Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cap ITal
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 13:10:47 -
[1] - Quote
So the subject of wars has long been a sensitive one much like cloaky camping. There are always two main sides. Those who use the mechanic and those on the receiving end of it. Normally both are hugely bias. In the case of wars the standard response comes to one of risk versus reward. And tends to go in circles pretty much the same as cloakers.
So lets break it down. Wars are a traditional and important mechanic for combat in secure space. There are many people who enjoy them and make money off them. Wars are also frustrating and often one sides affairs marred in controversy over risk/reward.
The problem on the risk reward side is that many entities use the war mechanic in a way thats at best unsporting. Often using a corporation of combat characters to declare war on a larger entity and target supply lines while keeping their own safe in unknown corporations or safe npc corporations. This is compounded when these players selectively pick their ambush places to have little risk to themselves often far from their targets home space and in areas that protect them from counter operations.Basically the risk to them is very little (at most a pretty basic fitted ship) while the reward is almost free reign of potential weak targets. When ever this is brought up these entities are fast to claim they are counter-able and they are totally fair in their activities.
While their is truth in their claims they can be countered or protected against its a case of practicality. To counter them requires far more investment than they have to expend. And that is the problem.
As such to rework and BALANCE wars I submit we directly link them to structures and citadels. For Entity A to declare war on Entity B They must have the infrastructure to wage war from, a base of operations. A citadel! This immediately removes the low risk for corps abusing the war mechanic and means they have to put something on the field. To take this one step further and make this a truly strategic game the citadel acts as a regional HQ. and you require one in every region the war is active. Thus meaning a Entity B can effectively counter a war far from their home via targeting the Citadel. The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region. And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed.
To prevent the use of a single citadel to declare war on several Entities Each war Hq can only run the logistics for 1 war target. in the case of Astrahuas and 2 in the case of Fortizars. Concord has declared the use of Keepstars to control a war unsporting as such no keepstar has any effect on a war declaration.
This should bring wars into 2017. Remove a controversial mechanic while maintains its core traditions and need. While expanding Eve as a tactical game and creating more content for people actually willing to fight. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4851
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 17:34:36 -
[2] - Quote
...Which would completely gut every wardec group in one fell swoop.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18536
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 17:45:27 -
[3] - Quote
War's have been being pushed on the agenda pretty hard now for the last six months at least. No one is more Keely aware of the issues with wars or would like them sorted more than those of us who spend all our time practicing them.
We had a round table with the csm last weekend and hopefully should be seeing a war panel for the next summit.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agants
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3559
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 21:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have the exact same idea but with out the pretentious bull **** and whining about what's 'fair' and 'sporting' in an open sandbox.
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
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
136
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 23:02:46 -
[5] - Quote
I don't give a **** about it being sporting, but I do rather like the idea of being required to own assets to wage war.
I don't like the bloated sov-ish idea of having to own assets in particular space.
Seems to me it'd be totally OK for a wardec corp to be required to own one astrahaus anywhere in the game in order to blanket wardec the entire server, as that would give the people they wardec an opportunity to actually win the war if they can be bothered to scrounge up a fleet of combat pilots or hire mercs or whatever.
Because that's what its about, really. It's not about being fair. it's not even going to be fair. But there should absolutely be a defensive element to any and every war for both sides. You shouldn't be required to invest in all the infrastructure ever just to wardec people, but being required to defend at least one cheap thing in a place that's advantageous to you? That at the very least gives people you wardec a way to straight up beat your ass right out of the wardec in a straight up fleet fight. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:26:32 -
[6] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:I don't give a **** about it being sporting, but I do rather like the idea of being required to own assets to wage war. You shouldn't. One of the basic design goals of war declarations is that they should be available to everybody. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45131
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:53:22 -
[7] - Quote
The problem with all of the suggestions based around tying wars to structures is that they are blinkered by thinking that the activities of large, professional wardec groups need to be countered, but fail to consider everyone else that uses the wardec mechanics too.
By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.
That's hardly "fair" in a situation based on trying to suggest fairness for both sides.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
138
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:21:51 -
[8] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:The problem with all of the suggestions based around tying wars to structures is that they are blinkered by thinking that the activities of large, professional wardec groups need to be countered, but fail to consider everyone else that uses the wardec mechanics too.
By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.
That's hardly "fair" in a situation based on trying to suggest fairness for both sides.
We're talking about an astrahaus here though
Like, world's cheapest structure that requires literally no fuel just to exist.
To be super clear I don't care about professional deccers versus industry corps. I care more about wars having objectives that allow participants on either side to definitively win by force rather than by surrender or diplomacy. I don't think wardec groups need to be curtailed or countered. I think that entities of all size should have undockable stake in a formal military declaration of hostility.
So that both sides have an undeniable opportunity to beat the other in to submission.
Currently, that simply doesn't exist.
If a war is so lopsided that the defender can simply embarass the other, and WANTS to do so... there should absolutely be a mechanism for that side to respond to a wardec with a swift teeth kicking do they can get on with their lives in stead of having to swat guerilla remnants for the rest of the week.
Currently all of the control over cessation of hostilities rests with the agressor. The defenders should absolutely have a mechanism to beat the **** out of them and end the war. Static assets in space are the simplest way to do that. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3559
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:21:49 -
[9] - Quote
A wardec structure doesn't have to be a citadel, or even expensive. There could also be structures of different sizes with varying degrees of power to accomodate groups large and small.
But depending on what ccp do with watch lists and observatories it may become a near requirement to have a structure to carry out an effective wardec anyways.
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
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
428
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:44:48 -
[10] - Quote
So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. |
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1023
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:47:37 -
[11] - Quote
There are many valid points in the OP, however there are to many problems with it to support it so as posted you get a -1.
Scipio Artelius wrote:affect for "legitimate" reasons. Here we get to the core pf the problem with war decs in this game. First they are worthless outside of high sec since you can shoot anyone you want whenever you want especially considering that war deccing someone just gives them the chance to prepare a defense by refitting a POS / Citadel or mustering the troops to protect the most valuable assets.
And that brings us to the great lie of war decs, that being that there is some legitimate reason to war dec another corp,. I hear crazy talk about shutting down a competitors trade routes, restricting or eliminating their ability to source material needed for manufacturing and that list of reasons goes on and on. Because of alt characters, alt corps, NPC corps etc not to mention placing critical resource gathering or manufacturing in low, nul and worm holes a war dec against a well set up and well run industrial corp will never have any significant affect on those corps. In fact the random acts of the gankers and the inhabitants of low, nul and worm holes have a far greater affect than the war dec groups ever will.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the simple fact that war decs are simply a license to kill people simply because you want to kill people. I am OK with that but let us put down this crazy pretense that wars are actually about something else and call them what they are, in that light I suggest they be called a corp kill license.
Or we could simply find a way to make them a real war, fought over something that has meaning to both sides. In this light some form of a structure that one or both sides needs to have set up in space somewhere holds many possible options, but it also comes with many potential problems. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate
2092
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 12:57:54 -
[12] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me.
I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45133
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 13:43:26 -
[13] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:We're talking about an astrahaus here though
Like, world's cheapest structure that requires literally no fuel just to exist.
From the OP:
"To take this one step further and make this a truly strategic game the citadel acts as a regional HQ. and you require one in every region the war is active."
There are 23 regions with highsec systems. That's not just 'an austrahaus here'
Quote:So that both sides have an undeniable opportunity to beat the other in to submission.
...
Giving the defender something to attack is giving the defender the ability to just punch that guy in the face, take his gas can, and light him on fire with it. Both already have the undeniable opportunity to beat the other into submission. Defenders can even obtain and infinite number of completely free allies to assist.
They can just go shoot the wardeccer in the face, exactly as you suggest.
Donnachadh wrote:And that brings us to the great lie of war decs, that being that there is some legitimate reason to war dec another corp,. I hear crazy talk about shutting down a competitors trade routes, restricting or eliminating their ability to source material needed for manufacturing and that list of reasons goes on and on. Because of alt characters, alt corps, NPC corps etc not to mention placing critical resource gathering or manufacturing in low, nul and worm holes a war dec against a well set up and well run industrial corp will never have any significant affect on those corps. In fact the random acts of the gankers and the inhabitants of low, nul and worm holes have a far greater affect than the war dec groups ever wil In general I agree. There doesn't at all need to be the concept of 'legitimate' reason to declare war (hence my inclusion of the term in quotes). Yet it comes up time and again in these threads; and people actually do declare war with specific purposes in mind aside from the large, hub humping, professional wardec Alliances; and/or hire mercs to do the work for them.
There is of course, also the use of wardecs in order to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets.
For the rest, I also totally agree; which ultimately means there is absolutely no reason for anyone to complain about the possibility of being wardecced and no need at all to change them then.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
428
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 14:51:39 -
[14] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends?
There's a difference between PvPing in guerilla style warfare and getting kills, and not PvPing at all because the hostiles outnumber you. That said, nerfing the little guy in PvP will only have the same effect as raising the prices on wardecs did. It will force them into larger groups which will be completely unmanageable for indy corps, compared to a single wardeccer that they might be able to fight off. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2259
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 17:04:46 -
[15] - Quote
Some history on war decs.
War decs used to be a way that 2 corporations could settle their differences with ammunition. With the advent of the allies R us mechanics that is no longer true. With the rare exception of some hokey honor agreement - isk and free loaders flood into any healthy disagreement and water it down to meaningless.
Mercing used to be about being good at the service(s) provided and competing for the isk of CEOs that had a score to settle or some objective to attain. With the ultra cheap war dec fees the current best practice in the 'merc' business is to mass war dec and farm HS while picking up the occasional contract from random tools that are too daft to realize they are wasting their isk.
Sure sure there are a few crews out there breaking their backs trying to deliver a service, but all in all the current 'merc' business is actually a player farming business that took the merc name because no one was using it effectively anymore.
The freeloading mechanic made HS warfare pointless. The cheap flat fee killed the old school contract based merc business. The change to the watch list to keep super pilots in their pampered cocoons was just another nail in a closed coffin.
I don't think current HS pvp is challenging or interesting. It may be fun and profitable, but it sure isn't challenging or interesting. The current mechanics just don't support healthy HS conflict.
I'm not speaking to the quality of any individual merc, but the quality overall (that would be ability to conduct pvp beyond the solo farming gank) has been and will continue to decline. The current mechanics don't support being good. Let's be honest, actual HS conflict is rare and when it does happen FCs tend to bail as soon as they see the scales tipping away from them. Many fights aren't taken because of possible losses - both of ships in the immediate and members that can't come to terms with losses in the long run.
The mechanics are the suxors and need to change. My recommendation - role back. Get rid of the 'all aboard' free loading help. If a guy wants a piece of your conflict - there is a button and a fee for that. Go back to escalating fees. Raise the cost of concurrent decs to make carrying 100+ war decs impossible to sustain. These changes would bring back real cost and real choices as to who you war dec and when. With cost and choice - meaning will return to HS conflict and will return to being conflict and the current player farming hoo haw will fade into eve history. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2259
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 17:17:26 -
[16] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Arden Elenduil wrote:So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.
Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me. I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends? There's a difference between PvPing in guerilla style warfare and getting kills, and not PvPing at all because the hostiles outnumber you. That said, nerfing the little guy in PvP will only have the same effect as raising the prices on wardecs did. It will force them into larger groups which will be completely unmanageable for indy corps, compared to a single wardeccer that they might be able to fight off.
Actually (and factually I might add), the larger groups only became popular after the current day mechanics were instituted. The large groups are an outcome of allowing allies AND lower flat fees. Before these mechanics there were no large Merc groups in HS. The high prices made large merc groups impossible to feed, so they didn't exist. Low fees allow mass decs for large groups of player to farm HS with alts. The farming is casual, so an alt can log in and out on a whim, where fulfilling a contract took time and dedication and was not conducive to alt play.
Before the mechanics changed Repo Industries was one of the biggest merc outfits in HS and we had 100 members with probably 50 or so actives. Our limit on decs was 7 based on cost and ability to fulfill the contract.
After the mechanics changed - mass decs and large outfits became the cost effective way to go.
Your argument that higher fees would limit the little guy is only true in respect to the ability to mass dec and turn a profit. Back in the day the little guys had a blast taking on bigger fish. Magic Preacher was one of the best in this aspect of the game. Feel free to ask him if he used to have a lot of FUN under the old mechanics.
Really - ask him. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 19:47:08 -
[17] - Quote
I assume that you're omitting the fact that the base cost of declaring war for a corporation against another corporation was increased by 2500% in the changes you're talking about.
It's a combination of increased costs at the small scale and decreased costs at the large scale that created the financial incentive for mercenary groups to get larger. Pretending one side of that equation doesn't exist is disingenuous.
If you were to simply increase the cost of declaring multiple wars you wouldn't see a return to pre-inferno corp sizes because the higher base costs would still incentivize groups to be as large as they can possibly provide content for.
The best result you'd get is the current large groups shifting offensive wars to focus on the largest sources of targets while utilizing the ally system for free wars as much as possible.
If you want to restore some semblance of pre-inferno gameplay you'd also have to revisit the base cost of declaring war for corporations and more importantly nerfing the ever living **** out of the ally system. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:31:48 -
[18] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I assume that you're omitting the fact that the base cost of declaring war for a corporation against another corporation was increased by 2500% in the changes you're talking about.
It's a combination of increased costs at the small scale and decreased costs at the large scale that created the financial incentive for mercenary groups to get larger. Pretending one side of that equation doesn't exist is disingenuous.
If you were to simply increase the cost of declaring multiple wars you wouldn't see a return to pre-inferno corp sizes because the higher base costs would still incentivize groups to be as large as they can possibly provide content for.
The best result you'd get is the current large groups shifting offensive wars to focus on the largest sources of targets while utilizing the ally system for free wars (which they already do heavily) as much as possible.
If you want to restore some semblance of pre-inferno gameplay you'd also have to revisit the base cost of declaring war for corporations and more importantly nerfing the ever living **** out of the ally system.
Honestly, if we had the structure mechanic, assuming that deccing hands you a free structure that does nothing but sit in space waiting to be shot, basically a small pos preloaded with fuel that can't anchor any modules, we wouldn't need the ally system in the first place. Attackers magicing up allies would have to convince those allies to pay their own dec fees, and each one would have its own crap to defend. Defenders couldn't magic up suprise allies in the middle of the war without doing the same thing.
The ally system is a band aid on an already broken mechanic, an attempt to balance things between defender and attacker. I'm suggesting actually just balancing attacker and defender by ensuring both have something mission critical to shoot at and defend, and simply giving them that for free to anchor if they don't have pre-existing assets in place. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18569
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:53:37 -
[19] - Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 21:17:32 -
[20] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent. Don't get me wrong now I'm glad this conversation is happening more and more but I'm really not into linking war too closely to structures, I'm explicitly not in null sec for this very reason.
I just can't think of a much better way to create that sort of objective imperative. What are the other options? ISK value destroyed? Still prioritizes the people with less assets in space. Some kind of kill count system? Seems like hell to balance/too easy to game.
I mean I'm trying real hard to address the issues with wars without using structures as a basis and I can't come up with anything. I'd love to hear some alternate solutions that don't totally screw over deccers or defenders and create a more equitable system in which pilots at war are more encouraged to shoot each other. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45134
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 21:33:17 -
[21] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing against being able to decisively meet win/lose criteria, I'm certainly not in principle.
I am against that criteria being: your ability to defend/kill a static structure.
My other issue with it is that I have yet to see a proposal for one that I think is halfway decent. Don't get me wrong now I'm glad this conversation is happening more and more but I'm really not into linking war too closely to structures, I'm explicitly not in null sec for this very reason. I just can't think of a much better way to create that sort of objective imperative. What are the other options? ISK value destroyed? Still prioritizes the people with less assets in space. Some kind of kill count system? Seems like hell to balance/too easy to game. I mean I'm trying real hard to address the issues with wars without using structures as a basis and I can't come up with anything. I'd love to hear some alternate solutions that don't totally screw over deccers or defenders and create a more equitable system in which pilots at war are more encouraged to shoot each other. The only way I see tying anything into a structure being an ok approach, is to provide advantage in having a Citadel/other structure.
Most commonly, as in this thread, it's always a stick approach designed to require more in order to do what can be done now. Why would the wardeccer side of the equation be happy about that?
Instead it should be a carrot approach. If you want wardeccers to have a structure in space, give it a war related use. Give them some benefit from having it that aids their activities; and not just something that encourages larger and larger wardec entities. There should be play for small groups, even encouragement for them.
Same on the defender side. Options to refit a Citadel in a war that provides them some benefit to their activities.
Make the play engaging, not just a road block with no real war related purpose other than wardec groups become bigger and declare war on smaller groups.
Then, leave victory conditions out of it. Objectives in declaring war can vary widely. That's not something the game should really track. Players can handle that fine.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
139
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:01:09 -
[22] - Quote
Adding carrots doesn't really address the underlying issue though.
Only the agressor has the ability to win a war. They control cessation of hostilities. They choose targets of opportunity.
Defenders don't have any mechanisms to win a war. They only have mechanisms to survive a war.
Any smart attacker has nothing at risk. Defenders are, however, always at risk. They can't simply be smarter defenders. At best they can incur the logistical challenge of trying to pack up all their stuff in the first 24 hours to make it a straight up ship fight. Even then, the agressor has already inflicted significant economic damage just by forcing them to do so.
Even in cases where neither side owns assets in space. Attackers control cessation of hostilities.
Defenders should have a mechanism to win the war, and by win I mean forcibly end hostilities. Currently their ability to do so is nonexistant. At best they can back the attacker in to station sitting, but still be stuck camping stations for a week.
That's the problem. That once party can start a fight AND finish it while the other can do neither.
No amount of incentives based mechanics will adress that. The defender needs a mechanism to finish the fight, as thet's generally the objective of the defender in the first place, an objective they are, at the moment, systematically incapable of achieving. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:08:35 -
[23] - Quote
I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45135
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:25:03 -
[24] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters, would make the merc buisness a lot more viable. Are you suggesting this both ways? As in, all player owned Corps must maintain assets in space in order to exist?
Or is this just a thing for wardeccers only?
On the front page of General Discussion at the moment is this thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495378&find=unread
If the guy who is now bumping and generally creating issues for the OP in that thread, was in a player Corp, are you suggesting that before the OP could declare war on him, the OP's Corp would first need to put up a Citadel, which the other guy could freely attack, but there would be no obligation the other way as well?
If so, how is that approach in any way fair on the small Corps that decide they want to do something about a situation like that?
Often suggestions talk about fairness, but they don't really provide that at all.
The moment wardecs are tied to structures in order to even happen, wardec groups all just become larger and larger in order to ensure they can defend against their opponents and if they are smart (which they are in many ways), they'll declare war against small Corps and groups that they know have no way to attack. Instantly, all the big Alliances and powerblocks (who do get wardecced currently) will become safe from wardecs, the large wardec groups will continue relatively unaffected and all small wardec groups (including small merc groups hired to declare war) will be discouraged from even existing. In particular, someone like the OP in that linked thread would be in a bind even if he could declare war. The other guy could just go and hire someone to ally in for him and totally wipe out the OP's Corp.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18573
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:37:56 -
[25] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:I think it's a great ideal, having real assets tied to a war would definitely create content as people defend their assets and have real consequence for idle war dec's over trivial matters, would make the merc buisness a lot more viable. ok so ye say "whooo , something in space i can target wheeeee"
fine, in principal thats understandable given how much neutral alt-play comes with mercing these days. i get that i do.
what vimsy and i been trying to point out is that the best way to defend these things will invariably be to plant a blob on them, or have one on stand by.
if you cant field the sort of blob required you will not be inclined to try and rub shoulders with the sorts of lads that can. so you dont bother signing up for a ploughing from the estabelished lads at all, you join an alliance that has this setup already, or you grow to avoid getting battered, to sustain interest for your increased numbers you need to get more content (more wars), go to choke points and catch the through traffic. without some seriously tight knit and extremely patient and dedicated guys you have to do this because of the colossal level of work required to actively track and hunt . (and why were we having this conversation again?)
to be clear, a lot of us dont like the current state of affairs either, we have stopped soliciting business till this gets un-F***ed,
im not against balancing the mechanics here at all, but i can see this happening as clearly as i saw that we would end up here 8 months ago
vimsy's penny drops my own shortly there after believe us, we have been following this one closely the whole time and been proven right repeatedly. on the surface this looks like a great idea but its not actually going to help alleviate the problem without other balance changes in the way wars work.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18577
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:53:38 -
[26] - Quote
I realize I'm being quite negative here, so I'll endeavour to help the conversation
These are some of the things I have heard discussed and found that I agree so I'm not claiming credit here Possible solutions are
vimsys notion of reverse scaling costs I.e. the bigger the aggressor, the costlier the fee to the aggressor. Balancing the tools used for targeted and active warfare Bringing as much of the neutral altplay in house as possible Either removing the Allie system or opening it up for ever escalation on both sides Un-f****ing crime watch regards neutrality Giving aggressors the ability to retract wars (that doesn't have the word "surrender" involved, we have a 3 month war ongoing with an inactive corp for this exact reason) so that should we get our teeth kicked In we can drop it.
If we can do this and it works disincentivise larger blocks forming then you might be able to introduce structures as per the op But you're still looking at people blobbing up to keep them alive to some extent or another.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
"Or is this just a thing for wardeccers only"
yes, why, that old adage If you start something, war deccing has been an almost one way street with the eggressor's having free reign to bully folks forever, to choose the engagements, what this does is give a reason to seek alliance's, the war deccing Corp gets what it wants, full on PVP as people join sides to partake in a meaningful war, where killing the structure of another's opponents is the prize.
People go to Vegas for one reason (mostly), to gamble, the thrill of winning or losing, gambling is it's own addiction and our brains are configured to like this reward, if you throw dice you may win or lose, that's the attraction, to risk nothing and to pretty much know the outcome (when people war Dec weak corps), cheapens the thrill and turns the game into a cheap carnival ride that once done 100 times there is no real enjoyment just rinse and repeat.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45139
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:57:21 -
[28] - Quote
So you'll just achieve the exact opposite of what you think you'll achieve and more whinging in the forum will result.
In the process, completely eliminate the possibility of the two examples in my previous post.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18577
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
No, what this does is encourage mercs to close ranks further and lock down these damn things, Those that can't will not last, those that can will effectively become siege engines. Hell we already see this happening with vmg and atype now.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
500
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:21:42 -
[30] - Quote
Also just a second thought, with the coming of Alpha clones this makes it more of a reason to implement this, especially if you consider that people can join defending sides and you can have hundreds of Alpha clones beating each other over the head as people go head to head and this would go far in revitalizing the economy as ships get blown apart, implants get used, modules get destroyed, people join merc corps with their alphas to enjoy part time PVP, whilst leaving them free to use their omegas as they see fit.
This may even give folks afraid of PVP to rethink it so maybe the thrill becomes addicting bringing their Omega's Into The Fray. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |