and continue with their missions and mining.
You cannot pidgon hold one group while another group is still able to completely ignore the war if they chose to. Your trying to fix a people issue with mechanics which will never work. We all know wars have their issues but unless CCP finds a way to make both sides happy it is going to stay 1-dimensional and left to the players to resolve conflict under themselves. Which is the preferred way.
I'm just saying it'd be an interesting addition to the mechanic. It's not forcing anyone to PvE. It's an option in order to gain an advantage. Also, in case you didn't read up (which seems to be a pattern for you Cannibal), this is building off of a proposed idea from someone else's post.
I also recommend you change your way of thinking because your post could have actually suggested that CCP then would need to fix the way people can just drop corp to get rid of war decs (which lets be honest, is a really horrible part of the war mechanic). Instead making it so they only have a 24 hr window at the end of each war week to drop corp. And before anybody goes off saying that you have to wait 24 hours after dropping roles to leave corp, let me point out that currently you can drop roles, then quit corp to an npc corp imediately.
Anyways Cannibal, please try to approach this topic with an open mind and with constructive feedbacks instead of close-minded, things-are-too-hard-to-change attitude. The mechanics have been changed before, they can be changed again.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |