Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
760
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 11:51:40 -
[61] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets
This. Why would anyone declare war if they thought they had something significant to lose? Doesn't seem like a recipe for an exciting PvP game to me.
afkalt wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the reason pilots don't normally undock to fight back is not because they aren't loosing anything by not doing it but because they have nothing to gain by fighting back.
even if they do manage to kill a war target all they have gained is a worthless kill mail
Aaaaand THIS. It's not a popular fact though, a lot of people seem to think the defenders should just undock and be shot like fowl on a hunt and if they don't then eve is better without them. Until the attackers have a stake in the game, the ONLY intelligent play....is not to play. The purpose of a wardec is not to farm easy kills (although some people use it for that and other things as it is a sandbox game). It is (from a game design perspective) to disrupt the operations of a competitor. If the defenders choose to stop operations and turtle in a station for a week, that sounds like a win for the attackers.
Sure there is room for improvement and there are loopholes that definitely need fixing, but it seems to me that overall purpose of wardecs is served just fine with the current mechanics. Either you fight back or you shut down your ISK-making ventures for the duration of the war. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
524
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 11:55:18 -
[62] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets An idea I would throw out is a war structure of some kind deployed by the attacking corp. If the defenders manage to blow up the structure the war ends and they cannot be wardecced by that group for a certain time period.
(I may or may not have a small obsession with utilizing structures as conflict drivers)
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the reason pilots don't normally undock to fight back is not because they aren't loosing anything by not doing it but because they have nothing to gain by fighting back. They are one and the same. If by not undocking you lose something valuable, you have something to gain by defending it. In the strictest definitions of the words this isn't true - not losing something is neither a gain nor a loss - but in reality these assets are providing you a gain in your operations compared to not having these assets. You would be defending a gain basically.
There are all our dominion
Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12332
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 12:28:31 -
[63] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: An idea I would throw out is a war structure of some kind deployed by the attacking corp.
This game needs less babysitting of structures, not more. If, and that's a huge goddamn if, such a thing needs to exist, a war bond up for grabs if the defender gets kills is a much more appropriate mechanic.
That said, such a thing is in no way necessary so long as the defender retains the ability to dodge the wardec by exploiting the corp creation mechanics.
Oh, and as for "no one wants to be shot at". Too damn bad, you're playing a PvP game, the mere insinuation that you or anyone should be immune to dying is obscene. The game's economy revolves around loss in a very literal way, and each and every ship that explodes helps to stimulate that economy.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
950
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 12:34:29 -
[64] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: An idea I would throw out is a war structure of some kind deployed by the attacking corp.
This game needs less babysitting of structures, not more. If, and that's a huge goddamn if, such a thing needs to exist, a war bond up for grabs if the defender gets kills is a much more appropriate mechanic. That said, such a thing is in no way necessary so long as the defender retains the ability to dodge the wardec by exploiting the corp creation mechanics. Oh, and as for "no one wants to be shot at". Too damn bad, you're playing a PvP game, the mere insinuation that you or anyone should be immune to dying is obscene. The game's economy revolves around loss in a very literal way, and each and every ship that explodes helps to stimulate that economy.
the problem is no one wants to be shot at its on both sides the attacker docks up if they are losing just like the defenders the only people who die are ones that didn't know better
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
524
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 12:58:30 -
[65] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: An idea I would throw out is a war structure of some kind deployed by the attacking corp.
This game needs less babysitting of structures, not more. They drive a lot of conflict in all areas of space. Moon goo towers might be the game's best conflict drivers.
War structures would be another incentive to stay in corp, fleet up and fight. It would be a viable way to strongly defend your industrial operations.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If, and that's a huge goddamn if, such a thing needs to exist, a war bond up for grabs if the defender gets kills is a much more appropriate mechanic. Are you talking about ISK rewards for killing attackers? Mostly futile. The ISK would have to be enough to make attacking worth while for the defenders while not over-inflating the cost of wardecs. Chances are the defender would be better off dropping corp and running incursions instead.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:That said, such a thing is in no way necessary so long as the defender retains the ability to dodge the wardec by exploiting the corp creation mechanics. Which they should not have the ability to do. Removing the ability to flip corps without any repercussion needs to be addressed.
I'd like to see some restrictions on the crop creation mechanic itself but I think structures that provide industrial boosts can help achieve this too. These structures would accumulate their gains over time. Either raw time or based on industrial activity in the deploying corporation. If you flip your corp, your gains are reset to zero. Combine that with the ability to end a war through some means and flipping corp will occur less often.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh, and as for "no one wants to be shot at". Too damn bad, you're playing a PvP game, the mere insinuation that you or anyone should be immune to dying is obscene. The game's economy revolves around loss in a very literal way, and each and every ship that explodes helps to stimulate that economy. I shall assume this is directed elsewhere? If not I think it's clear from my post history that this is nothing close to a position I hold.
There are all our dominion
Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12334
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 14:02:42 -
[66] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: My love for conflicts driven by structures aside, the main point to take away is some means for the defender to end the war early through engaging with the attackers. If this can be achieved thoughtfully without structures that is fine.
And my main point is that, until CCP decides to take an axe to the sacred cow of NPC corps and dec dodging, wardecs should not be made any weaker.
They are a highly necessary function for highsec, a driver for loss of ships and assets. Problem is, right now they are toothless since they can be dodged for a pittance with absolutely zero consequences.
Quote: Are you talking about ISK rewards for killing attackers? Mostly futile. The ISK would have to be enough to make attacking worth while for the defenders while not over-inflating the cost of wardecs. Chances are the defender would be better off dropping corp and running incursions instead.
And, once again, that option needs to disappear entirely, or be highly punished. Personally I have long favored the generation of killrights against anyone who leaves a player corp during an active war, on either side, assignable by directors of the opposing corp.
The intended method to dissolve a wardec against you is to offer surrender to the attacker. That's quite clear from the dev blog of the last wardec rebalance, in fact dec dodging was considered an actionable exploit for some time, until CCP stereotypically caved in to carebear tears at the detriment of the entire game. But then, that's kind of a running theme for them.
Quote: I'd like to see some restrictions on the corp creation mechanic itself but structures that provide industrial boosts can help achieve this too. These structures would accumulate their gains over time. Either raw time or based on industrial activity in the deploying corporation. If you flip your corp you are of course deploying new structures so your gains are back to zero. Combine that with the ability to end a war through some means and flipping corp will occur less often.
Industrial activity is not the only thing that needs addressed. Mission running and mining are also best done in NPC corps, and that needs to stop.
Until NPC corps are not an optimal way to play 90% of the game in highsec, the problem will remain.
Player corps should be something worth fighting over. It should be beneficial to even be in one, and to such an extent that it is worth fighting to keep them.
Quote: I shall assume this is directed elsewhere?
Yep.
Quote: edit - On second thought there are some balance problems with the war structure. It would make it difficult to maintain hostilities with large and capable groups that can easily overwhelm the war structures of any attackers. This would also likely apply to any mechanic that lets you end the war early. Groups like RvB and E-Uni would be close to impossible to maintain a dec on. For now I'll retract this idea.
Yep, your idea pretty much makes it impossible for small groups to attack bigger ones. I was going to point that out but you realized it already.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
950
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 14:33:52 -
[67] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: My love for conflicts driven by structures aside, the main point to take away is some means for the defender to end the war early through engaging with the attackers. If this can be achieved thoughtfully without structures that is fine.
And my main point is that, until CCP decides to take an axe to the sacred cow of NPC corps and dec dodging, wardecs should not be made any weaker. They are a highly necessary function for highsec, a driver for loss of ships and assets. Problem is, right now they are toothless since they can be dodged for a pittance with absolutely zero consequences.
Problem is no matter what CCP does they can be dodged and i would rather people drop corp then drop game
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2386
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 15:07:16 -
[68] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets
the reason pilots don't normally undock to fight back is not because they aren't loosing anything by not doing it but because they have nothing to gain by fighting back.
even if they do manage to kill a war target all they have gained is a worthless kill mail
^^^^^
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets An idea I would throw out is a war structure of some kind deployed by the attacking corp. If the defenders manage to blow up the structure the war ends and they cannot be wardecced by that group for a certain time period. (I may or may not have a small obsession with utilizing structures as conflict drivers)
This would do it for me.
As for small attackers getting rolled by large defenders, thats half the point (and sandbox 101). choose targets carefully, and allies become meaningful. War decs become less flippant, and more meaningful.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
980
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 15:39:48 -
[69] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:afkalt wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets
This. Why would anyone declare war if they thought they had something significant to lose? Doesn't seem like a recipe for an exciting PvP game to me.
You've just nailed the entire problem with "forcing" defenders to undock ideas right here. I'd be as well as asking for ccp to encourage people to jump into my gate camps |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
763
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 15:48:04 -
[70] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Black Pedro wrote:afkalt wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the main problem is attackers have nothing to lose and can just sit on station and dock up if a fight goes south or just up ans switch to softer targets
This. Why would anyone declare war if they thought they had something significant to lose? Doesn't seem like a recipe for an exciting PvP game to me. You've just nailed the entire problem with "forcing" defenders to undock ideas right here. I'd be as well as asking for ccp to encourage people to jump into my gate camps If you make it so defenders need to undock to defend their assets, they do lose by not mounting a defense.
Persistent and useful bonus provide by these new player-owned structures would go a long way to providing that incentive. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4247
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 15:50:14 -
[71] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Problem is no matter what CCP does they can be dodged and i would rather people drop corp then drop game You pretty much nailed it.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12338
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 16:56:33 -
[72] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Problem is no matter what CCP does they can be dodged and i would rather people drop corp then drop game
If they generate killrights when people dodge them, people won't do it for long.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:05:38 -
[73] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Problem is no matter what CCP does they can be dodged and i would rather people drop corp then drop game
If they generate killrights when people dodge them, people won't do it for long.
again if they are punished for dropping corp people will just drop the game for the duration and that's definetly not the better of two evils
and for those not already in a corp it would just add a much larger risk to joining one keeping more people from leaving npc corps
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12339
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:08:14 -
[74] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: again if they are punished for dropping corp people will just drop the game for the duration and that's definetly not the better of two evils
Yeah, it really is. CCP has already established that a PvE centric playstyle that doesn't interact with the greater game around them is bad for retention anyway.
Nevermind that, if you refuse to fight wars, you do not belong in a player corp in the first place. There is a place for people with that particular disability already.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: and for those not already in a corp it would just add a much larger risk to joining one keeping more people from leaving npc corps
Which is why NPC corps need to be savagely nerfed in terms of individual income. Being in a player corp should be something worth fighting for. Those who are willing and able to deal with wars should reap greater reward than those who refuse to even try.
Risk vs Reward matters.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:14:18 -
[75] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Risk vs Reward matters.
and what is the risk to a large wardec corp that goes around attacking corps with significantly less combat potential
EDIT:
Also CCP didn't say PVE pilots that don't interact are bad for retention rather that retention rates for that group were the lowest
not to mention that the good majority of those PvE pilots are alts used build income for PvP mains
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:32:17 -
[76] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: and what is the risk to a large wardec corp that goes around attacking corps with significantly less combat potential
That's a consequence of people making the choice to be defenseless, not the fault of someone taking advantage of it.
The risk in a mutual PvP interaction(such as between corporations) is what players are willing to bring. If they won't bother fighting back, then my risk is less and that's their fault. If you want my risk to be higher in a war, then grow a pair and bring the pain, or ally with some of the theoretical victims that your heart bleeds for.
Quote: Also CCP didn't say PVE pilots that don't interact are bad for retention rather that retention rates for that group were the lowest
They mean the same thing. Furthermore, any mechanical change that favors that group at the expense of one with higher retention rates is literally damaging the game. To argue for a status quo that is bad for the game's retention is the epitome of selfishness, or so I kept hearing when the lie of "griefing" driving away new players still held water.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1040
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:33:46 -
[77] - Quote
I actually think that the wardec system promotes risk aversion not because it is so easy for someone to skip corps but because it is so easy for a larger group to completely disrupt a new smaller groups game. Nothing puts someone off a game more than being given an abject lesson in just how low skilled or bad at PvP you are.
A proposal for those wardec groups who are bored and want fights would be to actually *help* new small corps. Offer you services as an ally in return for the small group providing them with some goods or other at a discount (but low enough discount for them to still make profit). Thay way the wardec guys get to fight each other, the small corps get an idea of alliances and how better to work in groups. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:35:45 -
[78] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Nothing puts someone off a game more than being given an abject lesson in just how low skilled or bad at PvP you are.
Citation needed, because CCP's data disagrees. In fact, people who are killed early on in their game lifetime are much more likely to resub.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1041
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 17:55:56 -
[79] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Nothing puts someone off a game more than being given an abject lesson in just how low skilled or bad at PvP you are. Citation needed, because CCP's data disagrees. In fact, people who are killed early on in their game lifetime are much more likely to resub.
Data can be read any way you want usually. That could just mean that those same people who died early simply learnt to run and or evade better. It could also mean that they are the non-risk averse players who would have re-subbed anyway. A large number ofthem could also be alts of players who are using them in PvP. Without breaking the data down further it really doesn't show anything.
My point is the same though, it would give people more incentive to maintain corps if they had some kind of backing and that simply isn't available to small startup corps. Targeting them in wardecs is counter-productive. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:00:11 -
[80] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Data can be read any way you want usually.
No, that's just an attempt to turn something purely objective into something subjective so it can be dismissed. You don't get to argue with math.
People who get blown up early in their game lifetime renew their sub much more often.
The end.
Quote:A large number ofthem could also be alts of players who are using them in PvP.
Nope. The presentation said they accounted for alts, and removed them from the data entirely.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:09:48 -
[81] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Data can be read any way you want usually.
No, that's just an attempt to turn something purely objective into something subjective so it can be dismissed. You don't get to argue with math. People who get blown up early in their game lifetime renew their sub much more often. The end. Quote:A large number ofthem could also be alts of players who are using them in PvP.
Nope. The presentation said they accounted for alts, and removed them from the data entirely.
wait your taking this info from an extremely small sample group over a very short time
rise also admitted that it probably wasn't representative of eve but was just a quick test with surprising numbers
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:19:50 -
[82] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: wait your taking this info from an extremely small sample group over a very short time
rise also admitted that it probably wasn't representative of eve but was just a quick test with surprising numbers
Do you see any contrary data? I've seen them say this twice now in recent times, while the only thing contrary to it is the same tired, opinionated old carebear narrative some people have been spewing for a decade.
Turns out, they're wrong and they likely always have been.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:20:02 -
[83] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Problem is no matter what CCP does they can be dodged and i would rather people drop corp then drop game
If they generate killrights when people dodge them, people won't do it for long.
So you can prevent anyone from leaving (without penalty) by keeping it under a wardec? Not the way to do it. People who want to avoid fighting will just dock up, logoff and/or play on alts.
Have you ever had a smaller IndyCorp/Alliance and survived 3mo of continual wardecs from mercs? We tried to. We lost nearly 100B doing so. The harder we fought, the more the wars kept coming. In the end, leaving the alliance and docking up (and playing on alts) was the only way we survived. We also decided that space assets and mining fleets were a bullseye, and switched to manufacturing. We are much smaller and able to adapt and prosper now.
Point is, if you fight these large groups, it only attracts more attention and wars. Unless you roll, or merely refuse to fight directly, you will lose your space assets and too many ships.
You make some good points but your vitriolic views are slanted in one direction only. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2703
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:30:01 -
[84] - Quote
Not sure who you expect to support this, on the council. Sure won't be me.
As to only smaller groups attack bigger? No. Easily abused.
Lock folks in? Funny, I don't see, in that proposal that the decking corp would also be a locked door, no new members.
Biggest thing about wardecs I want to see fixed isn't wardecs, it is neutral logi and station games. But that would be another thread
this one I will not even bother following anymore as it is GNDN (Goes nowhere, does nothing)
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:38:55 -
[85] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: So you can prevent anyone from leaving (without penalty) by keeping it under a wardec? Not the way to do it. People who want to avoid fighting will just dock up, logoff and/or play on alts.
People who want to avoid fighting do not belong in player corps to begin with.
Quote: Have you ever had a smaller IndyCorp/Alliance and survived 3mo of continual wardecs from mercs?
Yep. Marmite decced my old alliance, the ROC, for a long damned time a while back, and I was missioning in a faction battleship the whole time. It's really not that hard, we even did corp ops in lowsec a lot of the time, too.
Quote: Point is, if you fight these large groups, it only attracts more attention and wars. Unless you roll, or merely refuse to fight directly, you will lose your space assets and too many ships.
You make some good points but your vitriolic views are slanted in one direction only.
Yes, it is slanted in one direction. The one that isn't poison to player retention.
You've even said it yourself, when allowed to work correctly, wars promote conflict, generate content. That's not a bad thing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:39:41 -
[86] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Biggest thing about wardecs I want to see fixed isn't wardecs, it is neutral logi and station games. But that would be another thread
so much this
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12340
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 18:58:23 -
[87] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
Biggest thing about wardecs I want to see fixed isn't wardecs, it is neutral logi and station games. But that would be another thread
so much this
Besides the existing flags, what else needs done? Logi is already flagged for combat the literal instant they begin to heal, and docking is prohibited when aggressing another player.
What about that needs changed?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 19:23:02 -
[88] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:
Biggest thing about wardecs I want to see fixed isn't wardecs, it is neutral logi and station games. But that would be another thread
so much this Besides the existing flags, what else needs done? Logi is already flagged for combat the literal instant they begin to heal, and docking is prohibited when aggressing another player. What about that needs changed?
the fact that the logi is safe until it knows it is needed and then can chose to risk itself
if you are playing station games odds are you have a ship tanked well enough to survive the 2min
and i would also like to add neutral boosts as they don't even get flags
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
524
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 19:24:35 -
[89] - Quote
God damn. I typed up a whole thing and then my computer went bonkers. I ain't doing that up again... but quickly:
- The whole corporation and wardec system needs to be revamped in the same pass. Adding benefits to corp without fixing things like dec dodging would not be balanced and the opposite would just force players out of corps. More benefits more corps, more commitment to that corp in times of war. - Any time I've said "industry" in this thread I am referring to all matters of farming ISK. - Neutral logi in wars barely happens if you don't hang around trade hubs. This is EVE anyways. Expect the unexpected. Don't expect the hostile fleet of 5 to actually be just 5. This is how it is everywhere else. - Station games is a separate thing entirely. This thread is about wars and corporations. Station games aren't a problem though. Refer to the above. Station games aren't honor duels. Expect the unexpected. - I don't think players that avoid fights belong out of corporations. It's players that can't accept the circumstances of wars that do not. The mission runner who scouts, rats aligned, carries ECM drones, and offers a 'gf' in local if he does die is a fine candidate for corporations. This kind of player deserves more reward for taking that risk when compared to the player sitting in the NPC corp or rolling a new corp for the 8th time.
There are all our dominion
Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12341
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 20:12:23 -
[90] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the fact that the logi is safe until it knows it is needed and then can chose to risk itself
O...kay? How, precisely, is that going to change so long as highsec still has Concord? Yes, the fact of the matter is that they will not be flagged until they commit a flag-worthy action, what's the problem with that?
Quote: if you are playing station games odds are you have a ship tanked well enough to survive the 2min
And? Once again, what exactly are you going to do about it?
Quote: and i would also like to add neutral boosts as they don't even get flags
Off grid boosting should stop existing entirely, that has nothing to do with wardecs. Are you and Mike just smokescreening here, or what?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |