Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:33:09 -
[1] - Quote
The wardecing alliance or corp has to have a highsec home system selected. When they wardec another alliance or Corp a structure appears in that system that is tied to the decced corp or alliance. If it its 120 different wars they are all tied to the same structure so there is not 100 different structures. The defenders then could entosis this structure and then basically the sov version would take over. Defenders could entosis and then after a fixed time go after nodes. If defender does not fight then war progresses the same as it does now. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
618
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:44:23 -
[2] - Quote
and why would anybody be interested in this? What does either side get out of this? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42976
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:44:57 -
[3] - Quote
No.
Wars are about players shooting players, not sov lasers.
This didn't need its own thread either. It's very similar to the other idea as you note.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42976
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:47:59 -
[4] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:and why would anybody be interested in this? What does either side get out of this? Attackers: nothing
Defenders: Gain a way to end a war without actually interacting with the other side at all if the timing is right.
It's a typical suggestion to shift the current balance of risk, by adding mechanics to assist a defender, with no countering mechanic to assist an attacker.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:59:20 -
[5] - Quote
Thank or the responses. In general what do you guys the behavior of most of the defenders and deccers is right now.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42976
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 10:31:07 -
[6] - Quote
swazey wrote:Thank or the responses. In general what do you guys think the behavior of most of the defenders and deccers is right now.
Also wardec structure can be set to wardeccers prime nodes would come out in wardeccers prime much like the current sov system. This would or could cause defenders to undock and give them a purpose. Nothing stops them undocking now except for their own choices.
It's generally accepted that they don't undock because they don't want to lose ships, don't want to give the wardeccers content which might encourage additional wars and don't feel able to win a fight.
How does this proposal address any of those?
The net effect of having to entosis is to almost guarantee loss because the entosis link prevents warping, so makes it trivial to kill and/or use ewar against to break the entosis process.
This proposal does nothing to change the underlying reasons that it is thought most defenders stay docked now.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
727
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 15:30:39 -
[7] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:and why would anybody be interested in this? What does either side get out of this? Attackers: nothing Defenders: Gain a way to end a war without actually interacting with the other side at all if the timing is right. It's a typical suggestion to shift the current balance of risk, by adding mechanics to assist a defender, with no countering mechanic to assist an attacker. Before I start the current war dec system is broken but even the war dec players themselves cannot agree on what needs to be done so what follows are in fact simple comments and observations.
How do you as the aggressor get nothing out of this idea. If they want to entosis the structure to end the war they have to travel to YOUR home system and they have to sit in space in ships which make them vulnerable to being attacked and destroyed by YOU. So in reality instead of you having to go look for players to shoot this idea actually brings them to your front door.
Perhaps your problem is that the defenders may actually bring a fleet to accomplish this which would mean that you may have to fight a groupsof players that just might be able to defeat you and your corp. And to be honest if you and your corp of war dec players cannot or will not protect a simply structure such as this then your war should end early.
To the OP. Having one structure that represents ALL wars a corp may declare adds too large of a burden on the attackers simply by virtue of the number of players that could band together so you need to go back and re-think that part.
You have not dealt with the current allies system either and if / when the war dec system transitions to a structure based war system we will need to significantly change or possibly even eliminate that system. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2962
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:51:11 -
[8] - Quote
Dude...
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:04:46 -
[9] - Quote
[quote=Scipio Artelius]
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2962
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:07:27 -
[10] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:swazey wrote:Thank or the responses. In general what do you guys think the behavior of most of the defenders and deccers is right now.
Also wardec structure can be set to wardeccers prime nodes would come out in wardeccers prime much like the current sov system. This would or could cause defenders to undock and give them a purpose. Nothing stops them undocking now except for their own choices. It's generally accepted that they don't undock because they don't want to lose ships, don't want to give the wardeccers content which might encourage additional wars and don't feel able to win a fight. How does this proposal address any of those? The net effect of having to entosis is to almost guarantee loss because the entosis link prevents warping, so makes it trivial to kill and/or use ewar against to break the entosis process. This proposal does nothing to change the underlying reasons that it is thought most defenders stay docked now.
You've missed that some defenders dont engage because there is nothing for them to gain by doing so.
They mission, they mine. But once a red enters local, they have little to gain by being in space and much more to lose. This idea DOES address that factor.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13480
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:13:59 -
[11] - Quote
no thinly veiled null alt, you do not need another way to dec dodge.
jeasus lads at least try to mask the intentions a little ffs.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:20:57 -
[12] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Wars are about players shooting players, not sov lasers.
I agree, the entosis mechanic would be used to give the defenders a chance to end the wardec early. The onus is on the defender and if they chose to go for it, which would bring pvp if the attackers chose to fight them.
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Defenders: Gain a way to end a war without actually interacting with the other side at all if the timing is right. It's a typical suggestion to shift the current balance of risk, by adding mechanics to assist a defender, with no countering mechanic to assist an attacker.
Current mechanics prevent defender doing something outside of wardeccers prime time. The attacker counters it by defending their structure if the defender attacks.
Donnachadh wrote: To the OP. Having one structure that represents ALL wars a corp may declare adds too large of a burden on the attackers simply by virtue of the number of players that could band together so you need to go back and re-think that part.
You have not dealt with the current allies system either and if / when the war dec system transitions to a structure based war system we will need to significantly change or possibly even eliminate that system.
I had considered that but as eve is a sandbox I donGÇÖt think limiting the amount of wars should be done on the other hand you should not bite off more than you can chew. If you have 150 wardec you run the risk of that in this proposed mechanic. Not to be cynical but when have high sec corps banded together for anything, I would find it unlikely The allies system is garbage now, it could stay as is or go. Possibly be replaced with a system where defender can request allies to people they choose that could then entosis, this one would probably be way to powerful and convoluted.
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:26:34 -
[13] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:no thinly veiled null alt, you do not need another way to dec dodge.
jeasus lads at least try to mask the intentions a little ffs. Could elaborate about how this is a way of dodging a wardec so you can add something of substance to the conversation.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2080
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:00:38 -
[14] - Quote
How many times does this "idea" need to be presented? Everyone is well aware of this proposal. Heck, a CSM member made something similar again only a few months ago, not to mention the near weekly threads suggesting the same idea of turning wardecs into a contrived game of capture the flag. I will take the time to remind people there is a seach box at the top of this page which can one can check and see if their "idea" has been raised before.
But again, for the record this is not going to happen. The Citadel and subsequent releases are going to bring structures and structure-based objectives to the forefront. As planned now, a citadel will take three reinforcements over more than 7 days to explode in highsec. Yes, that means that an aggressor will require a minimum of two wardecs to even have a chance to kill one. CCP is not going to allow you to get out of having to defend your citadel by rushing some node or nodes when your opponent is offline, or you have some temporary advantage. You are going to have to defend that citadel to the end.
Wars are a tool to enable limited conflict in highsec. You can choose to run and hide from that conflict if you want, but the ability for other corporations to affect your gameplay is very much +«ntended. CCP is not going to give you a mechanism to isolate yourself from other players (while enjoying all the benefits of a corporation), even for shooting something. Such safety stifles conflict and the player-driven narrative this game is about.
That said, the new structures are about to dramatically change this game and give players many new things to fight over. Let's see if CCP can implement them such to spark conflict and get people to undock and fight before giving up on the sandbox and turning wars into a tedious, freedom-limiting minigame shall we? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42990
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:12:32 -
[15] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:and why would anybody be interested in this? What does either side get out of this? Attackers: nothing Defenders: Gain a way to end a war without actually interacting with the other side at all if the timing is right. It's a typical suggestion to shift the current balance of risk, by adding mechanics to assist a defender, with no countering mechanic to assist an attacker. ... How do you as the aggressor get nothing out of this idea... Re-read what I wrote. I didn't write that they get nothing out of it, though I probably could have been clearer.
What I wrote was "...no countering mechanic to assist an attacker"
That is, in the OP's own words, this mechanic is designed to "...give the defenders a chance to end the wardec early" by sov lasering a structure.
Currently (at a very basic level):
Attacker: shoot other players Defender: shoot other players
New mechanic:
Attacker: shoot other players Defender: shoot other players, sov laser a structure
Where is the countering mechanic that keeps the risk balance the same as it is now?
For example (bad example follows), if the defender doesn't sov laser the structure, they are forced to pay the next weeks wardec fee, or the attacker gets to continue the war for free.
One mechanic introduced to provide an advantage to one group (eg. structure to allow defenders a way out), balanced by an opposite mechanic that also provides some advantage to the other group (eg. if defender fails to sov laser, then the war is free).
The free wardec continuation is not something I am proposing, just using it as an example of a mechanic that balances the proposal out.
At the moment, there is no balancing mechanic that also provides something for the attacker. The whole idea is designed to allow a defender to end a war, without even having to interact with the attacker to bring about an early end.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:50:40 -
[16] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:How many times does this "idea" need to be presented? Everyone is well aware of this proposal. Heck, a CSM member made something similar again only a few months ago, not to mention the near weekly threads suggesting the same idea of turning wardecs into a contrived game of capture the flag. I will take the time to remind people there is a seach box at the top of this page which can one can check and see if their "idea" has been raised before. But again, for the record this is not going to happen. The Citadel and subsequent releases are going to bring structures and structure-based objectives to the forefront. As planned now, a citadel will take three reinforcements over more than 7 days to explode in highsec. Yes, that means that an aggressor will require a minimum of two wardecs to even have a chance to kill one. CCP is not going to allow you to get out of having to defend your citadel by rushing some node or nodes when your opponent is offline, or you have some temporary advantage. You are going to have to defend that citadel to the end. Wars are a tool to enable limited conflict in highsec. You can choose to run and hide from that conflict if you want, but the ability for other corporations to affect your gameplay is very much +«ntended. CCP is not going to give you a mechanism to isolate yourself from other players (while enjoying all the benefits of a corporation), even for shooting something. Such safety stifles conflict and the player-driven narrative this game is about. That said, the new structures are about to dramatically change this game and give players many new things to fight over. Let's see if CCP can implement them such to spark conflict and get people to undock and fight before giving up on the sandbox and turning wars into a tedious, freedom-limiting minigame shall we?
Not sure how the citadels will impact everything nobody knows, except perhaps CCP. How this could tie into that I don't know but at this point your guessing on some of the impacts as I am.
Correct CCP wont give you a tool to Isolate yourself. Also I fail to see how the mechanism would let a high sec corp isolate itself, I believe they could come out to fight to possibly end the wardec.
I take it your saying that people fear other people with a temporary advantage, maybe but temporary means temporary.
The freedom limiting mini-game is what CCP deemed to be the best system for SOV null so at least they thinks its good. why not expand on it a little to create more conflict. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2081
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 23:08:40 -
[17] - Quote
swazey wrote: Correct CCP wont give you a tool to Isolate yourself. Also I fail to see how the mechanism would let a high sec corp isolate itself, I believe they could come out to fight to possibly end the wardec.
Allowing a corporation to isolate itself is the whole purpose of your proposal. You want to allow a corporation who wins a defined minigame to be immune to any further aggression from an opponent.
That is not in the cards.
swazey wrote:The freedom limiting mini-game is what CCP deemed to be the best system for SOV null so at least they thinks its good. why not expand on it a little to create more conflict. Winning a nullsec entosis contest does not make you immune to your opponent, you just gain their sov. If you want to add some entosis mini-game to highsec because you think it will promote conflict, by all means make that proposal, but awarding some walls to players who win that game so that they can wall themselves off from the other players in this sandbox is not in keeping with the current development direction CCP is taking this game.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13486
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 00:36:33 -
[18] - Quote
swazey wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:no thinly veiled null alt, you do not need another way to dec dodge.
jeasus lads at least try to mask the intentions a little ffs. Could elaborate about how this is a way of dodging a wardec so you can add something of substance to the conversation. No not particularly.
I have seen much better praposals than this one and I engaged with those, this one doesn't warrant the effort.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 00:47:29 -
[19] - Quote
The only thing Citadels will do is provide attackers with more stuff to pop. Most, if not all, wardec entities do not place structures in space.
Having a citadel as a defender does not give you incentive to fight, it give the deccers incentive to dec. If they're unable to bash your Citadel, they don't care.
As stated, the only reason for the mechanic is to allow pew pew. The vast majority of deccers don't want you to fight, they don't want you to be able to end the war, and they're not going to put up citadels for you to shoot at.... Citadels will probably make the one sided wardecs even worse because you'll now have a structure out in space that cannot be un-anchored and removed, giving them another reason to start a dec with nothing to which the defender can do about it because they cannot end the war, or the cost to surrender would be insane simply because they do not want you to surrender. If you're able to destroy their entire fleet, 5 times over, it still won't end the war.
Citadels will also only help to make large defacing entities ever more prevalent, and coalitions will be formed by the larger dec entities for the sole sake of multiple decs on the same target so that they can all share in ensuring the bashing of a citadel.
Wardeccers heavily follow the mantra of risk aversion. If they cannot win with minimal losses, the will not fight. However, this only means that they will take further steps to ensure they win. The current dec mechanic, with or without citadels, allows them to optimize this risk of aversion by reducing asset risks. In other words, they do not have to present any risks upon themselves through a structure or even ships when they cannot dictate the outcome, and the current mechanic allows them to do so with no risk of loss of the war.
Wardecs already needed a change; citadels will only help to shine 20 spotlights on the problem, as opposed to 5.
Deccers keep saying "wait until citadels" because they know it presents only positive change for them. A target asset that will always be vulnerable and the defender cannot stop them if they bring enough guns because they dictate the outcome and the defender cannot end their aggression. CODE doesnt have enough guns to bash a Citadel? Well, time to have Marmite and whomever else join in on the fight! Everyone gets the KM, so why wouldn't they share? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15688
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 00:50:09 -
[20] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:The only thing Citadels will do is provide attackers with more stuff to pop.
Good.
Highsec needs more conflict and more mechanisms that enable conflict, not less.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 00:53:19 -
[21] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The only thing Citadels will do is provide attackers with more stuff to pop. Good. Highsec needs more conflict and more mechanisms that enable conflict, not less.
Good point! A solid reason in which to create a dec structure that can be fought over. It enables conflict and will likely create more!! |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15688
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:08:28 -
[22] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: A solid reason in which to create a dec structure that can be fought over.
If you think that, you weren't paying attention.
That would detract from the potential for conflict and driving loss.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:16:15 -
[23] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: A solid reason in which to create a dec structure that can be fought over.
If you think that, you weren't paying attention. That would detract from the potential for conflict and driving loss.
That's definitely false.
Give the defender a reason to fight, and puts targets in space for the aggressor to shoot at.
guaranteed more KMs, more fights, more fun, more incentive.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15688
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:18:23 -
[24] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: That's definitely false.
No, it's true in it's entirety. You yourself have endorsed this proposed shackling of player freedom saying that you only want it as a nerf to wars, which is what it would be.
The fact that you now choose to lie about it to try and disguise your repulsive motives is not relevant at all.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:22:51 -
[25] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: That's definitely false.
No, it's true in it's entirety. You yourself have endorsed this proposed shackling of player freedom saying that you only want it as a nerf to wars, which is what it would be. The fact that you now choose to lie about it to try and disguise your repulsive motives is not relevant at all.
Great... we've already reverted back to "lies" and saying whatever needs to be said in order to assist your agenda. Before long you'll be right back on name calling and doing a 180 on your narrative in order to assist your agenda.
I'm going to go ahead and step out the the argument...
Not because you've beaten me with your arguments, but simply because we've gone through everything at this point and there's nothing left to be said.
Guaranteed the dec mechanic will change... It's just a matter of time. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15688
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:38:11 -
[26] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Great... we've already reverted back to "lies" and saying whatever needs to be said in order to assist your agenda.
Yeah, because you posted in the thread.
Immediately going in to crying about the attacker is getting anything at all from upcoming mechanics, and claiming that they should be happy with a savage nerf instead. You'll say anything to get a nerf, we've already established that.
Dishonest to say the least.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:49:14 -
[27] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Great... we've already reverted back to "lies" and saying whatever needs to be said in order to assist your agenda.
Yeah, because you posted in the thread. Immediately going in to crying about the attacker is getting anything at all from upcoming mechanics, and claiming that they should be happy with a savage nerf instead. You'll say anything to get a nerf, we've already established that. Dishonest to say the least.
Cry more about things you wouldn't like..
You could always follow the standard Eve logic of HTFU and adapt, or quit.
I'm living with the current mechanics, can you live with it if the changed? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15688
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:53:11 -
[28] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Cry more about things you wouldn't like..
And now we've moved right into the projection phase. Coming along nicely.
Quote: You could always follow the standard Eve logic of HTFU and adapt, or quit.
If only you applied that to yourself and others making selfish, dishonest suggestions.
Quote: I'm living with the current mechanics
No you aren't, you're here every week crying about how you think wars are broken because the defender is allowed to lose. (which was your opening argument in the last thread, so you can't lie and deny it)
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
swazey
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 02:01:01 -
[29] - Quote
I would hope people could be civil, but as this is a contentious subject I'm not surprised. I really did intend this mechanism to hopefully generate more content for attackers and defenders. People have harshly taken it to the extremes at both ends. I guess no matter what CCP does yall will cry no matter what camp your in.
Good Luck, God Bless |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1197
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 02:02:40 -
[30] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:blah blah blah
Fixed that for you...
As I said, I'm going to remove myself from this thread and let it take its coarse. Considering you have been just as involved in other threads as I have, I would advise you do the same and we'll let a new group of people debate over this...
Regardless of whether we agree or not, I think you and I have both already said enough to express our opinion; So it's best we just stay out of it for a while.. There will be more threads in the future for us to go at each other on. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |