Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Riksma
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:26:31 -
[1] - Quote
Just had a really dumb idea:
If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.
- If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
- If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
- If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
- Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.
I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2633
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:37:45 -
[2] - Quote
I'd be for it at one condition, war declaration cost refunded. |
Praal
Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:48:59 -
[3] - Quote
Riksma wrote:Just had a really dumb idea: If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.
- If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
- If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
- If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
- Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.
I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there. I like the general idea of it, but I think some kind of tug-of-war system would benefit wardecs to incentivize actually doing something rather than not playing for 2 days.
Each side gains influence on a War Meter if they destroy ships from the opposing corp, or destroy / reinforce structures from the opposing corp. Additionally the defenders gain points for being undocked and having POSs in space. The balance of the meter determines how fast the war timer ticks down to expiry. Something like 3-10 days depending on relative performance.
Additionally add 50-100% to the ISK price of starting a war, and pay out a % this extra amount to the side that "wins". If attackers can push their performance to 100% (10 days), they get the entirety of the extra fee back. If the defenders "win", they get not only a short, 3 day war, but also a chunk of ISK. If neither side does anything the ISK gets kept by NPCs. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2108
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 19:54:27 -
[4] - Quote
Riksma wrote:Just had a really dumb idea: If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.
- If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
- If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
- If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
- Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.
I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there.
No, you do not get to "win" a war by not logging in for two days.
HTFU.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
666
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 20:18:29 -
[5] - Quote
Riksma wrote: I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there.
Just because something pops into your head doesn't mean you actually have to post it.
If I posted everything I thought about, the entire forum would be swarmed by me demanding a coffee machine in my captain quarters. |
eBil Tycoon
Empty Wallets
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 20:33:14 -
[6] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:I'd be for it at one condition, war declaration cost refunded. Partially refunded. Nothing in EVE is free. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
290
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 00:07:34 -
[7] - Quote
Praal wrote:Riksma wrote:Just had a really dumb idea: If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.
- If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
- If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
- If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
- Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.
I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there. I like the general idea of it, but I think some kind of tug-of-war system would benefit wardecs to incentivize actually doing something rather than not playing for 2 days. Each side gains influence on a War Meter if they destroy ships from the opposing corp, or destroy / reinforce structures from the opposing corp. Additionally the defenders gain points for being undocked and having POSs in space. The balance of the meter determines how fast the war timer ticks down to expiry. Something like 3-10 days depending on relative performance. Additionally add 50-100% to the ISK price of starting a war, and pay out a % this extra amount to the side that "wins". If attackers can push their performance to 100% (10 days), they get the entirety of the extra fee back. If the defenders "win", they get not only a short, 3 day war, but also a chunk of ISK. If neither side does anything the ISK gets kept by NPCs. I like one of the ideas in there. A prize for the defenders if they destroy more isk in ships than the attacker.
Additionally I also like the idea of a "wager" in there somewhere. Attackers place a wager, defenders get the chance to do the same which the conditions are invisible to the other party, just the amount they amount they have staked.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2114
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 00:13:35 -
[8] - Quote
Moonlit Raid wrote:Praal wrote:Riksma wrote:Just had a really dumb idea: If the aggressor fails to score a kill on the defender for a period of 48 (adjusted for taste) hours, the war is over and they can't re-dec for 7 days.
- If the defender docks up, moves to another area where the aggressor won't follow or otherwise manages to deny content to the aggressor - they're 'smart' and deserve to 'win'.
- If the aggressor isn't trying to find or kill the defenders - they're just trolling and not interested in fighting and deserve to 'lose'.
- If 'RandomScrub#25346654353" from the defender feeds kills to keep the war active - he's dumb or a spy, he gets booted and try another 48 hour period.
- Attacking structures counts - no successful kill required.
I don't even know if I like this idea, and I'm certain that there are exploits I'm not seeing, but this popped into my head while reading the summit minutes and I wanted to put it out there. I like the general idea of it, but I think some kind of tug-of-war system would benefit wardecs to incentivize actually doing something rather than not playing for 2 days. Each side gains influence on a War Meter if they destroy ships from the opposing corp, or destroy / reinforce structures from the opposing corp. Additionally the defenders gain points for being undocked and having POSs in space. The balance of the meter determines how fast the war timer ticks down to expiry. Something like 3-10 days depending on relative performance. Additionally add 50-100% to the ISK price of starting a war, and pay out a % this extra amount to the side that "wins". If attackers can push their performance to 100% (10 days), they get the entirety of the extra fee back. If the defenders "win", they get not only a short, 3 day war, but also a chunk of ISK. If neither side does anything the ISK gets kept by NPCs. I like one of the ideas in there. A prize for the defenders if they destroy more isk in ships than the attacker. Additionally I also like the idea of a "wager" in there somewhere. Attackers place a wager, defenders get the chance to do the same which the conditions are invisible to the other party, just the amount they amount they have staked.
You seem to have mistaken "war" for "ad hoc PvP tournament".
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3130
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 00:36:15 -
[9] - Quote
Hell no.
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
|
Praal
Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 02:27:13 -
[10] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:You seem to have mistaken "war" for "ad hoc PvP tournament".
Quote:War is a state of armed conflict between societies. It is generally characterized by extreme collective aggression, destruction, and usually high mortality. EVE wardecs are not war when the vast majority of them are agressors who never intend to actually attack, or defenders who can simply opt out of participating. As such the only way to at least simulate war is to make it desirable for the sides to participate in fighting. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3132
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 02:51:58 -
[11] - Quote
youre right, wagers make wars much closer to the definition you've posted...
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
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
351
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 03:03:18 -
[12] - Quote
eBil Tycoon wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I'd be for it at one condition, war declaration cost refunded. Partially refunded. Nothing in EVE is free. Yeah, CONCORD does like it's bribes.
Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 12:50:22 -
[13] - Quote
I have a different proposal on how the war can work. imho the war should allow the attacker to gain something not only cause the defenter to not be able to play, that is why people stay in HS, because they want to play when they want not when others allow them to.
(A) reasons, lets first take a look at what the war should be for: 1) to take down someones POCO or POS in HS 2) to force someone out of the system 3) to make it clear who is more powerfull
(B) invalid reasons, this is why the wars should not be used for: 1) to stop someone from playing or be able to play properly 2) harass someone simply because you are bored
(C) counter attack, what the defender should be able to do: 1) end the war him self by actively countering the attacker
(D) my proposal for the new mechanic: a war would be declared by deploying a war declaration unit and aiming the unit against a corp/alliance. that would make the war valid in 24 hours in that system. the unit should not be scoopable but only self destructable (maybe even remotely) in case the attacker decides its time to end the war. also the unit shoud have a lifetime of something like 3 days (who needs 7 days to take down a tower? right?) and hitpoints like a medium POS (maybe variable influencing the lifetime? or consume fuel but with a small fuel hold to force the attacker to make his presence).
(E) lore: concord has decided to stop overlooking hostile actions between capsuliers for bribes. how ever a new technology has been developed to scramble distress signals from the attacked ship.
so this is what we have come up with. i would like to hear what you guys think. thx |
Iain Cariaba
2715
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 13:22:30 -
[14] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:I have a different proposal on how the war can work. imho the war should allow the attacker to gain something not only cause the defenter to not be able to play, that is why people stay in HS, because they want to play when they want not when others allow them to.
(A) reasons, lets first take a look at what the war should be for: 1) to take down someones POCO or POS in HS 2) to force someone out of the system 3) to make it clear who is more powerfull
(B) invalid reasons, this is why the wars should not be used for: 1) to stop someone from playing or be able to play properly 2) harass someone simply because you are bored
(C) counter attack, what the defender should be able to do: 1) end the war him self by actively countering the attacker
(D) my proposal for the new mechanic: a war would be declared by deploying a war declaration unit and aiming the unit against a corp/alliance. that would make the war valid in 24 hours in that system. the unit should not be scoopable but only self destructable (maybe even remotely) in case the attacker decides its time to end the war. also the unit shoud have a lifetime of something like 3 days (who needs 7 days to take down a tower? right?) and hitpoints like a medium POS (maybe variable influencing the lifetime? or consume fuel but with a small fuel hold to force the attacker to make his presence).
(E) lore: concord has decided to stop overlooking hostile actions between capsuliers for bribes. how ever a new technology has been developed to scramble distress signals from the attacked ship.
so this is what we have come up with. i would like to hear what you guys think. thx Keep in mind that I'm am primarily a PvEer who is currently involved in an active wardec against the corp I'm in.
Dude, seriously, no.
A) Yes, these are valid reasons for a wardec. B) No, these are also valid reasons for a wardec. Welcome to a sandbox game, where "because I want to" and "because I can" are as valid as any other reasons. C) There is nothing but your own fear preventing you from counter-attacking already. I know from experience that if you fly smart in addition to actually putting up a fight, the corps looking for easy prey will leave you alone for the rest of the wardec. D) So I simply pick a time when the guys who put out this inane structure are offline, grab 2 corpmates, put them and myself in a VNI, and voila, wardec done a couple hours later. Oh, if you instituted a ridiculous vulnerability timer like nullsec has, then you kill anyone being able to wardec any group larger than theirs, thus instantly ending small wardec corps. E) Lore is irrelevant here.
Overall, wardecs are stupidly easy to avoid, even while being active in the game. They don't need another nerf.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 13:46:41 -
[15] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: B) No, these are also valid reasons for a wardec. Welcome to a sandbox game, where "because I want to" and "because I can" are as valid as any other reasons.
so you are saying you are not wardecing someone to get content but simply to keep someone from having content? then he will simply find his content in a different game. Im sorry but this looks to me like being the bad kid who doesnt let other kids into "his" sandbox.
Iain Cariaba wrote: C) There is nothing but your own fear preventing you from counter-attacking already. I know from experience that if you fly smart in addition to actually putting up a fight, the corps looking for easy prey will leave you alone for the rest of the wardec.
you can counter attack all you want but it still doesnt stop the attacker from killing your newbros or freighter the other day does it? and still alot of wars I have seen a scenarion where the attackers will hide or simply switch to theyre other toons and your newbros are still kept from playing. Yes some people are scared and that is why they dont leave HS untill they learn to fight so why force it on them?
Iain Cariaba wrote: D) So I simply pick a time when the guys who put out this inane structure are offline, grab 2 corpmates, put them and myself in a VNI, and voila, wardec done a couple hours later. Oh, if you instituted a ridiculous vulnerability timer like nullsec has, then you kill anyone being able to wardec any group larger than theirs, thus instantly ending small wardec corps.
well yes.. multi level invulnerability would stop the scenarion where you wait for the attacker to go offline. mobile depos are anoining enough with this... so why not this unit.
so the question is are you wardecking to gain something or just harras people and make them leave the game?
anyways thx for your responce
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2225
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 14:14:29 -
[16] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:(D) my proposal for the new mechanic: a war would be declared by deploying a war declaration unit and aiming the unit against a corp/alliance. that would make the war valid in 24 hours in that system. the unit should not be scoopable but only self destructable (maybe even remotely) in case the attacker decides its time to end the war. also the unit shoud have a lifetime of something like 3 days (who needs 7 days to take down a tower? right?) and hitpoints like a medium POS (maybe variable influencing the lifetime? or consume fuel but with a small fuel hold to force the attacker to make his presence). It's going to take 8 days to explode a citadel in highsec.
So you expect an attacking corporation to defend this beacon for 23.5 hours a day, for each of these 8 days, in order to even try to destroy a citadel in highsec?
This isn't going to happen. It is completely unreasonable to expect a corporation, especially a small highsec corporation to defend a beacon for 192 hours straight to even get a crack at destroying a citadel. At a minimum the structure would need vulnerability windows of some sort to allow the attackers time to sleep and eat, and then that sets up the problem of the attackers setting the vulnerability to timezones the defender doesn't play.
When CCP made citadels require two weeks of wardecs to attack, they effectively made it impossible to put in a mechanic to end wars early. If they were to do so, they would have to make significant other changes to the way structures are attacked, like make them perma-vulnerable and generate suspect flags if attacked or something similar. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1619
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 14:26:35 -
[17] - Quote
This just further encourages players not to log in and play witch is the man issue worth current wardecs
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 15:06:52 -
[18] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: So you expect an attacking corporation to defend this beacon for 23.5 hours a day, for each of these 8 days, in order to even try to destroy a citadel in highsec?
I have already stated that invulnerability or reinforce for the WDU would be a good idea (same way the mobile depo is protected now) so there is no need to guard it. and if you deploy the unit next to the citadel then the defender will have to chose if he wants to counter your attack or destroy your WDU and if he does attack the WDU then you will probably stop him from doing that because you are on the same grid as the defender, his citadel and your WDU.
ok so if the attacker will need more time to kill something then maybe the fuel based WDU would be better.
Black Pedro wrote: This isn't going to happen. It is completely unreasonable to expect a corporation, especially a small highsec corporation, to defend a beacon for 192 hours straight to even get a crack at destroying a citadel. At a minimum the structure would need vulnerability windows of some sort to allow the attackers time to sleep and eat, and then that sets up the problem of the attackers setting the vulnerability to timezones the defender doesn't play.
again no need to defend it nonstop. and vulnerability window is a bad idea.. I think the reinforce is the way to go.
Black Pedro wrote: When CCP made citadels require two weeks of wardecs to attack, they effectively made it impossible to put in a mechanic to end wars early. If they were to do so, they would have to make significant other changes to the way structures are attacked, like make them perma-vulnerable and generate suspect flags if attacked or something similar.
well if you are an attacker and you are active in the area then you are able to refuel the WDU and make the war longer. remember that Im trying to come up with a solution that would stop the type of wars where there are no encounters between the attackers and defenders at all.
thx for your input |
Iain Cariaba
2719
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 15:37:23 -
[19] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:remember that Im trying to come up with a solution that would stop the type of wars where there are no encounters between the attackers and defenders at all. This will never happen. The carebear's nature is to be scared, so carebears will never actually take any action that could possibly cause them to risk their pixels. They find it far, far easier to ask for repeated nerfs to those who are their only real risk, rather than take the steps necessary to reduce their risk.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2226
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 15:37:42 -
[20] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:well if you are an attacker and you are active in the area then you are able to refuel the WDU and make the war longer. remember that Im trying to come up with a solution that would stop the type of wars where there are no encounters between the attackers and defenders at all. The citadel already has three reinforcements to allow defenders and attackers to fight.
How safe do you want to make these structures?
All this does is make it so only the large mercenary groups can pursue wars (and thus kill citadels). Any big group will just steam roll the beacon of a small group at the first opportunity ending any war started by the small group.
Allowing a war to be ended over a single battle is a terrible idea which is incredibly punitive to smaller groups. This will make wars even less balanced and push aggressors into larger alliances so they can protect their beacons and effectively be the only ones capable of using the mechanic.
Wars need to be made more accessible, not less. Better to just remove wars completely and tie all corporation benefits into structures (which can then be attacked without a wardec) than to make it so only the largest groups in the game can use them.
|
|
Iain Cariaba
2719
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 15:41:25 -
[21] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Allowing a war to be ended over a single battle is a terrible idea which is incredibly punitive to smaller groups. This will make wars even less balanced and push aggressors into larger alliances so they can protect their beacons and effectively be the only ones capable of using the mechanic. Though he will deny it, this is obviously the intended goal of this suggestion. Make small groups incapable of enacting wardecs, and there will be fewer wardecs that he has to worry about.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 16:08:46 -
[22] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: This will never happen. The carebear's nature is to be scared, so carebears will never actually take any action that could possibly cause them to risk their pixels.
I find your comment invalid as it has already happened before. and if so then what are you scared off?
Iain Cariaba wrote: They find it far, far easier to ask for repeated nerfs to those who are their only real risk, rather than take the steps necessary to reduce their risk.
no.. 99% of them find it easier to leave the game. and that is what they do... they leave. again puting you into the role of a bad boy that will not let anyone play in his sandbox. what nerfs are you talking about? you just stated that they will never counter you. |
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 16:18:41 -
[23] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: The citadel already has three reinforcements to allow defenders and attackers to fight.
How safe do you want to make these structures?
this is a proposal not a compleate solution... and this is why I want an open discussion about it.
Black Pedro wrote: All this does is make it so only the large mercenary groups can pursue wars (and thus kill citadels). Any big group will just steam roll the beacon of a small group at the first opportunity ending any war started by the small group.
how do you expect to take down a citadel if you cant defend your structure? dont you think you will get steamrolled while you are attacking the citadel even without this change?
Black Pedro wrote: Allowing a war to be ended over a single battle is a terrible idea which is incredibly punitive to smaller groups. This will make wars even less balanced and push aggressors into larger alliances so they can protect their beacons and effectively be the only ones capable of using the mechanic.
what single battle? please read my responce where I have proposed a reinforce mode for the WDU.
Black Pedro wrote: Wars need to be made more accessible, not less. Better to just remove wars completely and tie all corporation benefits into structures (which can then be attacked without a wardec) than to make it so only the largest groups in the game can use them.
no.. war are absolutely valid and I even agree the need to be accessible. but lets make sure that if you wardec me you will actualy show up and not just wardec 400 corporations and hope someone will show up on a hub, because this is just stupid.
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 16:27:04 -
[24] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Allowing a war to be ended over a single battle is a terrible idea which is incredibly punitive to smaller groups. This will make wars even less balanced and push aggressors into larger alliances so they can protect their beacons and effectively be the only ones capable of using the mechanic. Though he will deny it, this is obviously the intended goal of this suggestion. Make small groups incapable of enacting wardecs, and there will be fewer wardecs that he has to worry about.
well lets be reasonable if you are a small group and you wardec someone who has 2x more people what can you expect it will happen? will you be able to kill a citadel with 10 people if there is 20 people defending it? I presume you will be overpowered and you will not be sucessfull. the only thing you will achieve is that noobies in that corp will stay docked for a week because they are the only possible targets. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2226
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 17:06:33 -
[25] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Allowing a war to be ended over a single battle is a terrible idea which is incredibly punitive to smaller groups. This will make wars even less balanced and push aggressors into larger alliances so they can protect their beacons and effectively be the only ones capable of using the mechanic. Though he will deny it, this is obviously the intended goal of this suggestion. Make small groups incapable of enacting wardecs, and there will be fewer wardecs that he has to worry about. well lets be reasonable if you are a small group and you wardec someone who has 2x more people what can you expect it will happen? will you be able to kill a citadel with 10 people if there is 20 people defending it? I presume you will be overpowered and you will not be sucessfull. the only thing you will achieve is that noobies in that corp will stay docked for a week because they are the only possible targets. If the "noobies" are too small or too scared to undock, how are they going to destroy this structure? What makes you think they will suddenly find the numbers or the fortitude to challenge this beacon successfully?
The only way it would help them is if the beacon's owners are offline and they can ninja their way out of the war and how is that good game design? And as a result of this terrible idea, they themselves are locked out of declaring war on any group larger or stronger than themselves. Why shouldn't new players be able to declare war on Goonswarm? Or Marmite? Or any group larger them themselves. With this beacon idea, Marmite will just fly over on the first vulnerability window after the war is declared with an overwhelming fleet and end it leaving their structures invulnerable to any corp smaller than themselves.
Seriously, I know wars can be scary, but you don't want to give the power to declare wars and remove structures only to the large mercenary groups. Being active during wars is easily possible even if you don't want fight them, and wars are completely consensual to you, the player. Just drop to the NPC corp and play the game as you want.
|
Iain Cariaba
2720
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 17:13:33 -
[26] - Quote
Han Rova wrote:Iain Cariaba wrote: This will never happen. The carebear's nature is to be scared, so carebears will never actually take any action that could possibly cause them to risk their pixels.
I find your comment invalid as it has already happened before. and if so then what are you scared off? Iain Cariaba wrote: They find it far, far easier to ask for repeated nerfs to those who are their only real risk, rather than take the steps necessary to reduce their risk.
no.. 99% of them find it easier to leave the game. and that is what they do... they leave. again puting you into the role of a bad boy that will not let anyone play in his sandbox. what nerfs are you talking about? you just stated that they will never counter you. Apparently you don't completely read the replies to your posts. I am a PvEer, not a carebear, not a wardeccer. I go on occasional PvP roams, but my main play style is missioning. Your suggestion would do nothing but benefit me, because I'm the type of player that would grab a couple corpmates and steamroll a small wardec corp to end a war early. Still, I am against your idea. Your idea is an unnecessary punishment to small and one man wardec corps, for no reason than you don't feel their "reason" for the wardec is valid. Your idea is entirely counter to the spirit of a sandbox game.
Han Rova wrote:well lets be reasonable if you are a small group and you wardec someone who has 2x more people what can you expect it will happen? will you be able to kill a citadel with 10 people if there is 20 people defending it? I presume you will be overpowered and you will not be sucessfull. the only thing you will achieve is that noobies in that corp will stay docked for a week because they are the only possible targets. No, what is reasonable is for a small group of skilled players to be able to pursue a war against a larger force. Your idea does nothing but encourage the N+1 meta that has caused nullsec to become as stagnant. Your "think of the newbies" justification is fairly lame, and the most often used excuse for bad ideas.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
291
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 17:21:23 -
[27] - Quote
Free ships for defenders in wars? No risk for the defender, why WOULDN'T they fight? All kills are recorded as normal.
I think I just solved the problem.
If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.
Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
|
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 17:54:21 -
[28] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: If the "noobies" are too small or too scared to undock, how are they going to destroy this structure? What makes you think they will suddenly find the numbers or the fortitude to challenge this beacon successfully?
well the noobies will clearly stay docked still while the rest of the corp will deal with the threat, that will most likely never change.. but there is a chance they will not have to stay docked for as long.
Black Pedro wrote: The only way it would help them is if the beacon's owners are offline and they can ninja their way out of the war and how is that good game design?
so they will get it to reinforce mode... so? then if you are realy interested in the war then you will come to repair the unit as it comes out of reinforce. if they can still kill you then you clearly have no power to do what ever to them anyway or if you dont come to repair it then you are not interested in the war anyways and you dont deserve nothing else than to lose the unit and war anyways.
Black Pedro wrote: And as a result of this terrible idea, they themselves are locked out of declaring war on any group larger or stronger than themselves. Why shouldn't new players be able to declare war on Goonswarm? Or Marmite? Or any group larger them themselves. With this beacon idea, Marmite will just fly over on the first vulnerability window after the war is declared with an overwhelming fleet and end it leaving their structures invulnerable to any corp smaller than themselves.
why shouldnt a small corp be able to wardec? just do it... but expect your but get kicked. anyways how would you do it now? wardec a large corp and if they actualy go looking for you with superior force then you dock and logoff? this is only prooving my point.
Black Pedro wrote:Seriously, I know wars can be scary, but you don't want to give the power to declare wars and remove structures only to the large mercenary groups. Being active during wars is easily possible even if you don't want fight them, and wars are completely consensual to you, the player. Just drop to the NPC corp and play the game as you want.
believe me we have went multiple times over this. and while the link you have posted is absolutely valid for some. its not working for everyone. eg: 1) haulers, do you want to isolate people in NPC corp just because they like hauling? 2) new recruits, try explaining to a 6 day old player they cant go to the hubs and not to do several other things. well I know what answer Im geting: "and you guys pay $30 a month for not being able to use half of the game? well good luck with that Im off to fallout 4"
and this is the main reason why Im doing this... if wouldnt care about corpmates I can just move to null and leave you and your sily HS wars and not care about them. but I do care about people and I do want people to play together. unfortunetly the war system as it is now is jud deviding people. so please help me to come up with a solution/suggestion how to make it better for everyone. |
Han Rova
LEX University Limited Expectations
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:12:26 -
[29] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote: Apparently you don't completely read the replies to your posts. I am a PvEer, not a carebear, not a wardeccer. I go on occasional PvP roams, but my main play style is missioning. Your suggestion would do nothing but benefit me, because I'm the type of player that would grab a couple corpmates and steamroll a small wardec corp to end a war early. Still, I am against your idea. Your idea is an unnecessary punishment to small and one man wardec corps, for no reason than you don't feel their "reason" for the wardec is valid. Your idea is entirely counter to the spirit of a sandbox game.
well, true I have missed that sorry. but still I dont see a single reason why a single member corp should pin down for a week all the newbies in a corp that would otherwise deal with this relavicely fast securing the space for them thus forming a stronger bond in the corp. in a way you can say that CONCORD is countering this spirit as well. there is lots of sandbox space in LS and null, why destroy the sandcastles of the youngest ones even in HS?
Iain Cariaba wrote: No, what is reasonable is for a small group of skilled players to be able to pursue a war against a larger force. Your idea does nothing but encourage the N+1 meta that has caused nullsec to become as stagnant. Your "think of the newbies" justification is fairly lame, and the most often used excuse for bad ideas.
[/quote] I was talking about equaly skilled people (I have intentionaly not mentioned the 10 noobies in the larger corp). and this is something that is the same right now... if your 10 guys fight 20 equaly skilled guys then you will get your but kicked no matter the war system. my idea is simply intoducing same condidions on both sides.. you have something I want to kill / I have something you need to kill if you want to stop me. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2226
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:53:02 -
[30] - Quote
Han Rovaw wrote:so please help me to come up with a solution/suggestion how to make it better for everyone. Two sensible ideas to make your perceived problem with wardecs better:
1) Implement a social corporation for your new players that is not allowed to deploy structures or collect taxes, but is immune to wardecs. 2) Remove wardecs completely and move all corporation bonuses to structures (i.e. you need a structure to collect taxes or share a hanger) so corporations with no in-space assets (or any benefits over the NPC Corp) are immune to attack. Then make structures vulnerable to everyone like the MTU, and just give a suspect flag.
But honestly, your concern for new players is noble but misplaced. CCP Rise told us last year at Fanfest that new players who experience (and die in) wars are more likely to stay with the game than those for which nothing interesting happens in that first month. I am sure wars can be tweaked to be made better, or even completely revamped, but making it so small corps cannot use the mechanic because they cannot hold a specific grid against a more powerful opponent is not the way to do it. Small groups need to be able to engage in a guerrilla war against larger opponents if you want interesting things to happen in the sandbox other than the biggest force just blobbing a win each time. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |