Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45140
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:26:36 -
[31] - Quote
Alpha clones in their T1 ships and modules vs T3 fleets with boosts.
Yeah, getting stomped on the head is the reason so many people whine about wardecs already and fail to take responsibility themselves.
If players can't manage when they have all the resources of the game at their disposal, they aren't going to manage when they have less resources available.
Alphas aren't a solution to that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18578
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:28:50 -
[32] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote: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. You haven't read a word I typed have you.
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
140
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 04:11:33 -
[33] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: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.
Disincentizizing larger blocks is a pipe dream no matter what you do.
More pilots = more security
Period. Full stop. It's the inevitability of player choice coupled with an entropic ingame economic model.
There is literally no solution whatsoever that is going to change that. The current hisec blobbing you see going on today is simply an extension of the inevitable endgame of any open PvP environment. One or two sides, in the interests of personal security, will eventually hoover up anything of operational value. At some point one side will be all that's left. That side will crow about its victories until it gets bored because there's nobody left to fight, break up, and watch that cycle start over again.
Tying free or even costly structures in to wardec mechanics does not change this. It does not change the decision making process of people who declare wars for whatever reason. People dec entities because they want to hurt them. That's the only reason. You think the one guy that wants to dec a known blob gang is going to be less inclined to pay up because he has to spend five minutes finding a place for a free command tower? He's not. You think the people that can afford to blanket dec are going revise their target lists because there might be a slight inconvenience in the form of having to defend a structure at some point? They aren't. They didn't become wardec blobs to not prove a point with military force.
The only thing that having a free, ungunned structure tied to wardeccing changes is that it allows any given defender to actually theoretically force any given attacker to stop attacking them. Again, that is the basic goal of pretty much anyone defending a wardec.
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation. Boredom, greed, and risk aversion did. Just like the same things created BoB, gave rise to the CFC after it, and gave rise to NCPL now. It was always only a matter of time before that inevitability made its way to hisec. The only thing that has prevented it up to this point was simply lack of interest in hisec.
Now that everyone and their mother can drop citadels wherever they damn well please, there's ample content in hisec, and this, interest in hisec.
At some point people have to stop railing against the phantom of blob warfare. Blob warfare is what EVE is specifically designed to enable at a very basic level.
It's why all of the hot EVE news stories and all of the EVE trailers feature massive fleet battles with tales of massive amounts of ISK loss.
Anyone who thinks there's going to be some golden age of small actors is seriously deluding themselves. As a guy in charge of a small nobody corp I can confidently say that the only reason I get to do anything is literally because I'm not sitting on anything anybody bigger than me wants.
I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to delude myself in to thinking there's some sovereign right to freedom or doing wtf I want, or that there's some mythical area of space where the rules are different.
Choosing to stay a small entity means choosing to live in the cracks between bigger ones, and knowing where you stand in the greater scheme of things. It means being okay with being less successful because you value your playstyle more than your security or wallet.
No change to wardecs is going to reverse the hisec blob war problem because it's not a problem in the first place.
I'm talking about a systemic failing of the dec system used by everyone here, not alterations to deccing to break up blobs and make it better for the little guy. It's not ever going to be better for the little guy unless he becomes the big guy himself, or EVE somehow becomes a completely different game. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
501
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 06:43:50 -
[34] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Alpha clones in their T1 ships and modules vs T3 fleets with boosts.
Yeah, getting stomped on the head is the reason so many people whine about wardecs already and fail to take responsibility themselves.
If players can't manage when they have all the resources of the game at their disposal, they aren't going to manage when they have less resources available.
Alphas aren't a solution to that.
You know, some "uber fleets" have been sent packing by eve uni, bunch of t-1's and such, never underestimate even a group of People in noob ships. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
18581
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 07:16:57 -
[35] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. And I'm done having this conversation with people who just want to have their way with it. Illsave my energy,time and patience. o7
Praposal:Un-F**k Locator Agents
Praposal:Un-F**k NPC Corps
=]|[=
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45148
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 08:31:48 -
[36] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:You know, some "uber fleets" have been sent packing by eve uni, bunch of t-1's and such, never underestimate even a group of People in noob ships. Never over estimate them either. Alphas are not the saviour of highsec.
As for Eve-uni, it's full of 10-year playing 'new players'.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
142
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 09:31:43 -
[37] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. And I'm done having this conversation with people who just want to have their way with it. Illsave my energy,time and patience. o7
It's been an interesting conversation nonetheless o7 |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:00:07 -
[38] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:PopeUrban wrote:
Changes to watchlists didn't create the current wardec situation.
Yes they very much did. That's not really true. The current situation was a long time in the making even though we all predicted it 3 years ago when the inferno changes were announced.
What the removal of the watchlist did is cement trade hub camping as the only plausible way to operate.
Everything else was a soft measure that pointed all the mercs towards a box which they all go into out of pragmatism. Removing the watchlist shut the lid on that box by finally eliminating the alternative. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:24:15 -
[39] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Both already have the undeniable opportunity to beat the other into submission. Defenders can even obtain an infinite number of completely free allies to assist. Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. The aggressor can simply dock up those characters that are involved in the war dec and play on alts for the duration leaving the defenders with nothing, and no one to "punch in the face" . NO forcing the aggressor to dock up is not winning the war and NO it is not functionally the same as winning, because the aggressor still maintains the ability to perpetuate the war until they decide to cancel it and while you are under war dec you are always subject to being attacked when / if the aggressors decide to un-dock and actually do something. Yes I know the whole play on alts, drop corp etc thing will likely spill forth here and that is all worthless since it does not address the real issues at the core of the problem with war decs in this game it is a work around that both sides employ.
You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true, yet the vast majority of the decs filed are about nothing more than lazy people war deccing god only knows how many corps and then sitting on gates and undocks looking for simple easy targets to shoot.
Moving on to a more general response. I have always found it impossible to understand, on the one hand you war dec players want more war (read that as shooting each other) in your wars and yet every single idea that is put forth that might accomplish this is resoundingly beaten down as game breaking and worthless. If you want more war in your war decs, and you want those you war dec to undock and fight then you need to give them something they can actually fight and you need to give them something to actually fight for and the current system offers neither of these.
Perhaps we need to address and answer a simple question before we get into how to change war decs. And that simple questions is what do you as war dec players actually want? Some of you want a system that promotes fights between aggressor and defender by chinging the system to give both sides clear objectives to fight for. Others want to retain the existing system which is quite literally the right to buy kill rights for an entire corp full of players. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
4469
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 14:49:11 -
[40] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation.
Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides.
Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract.
But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting. |
|
Sentenced 1989
199
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 15:00:48 -
[41] - Quote
I kinda like the idea and think it has potential, but some changes would be needed for balance (this is purely entertaining idea and adding points for both sides).
1) You should not require this structure to start a war - there should be max number which you can start before needing it, lets say 3-5 (less then 3 might be to little, more then 5 defeats purpose of number 2)
2) You need one structure (citadel) which is not located in wh space to raise it for another 3-5 (here is where scalability would come in play). When wardecing your target gets notification which structure is running as HQ for your war, removing it ends the war. I am also pondering if this should be restricted to highsec and/or lowsec since wardec has only sense in those areas Wormholes could be tricky to find aggressor and nullsec could enjoy security of big 0.0 alliances to defend structure. Highsec offers easier siege for defender and lowsec brings issue of neutrals being able to target it as well but some defenders might not want to venture there
3) It would make sense to allow aggressor to pick which HQ is relevant for which war. You mentioned the need of regional HQ's, but that is complicating both on codebase for CPP and players (I can image lot's of playing on regional gate + I can image some aggressors running safety red, so you chase target, jump through gate and meet concord...)
With this your suggestion has a bit more substance. Small corps which have a reason to dec one or two other corps would be able so without much issues. Corps which wanna wage wars with lots of corps would need structures, would need to defend them, etc - giving chance to defenders to end it.
However, also keep in mind that this in the end just brings up the price to start war. Corps / alliances which lead lot's of wars could just align their vulnarable windows one after other so they have coverage and manpower to defend - but overall might provoke more fights since it gives objective to defenders.
The Incursion Guild
Epic Arc Guide
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2260
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:39:26 -
[42] - Quote
I think 1 structure created by the war dec is a pretty solid idea. The more decs you carry, the more possible (not likely or plausible) it would be for the folks you have under the gun to gang up and topple you dec list. It would kind be like the snow flake principle. 1 snowflake is pretty and harmless, but when they all decide to gang up on you - the road gets treacherous. I like the 1 structure covering multiple decs. The balance would be that you would have to weigh out the who and how many end of the dec list you fund against those little snowflakes ganging up on your structure and resetting your dec list to ZERO. It's that kind of thought and consideration that would bring meaning back to HS pvp and remove the merc chaff from the merc wheat.
Here's a scenario I see playing out. The first time a reasonable force shows up to take down a player farming alliance dec structure, there will be a gut check by that alliances leadership. I'll be honest, of the player farming groups out there (like any group of people), some have moxy and will relish the content beacon, and some (the pure farmer and non pvper groups) will fold up like the cheap suits they are. There are several player farming groups out there that DO NOT in any way shape or form want adversaries that could shoot back and harm their little ships. You won't get any Serendipity tears if the posers get smashed out of the business.
The outcome: HS pvp heads back toward actual pvp. HS pvp fits evolve back into actual pvp fits (mids no longer dominated by sensor boosters). The big poser groups and individual poser pilots would go do something else less dangerous. The weak would be deleted.
Then again, until the Ally mechanic is removed there really isn't any mechanic that can't be easily over come. Getting rid of that rubbish needs to be the first step down the path to saving HS pvp. I used to lobby for a cap on the number of allies, but it is the major influence on HS pvp being..... not good. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2260
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:47:49 -
[43] - Quote
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you. |
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
143
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 17:27:50 -
[44] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation. Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides. Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract. But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting.
In a technical sense, true.
In a practical sense under the current system the agressor still wields the basic ability to end hostilities, since they're the entity that has the choice of docking up, presenting no targets, and still having the elective option of undocking at any hour of the day to go shoot up a structure.
Which is kind of the core of the idea of "make it so everyone has structures to defend" to even that out a bit and have central fight points that create fights.
Thought I'd clarify since this point has been a major element in at least my reasoning/pushing for the "use an existing structure or be forced to anchor a free one" approach.
But yeah, no, yeah, Wars over structures are extremely common. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either never owned HS structures or is being willfully obtuse. The entire existence of HS structures is counterbalanced by such wardecs. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45160
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 17:46:10 -
[45] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true, ... Not so rare.
Look at POCOs for example. They die almost every day in highsec, often many more than one in a day:
https://zkillboard.com/ship/2233/
If you go through all the tower types, you'll also see they are regularly killed in highsec. It's not all that difficult to check.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1183
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 07:36:44 -
[46] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though.
So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.
Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 14:50:27 -
[47] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false. There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.
Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation. Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides. Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract. But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting. Speaking of checking your facts, may I suggest that you take your own advice. Before I list these yes I am aware that this changes as new things are added to the kill list. First structure kill in high sec was an MTU on page 3 but then they do not count since you do not need a war dec to kill an MTU. That was followed by 4 photon scattering arrays on page 4 - all owned by the same corp and killed in the same system so likely all at the same POS. But she states that are large numbers of structure kills every day in high sec so I must keep looking. Well boredom set in about page 50 with no major structure kills. Lots of MTU and a small group of POS related add ons that are essentially disposable and easily replaced. Causes the critical mind to wonder, if structures are a major part of war decs why no POS or citadel kills? If you are going to war dec a corp because structures then why stop at killing small easily replaced items like photon scattering arrays when you could kill the POS or citadel? Then we look at the active wars in high sec and in just a minute or so count more than 150 corps that are under war dec. Using the total size of the list, the part of it that I looked at and then extrapolating we could easily have more 1,000 active high sec war decs and the two data sets simply do not support your claim that many / most high sec wars are about structures.
Surrender or disbanding corp, thank you for pointing out just another of the many reasons why high sec war decs are in a terrible place and need to be altered radically. Even though I agree with you that the aggressors should be able to end the war whenever they want by simply retracting the dec, both you and Ralph are wrong on one point. The aggressor can end the war by simply refusing to pay to extend it and no surrender is required. Yet none of this changes the fact that the defenders have no way to end the war other than surrender, even if you are curb stomping the aggressors at every encounter you are REQUIRED by the current mechanic to play under war dec, or surrender to end the war. Yes I know the whole disband corp and all the other dec dodges that can be used. Despite what you may think I would rather fight than dodge, and given the ability to end a war by fighting I would choose that option in most cases. However the current unbalanced system offers me no reason to fight, and it is often better not to fight because boredom. In my years in this game I have found that the average war dec player is very much like a person with A.D.D. they get bored easily and move on to something else so not fighting is often the fastest and easiest way to get them to go away and leave you alone to play the game your way.
You are wrong about the care bear thing, I simply have a more practical and well balanced way of looking at the situation and quite often that manifests itself here as a pro-carebear point of view. Speaking in broad general terms here carebears are far more likely to spend real life cash money to play this game while the more hard core low, nul worm hole players are more likely to plex their account using plex they buy from the carebears. I have always found this aspect of EvE interesting and to be honest a bit bizarre and confusing. Those who are most likely to pay with plex seem to think they are more important than those who are most likely to actually spend cash to buy those plex. Yes I know not true in all cases but I did say I was speaking in a broad generalize way here. If I was running CCP I would be taking high sec down the path that the money was leading me to and in many ways we have seen precisely that happening.
But then none of that really matters we all pay to play this game in some way, and we all have an equal chance to state our ideas and opinions and yours are no more or no less valid based on game play style than mine. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45164
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 15:56:09 -
[48] - Quote
You can see representative structure stats for each month, just 2 posts above.
I'm not sure what you're looking at in your analysis, but it doesn't relate to what Vimsy wrote.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
147
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 21:21:51 -
[49] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window.
If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers.
You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment.
Because of the problem you just mentioned. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1184
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 21:29:48 -
[50] - Quote
PopeUrban wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp. This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window. If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers. You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment. Because of the problem you just mentioned. And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
PopeUrban
El Expedicion Flames of Exile
147
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 22:01:38 -
[51] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:PopeUrban wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp. This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window. If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers. You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment. Because of the problem you just mentioned. And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.
Didn't miss it so much as affirming/expanding on what you said. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
2275
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 11:11:23 -
[52] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Clearly not in the interest of real people though. So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity. Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.
Don't be a boob and accidentally omit part of my quote. I brought it in it's full glory so everyone may see how you try to skew my post.
"Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you."
Obviously you are afraid or perhaps find determining your corps prime time to set the timer too daunting. I'll try to help you. Your prime time is when most of your pvp types are online to defend. I'll make it even easier for you. Make the timer like the POCO timer such that you can set it for a specific time of day in lieu of doing the math and figuring out how many hours.
Step 1: structure gets RFO at the time of choosing of the attackers Step 2: invul period ends at the time of choosing of the defenders
Timer is 24 hours maximum - The group assaulting the 'war structure' shouldn't have to fiddlefuckaround over 3 days. Smash it and then smash it again. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1024
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 13:15:11 -
[53] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly. I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway.
And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated. I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared. We could have thousands of structures killed in high sec every hour and that still does not prove that those structures were the reason for the war dec, all it proves is that they like the other characters were victims of the war dec.
One of the other statements I made was that the vast majority of the wars are not about structures they are in fact simply buying a license to kill others (yes I am still OK with this aspect) and structure kills have no affect on this. So I do have a challenge for you, pick a 24 hour period and count the number of high sec corps that are defenders in a war dec. Then go back to that same 24 hour period and count the number of corps that lost a structure. When you do this as I have on many occasion you will quickly see how totally irrelevant structures are to the overall picture of wars in high sec. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45168
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 18:55:24 -
[54] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly. I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway. No problems. You seemed to be struggling based on your earlier post, it looked like you were manually clicking through all the pages on zkillboard rather than accessing it's API and downloading the specific data needed.
Sorry if I got that wrong.
Quote:And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated. This is where we might differ here.
Back on page 1 where I claimed the wardec mechanics are needed for 'legitimate' reasons, you claimed that as 'the great lie of war decs', going on to explain that there are no legitimate reasons for wardecs.
In response, it was pointed out that 'There is of course, also the use of wardecs in order to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets. All of which are absolutely legitimate reasons to use the wardec mechanics.'
You responded with 'You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true,'.
So in response, the data clearly shows that it isn't at all rare to use the wardec mechanics to attack POCOs, POS and other corp level assets.
It's extremely common and is not only a legitimate use of the wardec mechanics, it's an absolutely necessary one because the only other option is to attempt to gank them, which isn't a reasonable option at all.
Quote:I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared.
No. As above, you claimed it was extremely rare that wardecs are legitimately used to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets.
If you look at the killmails tied into the stats posted above, you'll also see that it's not the big wardec alliances involved in most of those structure attacks. It's smaller Corps and Alliances who want that resource (eg. POCO) or who want to access the resources (eg. killing dead sticks).
However, if now you want to change this whole discussion to frame it differently and claim 'structures are rarely the reason wars are declared'
Then show your proof. If you know this to be true, it must be based on something. Show us.
I've posted the proof that supports the statements I have made. Post yours.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Old Pervert
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 19:03:03 -
[55] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: 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.
Even a small corp should be able to scrounge together enough cash for a small citadel.
As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45168
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 19:23:13 -
[56] - Quote
Old Pervert wrote:As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game. A lot of single-character corps would beg to differ. Eve makes no restrictions on the minimum size of corps allowable.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Knight Jay
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 08:21:13 -
[57] - Quote
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1188
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 10:51:41 -
[58] - Quote
Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about.
Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting.
You need to drop the drugs.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Knight Jay
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 12:39:55 -
[59] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about. Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting. You need to drop the drugs.
try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready. People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea. And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking. |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1190
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 15:51:51 -
[60] - Quote
Knight Jay wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Knight Jay wrote:To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here. Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities. WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups. It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..
Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.
In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.
This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target. WTF are you on about. Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting. You need to drop the drugs. try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready. People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea. And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking. Oh god. Another weak minded fool. Pointing out a massive hole in your suggestion isn't trolling, though it seems your ego is a bit fragile, so let me say - yeah great idea. Let's allow highsec to let capitals jump in (although they can't reach all systems in highsec, so your Ida would require further changes to force projection...no issue at all). It's genius.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |