Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:39:04 -
[31] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:To anyone saying that neutral logi should be removed.
Sure, so long as it applies equally, that you can only rep someone in your corp or alliance. Not just in a war, but across the board. lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag.
So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5382
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:48:15 -
[32] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why? Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally. Quote:That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists. Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that. You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way. How is it one sided? Tbh, the people that are usually complaining about neutral logi are people on your side of the fence. Personally I couldn't care less since I'm not going to fight, and I imagine most of the people you hate in this thread wouldn't either.
Serious question, is there anything you don't complain about? You seem to hate everything these days.
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why? That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists. Because if you rep somebody in highsec that is in alliance you get a suspect flag. So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi. Under what circumstances do you get flagged? In a war? If that's the case it sounds broken, since if your alliance is in a war, you're in it together.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
5001
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:01:52 -
[33] - Quote
Things I feel should change:
1) Surrender is presently meaningless for small corps, they can reform without cost. - Suggested fix: Add benefits for significant membership tenure in a corp. Perhaps the removal of the 11% NPC corp tax should apply only once you've been in a corp a week, and long term membership (30+ days) might give you +3% incursion LP rewards or something like that
2) The defender entities have no incentive to actively resist - Suggested fix: Instead of just deleting the ISK that's paid to declare war, have the defender be able to claim it by killing the aggressors (using the exact mechanic used for bounties)
3) A minority of newbies don't understand what a wardec means - Suggested fix: CEOs that don't inform new players of the danger of a war should be hunted by the playerbase until they stop forming corps, as these people are terrible for the game.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:35:31 -
[34] - Quote
Like I said before crimewatch was ever implemented:
There is no real tactical advantage gained by logistics being neutral. A fleet that was not able to win an engagement in which neutral logistics were used would not have been any more capable of winning if the logistics were not neutral. The only advantage that was ever gained by logistics being neutral was and still is the element of surprise. What people are complaining about when they complain about neutral logistics is local chat not giving them accurate intelligence about enemy numbers.
Since people genuinely don't understand crimewatch or the system it replaced it was never the case that you could not shoot neutral logistics, ever since highsec war was a thing (2004?) you've been able to shoot at the people remotely assisting your war targets. Largely the perception to the contrary was caused by people not from highsec having their overview states not set up to show players as being flagged with aggression. Right up until inferno I routinely heard it from fairly high profile players from Nullsec, lowsec and wormhole space that they believed it impossible to shoot neutral logistics even though it was totally untrue.
This is not to mention that what qualifies as per the game mechanics "neutral logistics" extends well beyond some dude and his Onerios alt. People who ally into wars are "neutral" to the defender in the war. Everyone in the game is "neutral" to another player that has a limited engagement timer for any reason whatsoever. Being at war and having a PVP timer (not even a suspect flag or limited engagement timer) makes every person not in your alliance "neutral" to you.
Crimewatch was a horribly designed system filled with flaws. These flaws are generally considered to be intended and it's trivial to use them to your advantage when you know how to. People who are familiar with those mechanics and encounter them frequently aren't the people who are screwed over by them, the people who aren't dedicated highsec PVPers are. |
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:36:34 -
[35] - Quote
I acknowledge that wars( in my opinion far more than can flipping or mission baiting) have the ability to wash out newbros.
Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
I agree this mechanic comes at a cost and needs changed. However, the new dynamics destroy the interpersonal interactions outright.
I think an alternate solution would be to create some low level options to let noobs entertain themselves at limited risk while at war. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:40:19 -
[36] - Quote
Mobadder Thworst wrote: Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance. |
Mobadder Thworst
Perkone Caldari State
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:56:02 -
[37] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Mobadder Thworst wrote: Here is the scenario (in old rules). 1) someone pisses me off in a noob corp 2) I war dec his corp for 2 mil a week until it disbands. 3) his noobs all quit after 3 weeks of being told to stay docked because they only got to mine 4 times before they weren't allowed to play for a month.
Except at that point in time you could only declare 3 wars at any given time, so that particular use of wars was fairly unlikely. It was also more likely that the person declaring war wouldn't be a 200 man alliance.
... I wasn't writing fiction here. This is a bad example of norm, perhaps; but I still think it's the dock orders for a week at a time that wash players out.
I loved the old rules, but for all the crying about every kind of griefing... The only thing I know of that washes out players is weeks of no play.
The targets decided to dock, but guys like me supported it with war decs.
I just think instead of breaking all the grief and pvp mechanics, they should have just found a way for noobs to entertain themselves or buy out of war decs or some such.
The problem is weeks of no play.
I think the current war dec and grief watch mechanics are worse than the costs of the old system. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
579
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:12:25 -
[38] - Quote
The whole war system is poorly designed and ineffective. It tries to force highsec PvE players to engage in ship to ship combat, which they have no interest in doing. The game should be about enabling fun, not forcing folks to do what they detest. The only long term solution is to get rid of nonconsensual wardeccs in highsec. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2177
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:35:24 -
[39] - Quote
It's not universally the case that players who spend time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. |
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:35:48 -
[40] - Quote
Saving this spot before someone reflexively tries to troll veers. I'll be on a computer in an hour hold off till then guys
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
|
Saskia Laru
the 57th Overlanders Brigade
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 01:40:34 -
[41] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The whole war system is poorly designed and ineffective. It tries to force highsec PvE players to engage in ship to ship combat, which they have no interest in doing. The game should be about enabling fun, not forcing folks to do what they detest. The only long term solution is to get rid of nonconsensual wardeccs in highsec.
That's fine if there is some give. I believe hi-sec should not be 100% safe... but if it goes that route there should be some consequence to it. Like ISK... want to be safe fine, but your not going to make ISK. No missions, no rats, very pathetic ore. EVE was designed to be a very hazardous game from the beginning. It should stay that way, but if the masses want a little safe kiddie pool to dip their toes in, they should not benefit from that place financially.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:25:28 -
[42] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: NPC: - taxes and penalty to mining - no lvl4s (just blitz lvl3s and you fine) - did i miss something?
Well the tax penalty for NPC/Social Corps would also encompass LP so even blitzing L3's isn't going to have the same rewards
March rabbit wrote:Again: You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players". Personally i'm trying to put myself into such situation.... For now i think i would either: 1) accept losses (taxes, no lvl4s) and ignore new system 2) add alts to my account and switch between them while in war 3) move to 0.0 renter empire In both cases you got nothing in high-sec. Yes, you did hurt my PvE playstyle so maybe that was what you really wanted to achieve?
Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. Does anybody actively dispute that?
With current changes to nullsec 0.0 renting empires are about to become a whole lot more frequented I think. At least your enemies are red and blinky (depending on overview settings) in your local window. A vigilant player can avoid them and an active corp could perhaps counter them especially if the large corps I see growing from these changes recruit PvPer's.
Nobody is attacking you don't take this personally mate. You want changes. I'm proposing some that don't turn High-Sec into Disneyland. Eve is gritty. Eve is harsh. It makes Eve fun.
I look forward to hearing from you after clarifying my stance for you
Next
Estella Osoka wrote:Customs Office ownership was never going to be a motivator. Hisec Planetary Interaction is a joke, and one can get better profits by doing it in lowsec or null. People who do use planets in hisec use them as manufactories for the tier 4/5 commodities.
Besides if I want to use a planet in hisec and don't want to pay high fees, I can just negotiate with the people who own the POCO for blue status and get a lower tax rate; or just hire a merc corp to blow it up so I can put down another.
Also, for a POCO to actually make some isk for that corp, it has to own a lot of them and the tax rate has to be set at a price people are willing to pay to use that planet.
So yeah, hisec POCOs are not a big conflict generator.
Maybe make it so that wardecs actually payout substantial isk to the winner, but in a way that can't be exploited; which I can't think of.
I do like the idea of a hisec iHub in each system that a corp can own and it increases their isk generation, but can only switch hands through a wardec. However, it would have to be implemented in a way that could not be abused. Main type of abuse in that system would be that a big alliance would go out and take them all, and then no one could take them back because that alliance was too big to take on. Kinda like the CFC in hisec. The hisec blue donut if you will.
As far as POCO's go I personally have owned 3. They made their ISK back in less then 2 months. After that it was all profit and content. But perhaps POCO's need to be looked at in this new proposal. I'll have a think on it. Otherwise they get captured using the entosis link as individual entities. hmm. any ideas on how to improve POCO's inside of this proposal?
I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You win. War ends. You get 375mil back and the constellation. Marmite get 375mil back and you pay them their fee.
Scenario B You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you. You pay 750mil isk for the war. Marmite pays 750mil isk to assist. You lose . War ends. Your enemy gets 750mil ISK in winnings and you and Marmite get gif trolled in local for the next 2 weeks till you can try again.
Scenario C You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You win. War ends. Marmite gets back their 375mil and you get the (offensive investment)/2.
Scenario D You hold the Aulari Constellation and Bear 2 declares war on you. You Hire Marmite to assist and defend your hard fought for and won lands. Marmite assists you the defender for 750mil isk. You lose . War ends. You lose your constellation bonus. You must seek out a new home and your home system is the only 1 in which you generate your 15% bonus (or whatever the bonus is). (Defender assist ISK)/2 goes to the victor.
War is Gritty. War is Harsh. War is Expensive but has great reward potential. Sounds very eve to me Also while CFC( or whatever they want to call themselves these days) could certainly try and abuse this I think the value of the assist should scale with the amount of people in the assisting alliance. This will limit the blue donuts as its not going to be profitable to attempt this
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 03:39:23 -
[43] - Quote
@ the suspect haters/supporters/inbetweeners and neutral logi ppl. This isn't the post to discuss this. If this goes well I'll have an open discussion about suspect mechanics at a later date. If you really need to discuss this start your own thread plz and thankyou
Mobadder Thworst wrote:Sorry I'm late, was over at the swimsuit competition. I have never felt so pretty!
I think the problem with wars right now is that they are too impersonal. The high costs have destroyed the small local war dec vender. Those people who used to provide that excellent service and personal interaction had to get jobs with large impersonal merc corporations who only know you are a flashie.
A local 3 person corp just can't make a go at it anymore with costs and structure being what it is..
Those small corps made it possible for targets and aggressors to really get to know each other and have fights.
The small local war dec corps were fun and much easier to defeat. I think they were good content.
I can lament the death of can flipping now, if you want to see tears. Tragedy, it's just tragedy... sorry Mo but my proposal ends your 3 man wardec corps too . sorry . feel free to continue with your other evil avenues tho
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Things I feel should change:
1) Surrender is presently meaningless for small corps, they can reform without cost. - Suggested fix: Add benefits for significant membership tenure in a corp. Perhaps the removal of the 11% NPC corp tax should apply only once you've been in a corp a week, and long term membership (30+ days) might give you +3% incursion LP rewards or something like that hmm interesting approach. I shall have a think on this.
Veers Belvar wrote:The whole war system is poorly designed and ineffective. It tries to force highsec PvE players to engage in ship to ship combat, which they have no interest in doing. The game should be about enabling fun, not forcing folks to do what they detest. The only long term solution is to get rid of nonconsensual wardeccs in highsec. Veers. I was hoping to see you here and I mean that without the usual trolling . What do you think of the social corps for people who do not want to gt dragged into non consensual wardecs? I think that if you want to make a solid mark on eve you need to be vulnerable. You want to clutter up moons well somebody needs to have the ability to unclutter them right? I think these new social corps would fit the bill of the PvEer who has 0 PvP intrest. From your perspective is there anythign wrong with the social corp as it stands in post number 4? If so how can we fix it while keeping it in balance? I'm competently open to ideas on this thread and once I'm happy with it i'll spam various entities with it till they at least look it over . Before that though lets hear all the good ideas C&P have to offer.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. Do you think that the social/player corps would find a suitable home for both these types of PvE players while also accommodating the dedicate High-Sec PvPers?
Thoughts people? suggestions? post them here or convo me in game
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:05:05 -
[44] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend their time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone.
I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers.
You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game.
I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really?
I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:11:04 -
[45] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend their time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers. You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game. I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really? I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob. This is a mechanics change/idea post. please find other avenues to argue circular arguments and whine about current mechanics. There are a dozen posts available for just that. Thankyou
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 05:33:45 -
[46] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's not universally the case that players who spend their time in highsec doing PVE are not interested in PVP. Obviously there are some people who are just plain not interested in PVP whatsoever, but I don't think that's that's the majority of people and it's definitely not everyone. I enjoy PvP. I don't enjoy having to dodge linked, instalocking hub campers. You want ******* pvp content? Make it enough of a fair fight that it's actually fun for both sides. Not a hard concept. You can bleat all you want about how hard and scary the game's supposed to be, no fair fights etc. That doesn't change the fact that people don't want to fight you because it's either hopeless, or insanely boring because you hide. You want CCP to force people to play clay pigeons for you because nobody is stupid or lifeless enough to play your game. I watched some corp try to dunk DF on the Dodixie undock a few weeks ago and I swear I didn't know there were that many Nestors in the whole game. I mean, really? I came for the spaceships. Could care less about your hard scary universe that's only scary when you play without a half dozen alts and your pet blob. This is a mechanics change/idea post. please find other avenues to argue circular arguments and whine about current mechanics. There are a dozen posts available for just that. Thankyou
Not empty quoting.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Valkin Mordirc
916
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 05:37:48 -
[47] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
Under what circumstances do you get flagged? In a war? If that's the case it sounds broken, since if your alliance is in a war, you're in it together.[/quote]
Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
386
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:01:55 -
[48] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Anyway ... this isn't GD ..... so please accept my apology for this question ....
... is there a point to give actually though-out input? Yah if this gets good ill mail it off to various 'people' Besides this is where the cool people hang out. they can move it once the content is down Mail it? Why? Wouldn't a sufficiently supported thread in F&I be better? This sounds like you want to gather ideas for others to claim for themselves. :p Paranoia is strong in me when it comes to this. Missed this one. Nah the thread can move to wherever once the people who regularly discuss these issues are done. The other forums tend to lose the point quite quickly. Here we are on page 3 with what a half dozen snide remarks and as many useless posts. I'd say even if it degenerated into a troll fest now it was successful. Its a topic that has been a passion of mine for a year now. I look forward to veers feedback if it's constrictive/ positive even if it's contradictive. I'd also like to see some average sized corps that op in highsec/lowsec post their feelings on this too. If anyone knows any hit them up on how they would feel about this?
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
386
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:06:18 -
[49] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: So as the system stands it encourages neutral logi.
Under what circumstances do you get flagged? In a war? If that's the case it sounds broken, since if your alliance is in a war, you're in it together.
Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out.[/quote] This would be solved with the ability to assist on both sides
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
601
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:36:06 -
[50] - Quote
This thread again.
On the topic of making wars more meaningful, I shall repost this:
Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?
Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.
This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.
To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that. 1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure. or 2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.
The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but also the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.
March rabbit wrote:Again: You make the game as a whole worse for PvEers and say "you can get some of your losses back if you additionally do X,Y and Z. This might be the most common complaint I see from PVE players when changes to highsec corps are being discussed. These "losses" are part of a balancing act. If you choose to take more risk for a given activity it should be delivering higher rewards. They could instead create the balance by boosting rewards for higher risk income but it's the same result. You still get a % less than the rest.
March rabbit wrote:These tasks will take your ISK. And it will take your time which you could spend doing what you like to do...... Yea, don't forget that you WILL lose your stuff trying to do these things to more experienced and organized players". That's the point. It's not supposed to help risk averse and/or lazy pilots make more ISK. It's supposed to give a reason to more aggressive, less lazy and more skilled pilots to take the risk of wardec and the tedium of structure management. If you aren't up for the task that's fine. Take the lower reward and be happy knowing that should you one day decide to up your risk you will be rewarded for that decision.
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Not get some of this ISK back. Earn more. Alot of the more risk adverse players will join the social corps where ganking and suspect baiting are your only real threats in High-Sec. I revised the original idea of social corps. they would remain as current with no bonus/penalties. The trade off for not being wardeccable is also not able to own a structure. You will always lose stuff in eve. It's what makes the game fun is risking real time investments. This with one caveat. Get some of the ISK back, not earn more. The last thing EVE needs is more ISK in highsec in any form.
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:I was thinking that the way that wardecs would pay out would be that if Scenario A You want to take the Aulari Constellation for your corporation. You declare war and Ask for Marmite to assist you... The problem with this is the ISK amounts are impossible to balance. You will find the defenders are better off dropping corp / using alts to continue making (less) ISK unimpeded. Take a look at four defenders fighting for a reward of 500m (125m each). All they have to do is PVE for a couple hours to earn that. If we up it to 1b, it now costs a base fee of 1b just for the attacker to declare war. The reward is still a mere 250m for each of the four defenders. Against any of the main mercenary groups four pilots wouldn't cut it though. Now you have twelve, and the reward is less than 100m each.
An alternative idea from a previous thread was each war declared spawns a war structure. The defenders have the opportunity to attack the structure, reinforce it and then destroy it. If they succeed the war ends and cannot be re-declared for a period of time. This gives defenders a clear reason to fight in wars. It also helps limit the amount of wardecs that can be successfully deployed by one group without having to use ISK or mechanics as a limiter. The other side to this is that huge alliances would be able to easily deflect wardecs. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
|
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
2332
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:50:41 -
[51] - Quote
What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ?
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
|
Valkin Mordirc
917
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:54:20 -
[52] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ?
We certainly couldn't have our yearly riot. =(
I'm working but Imma give this a thought sense it seems to be a treading idea. Right I think it's fine, it provides a centralized area for pvp.
So yeah. Give me like two hours and I'll have something to say on it.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
603
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:56:24 -
[53] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:What would happen if you couldnt shoot ANYTHING in the trade hub systems ? You'd be out a job.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5387
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:07:27 -
[54] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Valkin Mordirc
918
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:18:20 -
[55] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other?
If me and you were in the same alliance but in different corps, and we get into a war with some yoddal. If I was to try and rep you while in a fight with wartarget, I would go suspect despite fighting war targets and you being in the same alliance with me.
Sorry if I was clear enough, I sometimes have that problem when explaining things, brain runs faster then the fingers do. =S
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:31:26 -
[56] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other? If me and you were in the same alliance but in different corps, and we get into a war with some yoddal. If I was to try and rep you while in a fight with wartarget, I would go suspect despite fighting war targets and you being in the same alliance with me. Sorry if I was clear enough, I sometimes have that problem when explaining things, brain runs faster then the fingers do. =S This is actually incorrect. If you were in corp a and I was logi in corp b and we were both in alliance 1 I would not go suspect for repping you against alliance 2 should we be at war. However if you had a limited engagement with random s and I repped you I would.
Now if you were ally 1 I was ally 2 and we both had SEPARATE wars with ally 3 I would go suspect repping you.
Now if we had a war where I assisted you I'm not sure to be honest. I have witnessed assists rep pocos and Post's without going suspect yet I have gone suspect for repping allies before
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Valkin Mordirc
922
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:47:01 -
[57] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other? If me and you were in the same alliance but in different corps, and we get into a war with some yoddal. If I was to try and rep you while in a fight with wartarget, I would go suspect despite fighting war targets and you being in the same alliance with me. Sorry if I was clear enough, I sometimes have that problem when explaining things, brain runs faster then the fingers do. =S This is actually incorrect. If you were in corp a and I was logi in corp b and we were both in alliance 1 I would not go suspect for repping you against alliance 2 should we be at war. However if you had a limited engagement with random s and I repped you I would. Now if you were ally 1 I was ally 2 and we both had SEPARATE wars with ally 3 I would go suspect repping you. Now if we had a war where I assisted you I'm not sure to be honest. I have witnessed assists rep pocos and Post's without going suspect yet I have gone suspect for repping allies before
Ah okay. I misunderstood it it was explained for me.
Thanks for clear that up.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5388
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:52:32 -
[58] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Valkin Mordirc wrote:Yeah Lucas it does. I remember it being a huge problem during the Merc VS RvB war back in 2014. Mercs couldn't relay on logi because most of the fighting was going on in Jita, most of the residents were jamming them out. Those wouldn't have been in the same alliance though right? Do you just mean allies in a war can't rep each other? If me and you were in the same alliance but in different corps, and we get into a war with some yoddal. If I was to try and rep you while in a fight with wartarget, I would go suspect despite fighting war targets and you being in the same alliance with me. Sorry if I was clear enough, I sometimes have that problem when explaining things, brain runs faster then the fingers do. =S That is quite ludicrous. How has that not been fixed yet?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Don Purple
Snuggle Society The Marmite Collective
1178
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 09:01:31 -
[59] - Quote
I wrote four paragraphs then deleted them.
Don Purple.
Edit: I can't spell four.
I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1604
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 10:47:16 -
[60] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:lol, why?
Because if you're going to make heavy handed mechanics like Concording people who rep others, then it should apply equally. Quote: That would basically destroy NPSI, one of the few places decent and challenging PvP exists.
Good. If people are going to propose ideas that are so blatantly one sided, they should have it pointed at them, so it exposes what a goddamned awful idea it really is. If you aren't willing to yourself deal with something you want inflicted on others, then it's wrong, simple as that. You forgot that it destroys the incursion communities as well, by the way. 1) remove PvP in low- and 0.0-sec in favor of high-sec? 2) remove high-sec incursions (which are mostly used by 0.0-seccers alts)?
Totally supporting this idea.
Kaarous to CSM!
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |