Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jane Shapperd wrote:Kiera Malukker wrote:Jane Shapperd wrote:Kiera Malukker wrote:Jane Shapperd wrote:I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2
Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time
Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa
sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue. Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death. You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up As stated its a brain storming session not a full concept so there would be a lot of things such as what you've mentioned to be considered before anything could be given serious consideration but it is something we can run with. Well its doesnt have to nodify the group who are holding the sov like the block aid units but it can be showing as a signture that can be scanned down by probes and if it is scaned before it gets onlined it can be removed that will hurt people who owns lots of systems alot
Also we would want it to be public and visable with some kind of notice because the idea is to enact a sense of urgency and panic to do something quickly to avoid potentially days of hardship or the loss/disabled strategically valuable target. They need to have a bat phone type response and if he doesn't answer there should be consequences. It should scale though depending on the type of attack. |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare. The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave. What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE. If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.
The idea is that those who go around using it on every target they can drop it on will eventually be the targets that many others will want to destroy the most.. if it was abused the abusers would make a lot of enemies and would then be the ones the majority would want to hit.
If nothing else it could mean mutual destruction which honestly I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in many cases and the truth is that many of the major blocs could care less about the little guys simply because there's nothing they can do to them at the moment other than steal a few resources from their towers and other minor things. Not to even mention that many who would likely target the larger guys will not own territory for them to attack. Most smaller groups that do own territory rent it so the point is null. The only ones large groups would use it on is other large groups in attempts to take sov and even then those their attacking could do the same in kind if pushed into it. think of it as a nuclear arms race where if any one side over used it they would assure their own demise as much as their enemies. |
Jane Shapperd
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare. The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave. What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE. If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.
maybe an effect that resticts capitals or a type of ships to fly in that system
And if that ship is log off in system it will have 50% of its status
With a combo of a conslation wide cyno jammer
this will prevent larger blocs to form up easily |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
483
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I wonder if it would be fun to offline some of an alliance's jump bridges without them noticing right away..
that iirc is tied directly to sov. Besides killing physically the only other way to shut them down is to lose SOV. iirc it was a goonie posting on some place something along the lines of "hey, jb's aren't working, ccp break something" that was the first sign goons did not pay their bills long ago. Also a sign others, namely IT jumped on lol.
I am thinking ccp might have issues separating the jb working code from its tie ins to sov. Well that and I don't want the alliance turning them off for security reasons themselves. I'd see them shutting down themselves if not needed as muched or paranoid about passwords. Which they should be....knowing a few passwords for alliance jb's I was not even in saved my ass a few times lol. Let them be paranoid, I still want my back door way in or out though they can't shut down lol.
|
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I wonder if it would be fun to offline some of an alliance's jump bridges without them noticing right away.. that iirc is tied directly to sov. Besides killing physically the only other way to shut them down is to lose SOV. iirc it was a goonie posting on some place something along the lines of "hey, jb's aren't working, ccp break something" that was the first sign goons did not pay their bills long ago. Also a sign others, namely IT jumped on lol. I am thinking ccp might have issues separating the jb working code from its tie ins to sov. Well that and I don't want the alliance turning them off for security reasons themselves. I'd see them shutting down themselves if not needed as much or paranoid about passwords. Which they should be....knowing a few passwords for alliance jb's I was not even in saved my ass a few times lol. Let them be paranoid, I still want my back door way in or out though they can't shut down lol.
I wouldn't expect such an idea as system wide attacks to be implemented for at least 2+ years or more given the buckets of tears that sov owners would fill. By then towers and other mechanics they've been wanting to address should be resolved. So giving the concept consideration now would potentially allow them to consider it's implementation later.
Another great effect of such an idea is that it could be used to prevent or slow the steam rolling of stations once their destructible by the few alliances that can now afford hundreds of supers, something that ccp has stated multiple times was unintended, due to poor mechanics for moon goo and other past issues that allowed them to enrich themselves more so than anyone else.
I'm not knocking them for acquiring such assets en mass but offering an alternative to compete with them without having to bow to major blocs if you want to try your hand at taking on the sov game or in the event that you want to potentially do serious harm to their strategic assets.
Again think small nations now who hold off larger nations with the threat of mutual destruction without the use of a large conventional military. The damage done should scale with its costs and difficulty with regards to its implementation and disarming mechanics and it should be some kind of new mechanic not a rehash of old over used and often failed ones. The focus shoudl be on stations, system wide effects on starbases and potentially jump bridges and/or gates for a limited time anywhere from 12 hrs up to a week it should be as uncomfortable to deal with as a high sec war is for mining bears but for null sec pvp corps in kinds. No that's what triggered this idea but its a good example on the stress it should induce on the target. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13163
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:02:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote:afkalt wrote:I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare. The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave. What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE. If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one. The idea is that those who go around using it on every target they can drop it on will eventually be the targets that many others will want to destroy the most.. if it was abused the abusers would make a lot of enemies and would then be the ones the majority would want to hit. If nothing else it could mean mutual destruction which honestly I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in many cases and the truth is that many of the major blocs could care less about the little guys simply because there's nothing they can do to them at the moment other than steal a few resources from their towers and other minor things. Not to even mention that many who would likely target the larger guys will not own territory for them to attack. Most smaller groups that do own territory rent it so the point is null. The only ones large groups would use it on is other large groups in attempts to take sov and even then those their attacking could do the same in kind if pushed into it. think of it as a nuclear arms race where if any one side over used it they would assure their own demise as much as their enemies.
Yea, we are already in that position. This wont hold us back from using them on small groups. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
226
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:34:00 -
[37] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa
our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet
your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.
Still think more = better?
Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought... OK, let's play.
Large group detects small fleet of carriers: Five of them. Large group gets a 50-man gang. Large group also has plenty of ISO-Boxers. The ISO-Boxed alts get into cheap frigate hulls. 50 of them. Cheap frigate hulls land on carrier group. Bombs are dropped. Bombs hit 55 targets, each dealing 20,800 damage,1,040,000 damage total to each ship. Frigates are lost, but who cares? You killed five carriers. |
Nariya Kentaya
The Pulsar Innovation Surely You're Joking
1514
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote:The stuff that's supposed to be for small groups to harass big guys with aka targetable structure services, siphon units etc hurt the larger entities by making them laugh too hard at best... There needs to be a way for a small group to sow terror in the minds of the larger entities and make them think oh s#$% that wasn't expected or what we needed to happen right about now.
Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.
How about some kind of chemical/biological,nanobot attack that cripples a station for a period of time denying access to it or even damaging certain assets like bpo me/te or destroying the quality of R64 moons with some kind of environmental attack or disabling/disrupting a jump bridge network for a period of time with some kind of gravity well that causes those using to be spewed out in random systems across a given area or even an attack on a star that makes a system extremely toxic to those attempting to use it for a period of time kinda like the negitive effects incursions have but player orcastrated such as a super nova event that the residents can stop in time if they act fast enough but if they fail will have to suffer from for say a week or so ...something along those lines should be possible and even plausible since i remember reading a while back how EVE's engine can be used to do stuff like that but that you hadn't really thought of any good things to use it for.... I'm sure there's plenty of other terror type things people could come up with that would cripple the null bears in some fashion and would be useful to small groups trying to create a beach head in null sec and having the capacity to pull off such attacks would give them a bargaining position as well kinda like north korea vs the usa by using nukes to prevent an invasion. Sure they could crush them if they wanted to but at what cost? That's the mentality i'm talking about here.
it could be balanced by making it expensive and have it scale say a disabled jump net work around 5 bill, a station attack 10-20 bill and a system wide attack 35-40 bill or have it correlate with the costs of supers at say half their general price. You could even make it difficult to pull off but extremely effective at making null groups go oh sheet is not good day today if carried out successfully just think of all the knives in the back the null bears will use on each other by employing low level corps to do their under handed business because they fear someone doing it to them first...... could be lots o fun think of the meta muhahhahhahahahahaaaa some of us just want to watch them burn is all and we should have the tools to make it happen with out bringing 2000 of our friends in on it and enacting 18hr tidi bashes. CCP is always talking about how a few individuals having an impact on the community at large and I can think of no better way to make it happen.
If you give us the tools we will set the universe on fire...... 5 guys capable of "sowing terror" to a group of 5000, wonderful, so those big guys have 1000 of those same groups able to "sow terror", congratulations, you just ****** every little guy out of null AND low, by both nerfing them AND massively buffing the N+1 issue.
There is no way to restrict or make this fair, hell, as much as we want it to, there is no way to make N+1 anything BUT the easiest and BEST way to win fights, the only thing we CAN do is make it harder to mvoe that N+1 to who you want to kill, attempting to create regional warfare rather than galactic. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 16:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
What is it that makes WH space different to null.....? |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:40:00 -
[40] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Kiera Malukker wrote:The stuff that's supposed to be for small groups to harass big guys with aka targetable structure services, siphon units etc hurt the larger entities by making them laugh too hard at best... There needs to be a way for a small group to sow terror in the minds of the larger entities and make them think oh s#$% that wasn't expected or what we needed to happen right about now.
Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.
How about some kind of chemical/biological,nanobot attack that cripples a station for a period of time denying access to it or even damaging certain assets like bpo me/te or destroying the quality of R64 moons with some kind of environmental attack or disabling/disrupting a jump bridge network for a period of time with some kind of gravity well that causes those using to be spewed out in random systems across a given area or even an attack on a star that makes a system extremely toxic to those attempting to use it for a period of time kinda like the negitive effects incursions have but player orcastrated such as a super nova event that the residents can stop in time if they act fast enough but if they fail will have to suffer from for say a week or so ...something along those lines should be possible and even plausible since i remember reading a while back how EVE's engine can be used to do stuff like that but that you hadn't really thought of any good things to use it for.... I'm sure there's plenty of other terror type things people could come up with that would cripple the null bears in some fashion and would be useful to small groups trying to create a beach head in null sec and having the capacity to pull off such attacks would give them a bargaining position as well kinda like north korea vs the usa by using nukes to prevent an invasion. Sure they could crush them if they wanted to but at what cost? That's the mentality i'm talking about here.
it could be balanced by making it expensive and have it scale say a disabled jump net work around 5 bill, a station attack 10-20 bill and a system wide attack 35-40 bill or have it correlate with the costs of supers at say half their general price. You could even make it difficult to pull off but extremely effective at making null groups go oh sheet is not good day today if carried out successfully just think of all the knives in the back the null bears will use on each other by employing low level corps to do their under handed business because they fear someone doing it to them first...... could be lots o fun think of the meta muhahhahhahahahahaaaa some of us just want to watch them burn is all and we should have the tools to make it happen with out bringing 2000 of our friends in on it and enacting 18hr tidi bashes. CCP is always talking about how a few individuals having an impact on the community at large and I can think of no better way to make it happen.
If you give us the tools we will set the universe on fire...... 5 guys capable of "sowing terror" to a group of 5000, wonderful, so those big guys have 1000 of those same groups able to "sow terror", congratulations, you just ****** every little guy out of null AND low, by both nerfing them AND massively buffing the N+1 issue. There is no way to restrict or make this fair, hell, as much as we want it to, there is no way to make N+1 anything BUT the easiest and BEST way to win fights, the only thing we CAN do is make it harder to move that N+1 to who you want to kill, attempting to create regional warfare rather than galactic.
I'm not convinced that it would be the **** storm that you purpose it would be for smaller entities again the mechanic is tied to giving those without sov the opportunity to impact those with it without gathering a 5k man fleet and hundreds of ships that take months to build.
While any kind of system wide pain inducing mechanic could and would be employed by the larger sov holders to take territory again it would only encourage their foes to do the same in kind again leading to mutual destruction which again is not a necessarily a bad thing because it forces and allows entrenched lines to move.
Again most smaller entities either reside in low/high sec or if they do live in null sec pay protection money to bigger sov holders so the point is mute when it come to them harassing the small guys as the small guys are already PAYING them to live where they currently do. Also your forgetting that the attacks would come at great costs that have a 1 time benefit and would scale anywhere from 25 billion upwards of 80+ billion depending on their effect. In this form it acts as a large isk sink for those who would want to over use them. At a minimal price tag of 25 billion your talking about the cost of 2.5 titans for 10 attacks and carries the possibility that they will fail altogether if the enemy force can respond quickly enough to disarm it.
Again given this mechanic would be deployed 2+ years in the future hopefully after sov and tower mechanics would be changed. So therefore the current mechanics do not apply necessarily to this discussion. In concept they could be used as a tool to prevent the stagnation of null sec as has occurred under current and previous incarnations of sov mechanics and strategic assets because it allows for a greater range of deception and meta at the alliance level than current mechanics allow. |
|
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1269
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
How to be an eve terrorist:
Fly bomber wings. Instapop entire fleets. "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik
Remove Sov! |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
Okay, so, since the CFC would pretty well immediately use this stuff on LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF EVE, and would likewise have the same methods used against them, what's the endgame here? K-Space is completely uninhabitable, WH dwellers win eve? |
Sigras
Conglomo
877
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:29:00 -
[43] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Sigras wrote:so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa
our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet
your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.
Still think more = better?
Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought... OK, let's play. Large group detects small fleet of carriers: Five of them. Large group gets a 50-man gang. Large group also has plenty of ISO-Boxers. The ISO-Boxed alts get into cheap frigate hulls. 50 of them. Cheap frigate hulls land on carrier group. Bombs are dropped. Bombs hit 55 targets, each dealing 20,800 damage,1,040,000 damage total to each ship. Frigates are lost, but who cares? You killed five carriers. OOH, I love this game.
So your fleet gets into 50 frigates to inflate the bomb's damage. The first bomb goes off dealing 20,800 damage, insta-popping all of the frigates. Each subsequent bomb that lands would see 5 carriers (and lets just say for the sake of the argument that pods are not ignored in this calculation even though they probably should be) and 50 pods, so the second bomb hits for 20,800 damage killing all the pods. the other 48 bombs see 5 carriers, so they each do 15.625 damage for a total of 750 damage.
Congratulations, you managed to strip the shields off of my archons and lose 50 frigates + pods
round 2? |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:33:00 -
[44] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Sigras wrote:so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa
our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet
your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.
Still think more = better?
Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought... OK, let's play. Large group detects small fleet of carriers: Five of them. Large group gets a 50-man gang. Large group also has plenty of ISO-Boxers. The ISO-Boxed alts get into cheap frigate hulls. 50 of them. Cheap frigate hulls land on carrier group. Bombs are dropped. Bombs hit 55 targets, each dealing 20,800 damage,1,040,000 damage total to each ship. Frigates are lost, but who cares? You killed five carriers. OOH, I love this game. So your fleet gets into 50 frigates to inflate the bomb's damage. The first bomb goes off dealing 20,800 damage, insta-popping all of the frigates. Each subsequent bomb that lands would see 5 carriers (and lets just say for the sake of the argument that pods are not ignored in this calculation even though they probably should be) and 50 pods, so the second bomb hits for 20,800 damage killing all the pods. the other 48 bombs see 5 carriers, so they each do 15.625 damage for a total of 750 damage. Congratulations, you managed to strip the shields off of my archons and lose 50 frigates + pods round 2?
The bombs don't go off one at a time, they go off during the same server tick (or two) and thus see all 50 frigates/pods...
|
Sigras
Conglomo
878
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:42:00 -
[45] - Quote
terrible code implementation not withstanding, you could TiDi right before the bombs are about to go off. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:44:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sigras wrote:terrible code implementation not withstanding, you could TiDi right before the bombs are about to go off.
Which would actually just make things worse by lengthening the ticks, thus making it easier to get all the bombs going at once.
Also, you can't just decide to tidi you know. |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 05:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Okay, so, since the CFC would pretty well immediately use this stuff on LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF EVE, and would likewise have the same methods used against them, what's the endgame here? K-Space is completely uninhabitable, WH dwellers win eve?
So the majority are sitting on their hands because there is no real threat and who says that you can't deploy the weapons in wh space? The mechanic wouldn't be necessarily tied directly to sov so there's no reason they shouldn't be used there as well.
The end game would a war that would be unending and give people more content over all.
The end game would probably be whatever you could achieve with a warp gate when they add those mechanics to the game. The sov game and end game over all would be more dynamic and those who are playing that game would be forced to make a move.
Besides if the CFC did nuke everyone it might give people to try to over throw their overloads again more content and might even cause some in high sec to consider null and its potential which is something ccp has struggled with as well. |
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 06:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
Rowells wrote:The thing about terror in real life is usually based on the fact that I could die. In Eve, you can't really die, so it's hard to be scared of anything except a bad quarterly report. And even then it's mostly anger.
Terror works because the masses can die and that scares them allowing political action to take place by either promoting a campaign or forcing one.
By this logic terror campaigns in eve would have to revolve around damaging not the large assets of current alliances and coalitions but their members.
These attacks would then have to do damage to things like moons that allow lucrative ship replacement programs or do damage to groups renting who can't afford a SRP at all. On of OPs ideas about restricting station use (aka locking member access to assets) might be an option as well.
There is one solid way to terrorize large empires as of now and that is to attack their renters. Given the income from their moons though that's just going to end up being a drop in the bucket even if your campaign against their renters is successful. A boost to siphons in a way that the attacker doesn't benefit but the defender is hurt decently could be one of those changes.
These are methods that work well against larger targets while leaving smaller targets unaffected as well due to the fact that smaller null entities rarely if ever have renter empires and the moons they do have (if they're in control of them) are actually defended because it's likely in their home system. Larger empires however can not denote such massive resources to constantly defend their renters or all their moons. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13178
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 07:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Sigras wrote:terrible code implementation not withstanding, you could TiDi right before the bombs are about to go off. Which would actually just make things worse by lengthening the ticks, thus making it easier to get all the bombs going at once. Also, you can't just decide to tidi you know.
We can Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
94
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 07:07:00 -
[50] - Quote
Confirming that a mass jump by even something as small as an incursion fleet hitting gates simultaneously will cause tidi in highsec (where crimewatch overhead makes things like jumping hurt the server in the no-no bits) That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3799
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 10:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
You have to take what Goons say with a grain of salt, because their proposals are entirely self-serving and designed to ensure their continued monopoly on harassing players and dominating entire regions of space. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 17:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Okay, so, since the CFC would pretty well immediately use this stuff on LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF EVE, and would likewise have the same methods used against them, what's the endgame here? K-Space is completely uninhabitable, WH dwellers win eve? Who says that you can't deploy the weapons in wh space? The mechanic wouldn't be necessarily tied directly to sov so there's no reason they shouldn't be used there as well. The end game would a war that would be unending and give people more content over all. The end game would probably be whatever you could achieve with a warp gate when they add those mechanics to the game. The sov game and end game over all would be more dynamic and those who are playing that game would be forced to make a move. Besides if the CFC did nuke everyone it might get people to try to over throw their overloads. Again giving more content and it might even cause some in high sec to consider null as something worth participating in because it can affect them directly as well. Which is something ccp has struggled with as well.
...Okay, so you make literally the entirety of EVE completely uninhabitable.
Then what? You never actually addressed my point. What is the endgame here? How can there be an unending war when every single station is locked up, and everyone's assets have been removed? Do we fight one another in ibis fleets? |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 17:51:00 -
[53] - Quote
I agree with the point about small groups needing the capabilities to affect larger entities if they do not commit perimeter defenses fleets, that siphons are a joke, that ESS in anomalies is an exploit a, and all that....
BUT it does not alter the fact that your OP for this point is tactless and fundamentally wrong.
Terrorism is altogether evil, targeting civilians to advance a political agenda.
It has nothing to do in our game, and I hope this thread get locked.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 19:36:00 -
[54] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Kiera Malukker wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Okay, so, since the CFC would pretty well immediately use this stuff on LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF EVE, and would likewise have the same methods used against them, what's the endgame here? K-Space is completely uninhabitable, WH dwellers win eve? Who says that you can't deploy the weapons in wh space? The mechanic wouldn't be necessarily tied directly to sov so there's no reason they shouldn't be used there as well. The end game would a war that would be unending and give people more content over all. The end game would probably be whatever you could achieve with a warp gate when they add those mechanics to the game. The sov game and end game over all would be more dynamic and those who are playing that game would be forced to make a move. Besides if the CFC did nuke everyone it might get people to try to over throw their overloads. Again giving more content and it might even cause some in high sec to consider null as something worth participating in because it can affect them directly as well. Which is something ccp has struggled with as well. ...Okay, so you make literally the entirety of EVE completely uninhabitable. Then what? You never actually addressed my point. What is the endgame here? How can there be an unending war when every single station is locked up, and everyone's assets have been removed? Do we fight one another in ibis fleets?
The entirety of even isn't uninhabitable stations and systems would be locked into the mechanics for a limited time span and due to the costs involved even larger entities would still have to pick and choose their targets so they don't waste vast sums of isk. You claim that it would break everything is simply a lie your telling yourself. It would be as EVE always has been Adapt or get out of the way so someone else can take your place.
I did answer your question when I mentioned that these mechinics would likely be deployed after sov mechanics and after or during the deployment of alliance built star gates. Beyond that EVE is a sand box so there isn't any true end game either way since if you get bored doing one thing then you simply shift your focus elsewhere and do something else. |
Kiera Malukker
Simple Inc Simple Group
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 19:42:00 -
[55] - Quote
Saisin wrote: I agree with the point about small groups needing the capabilities to affect larger entities if they do not commit perimeter defenses fleets, that siphons are a joke, that ESS in anomalies is an exploit a, and all that....
BUT it does not alter the fact that your OP for this point is tactless and fundamentally wrong.
Terrorism is altogether evil, targeting civilians to advance a political agenda.
It has nothing to do in our game, and I hope this thread get locked.
Terrorism has been a part of EVE since its inception with pirates and and other tactics that exploit unprepared individuals and groups. I don't see how RL has any impact on what happens in game. Also Terror attacks in eve do occasionally have political motivation and the civilians of even are essentially the care bears who help manage alliances and assets but don't frequent in pvp themselves.
The context of the discussion is entirely related to potential in game mechanics and has absolutely no connection to RL events. As such the thread should not be locked. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 20:16:00 -
[56] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote:Saisin wrote: I agree with the point about small groups needing the capabilities to affect larger entities if they do not commit perimeter defenses fleets, that siphons are a joke, that ESS in anomalies is an exploit a, and all that....
BUT it does not alter the fact that your OP for this point is tactless and fundamentally wrong.
Terrorism is altogether evil, targeting civilians to advance a political agenda.
It has nothing to do in our game, and I hope this thread get locked.
Terrorism has been a part of EVE since its inception with pirates and and other tactics that exploit unprepared individuals and groups. I don't see how RL has any impact on what happens in game. Also Terror attacks in eve do occasionally have political motivation and the civilians of even are essentially the care bears who help manage alliances and assets but don't frequent in pvp themselves. The context of the discussion is entirely related to potential in game mechanics and has absolutely no connection to RL events. As such the thread should not be locked.
If you had labelled your thread freedom fighters, there would not be any issue and it would have made your point even better.
Your labeling is misguided, wrong and I am appalled that you can't see that. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 23:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
Kiera Malukker wrote:
The entirety of even isn't uninhabitable stations and systems would be locked into the mechanics for a limited time span and due to the costs involved even larger entities would still have to pick and choose their targets so they don't waste vast sums of isk. You claim that it would break everything is simply a lie your telling yourself. It would be as EVE always has been Adapt or get out of the way so someone else can take your place.
I did answer your question when I mentioned that these mechinics would likely be deployed after sov mechanics and after or during the deployment of alliance built star gates. Beyond that EVE is a sand box so there isn't any true end game either way since if you get bored doing one thing then you simply shift your focus elsewhere and do something else.
You cannot limit anything in this game by cost. For proof of this, look at the number of supercapitals that exist.
Now, consider that you would be handing both major blocs the keys to a mechanic that would allow them to lock everything of value in their opponent's space, and in highsec.
How likely do you think it is that the CFC and N3 would not go all out with your new mechanics to remove every shred of income their opponents have?
And how long do you think it would be before every major trade hub in the game went the same way?
And how long do you think it would take thirty thousand players to get bored of shitting all over everything their enemies own?
Also, with your moon effects, how much do you want Ishtars to cost? 1b? More? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |