Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dzil
Caldari Tritanium Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 17:53:00 -
[1]
I have a proposal that I think would go a long way towards making war decs work as intended:
Declaring an empire war should work in regions, and should require establishing an empire based (high or low sec) POS in that region. Add a diplomacy module or some such that would be mounted to a POS. The aggressed corp would be made aware of which POS/POSes are allowing their aggressor to operate.
The main point of this is that it gives the aggressed something to attack, as was claimed in some other ideas some kind of victory condition, that can allow them to win and end a war, and return to normalcy. By contrast, a lot of merc and pirate corps use wars to take down POS and grief, but they themselves have little to lose if they don't have a POS up or conduct any empire side logistics, and can often therefore maintain aggression indefinately.
Recapping: The aggressor will have to defend at least one nearby target to maintain the war. The aggressor will have to maintain logistics to at least one POS in the effected area.
I'd do this in place of the existing isk for war mechanic, though perhaps requiring separate diplo modules for each aggressed entity.
Issues: What if an oligarchy claims all the moons in a region, and becomes invulnerable to war? A: There would need to be a balance where a handful of low sec systems were considered within the range of such a high-sec blockade, either base it on jumps or ensure there is enough low sec within each empire region. You can strike low-sec POS without an empire war. Might need some tweaking to prevent massive security hits.
I can't hire mercs/friends to defend me if they don't have presence in the region? A: Correct! This would work both for pirates and anti-pirates: in order to operate in spite of concord in high sec, you have to own at least one asset in high sec, giving your targets a fair vulnerability to counterattack. So if a merc counterattacks a pirate corp, the pirates have a way to try and retaliate against the mercs too!
|
Dzil
Tritanium Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 17:54:00 -
[2]
Well, and of course I'm going to support my own idea:)
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 18:41:00 -
[3]
There are many changes to the wardec system that could be useful. This is not one of them. POSes are annoying enough as a mechanic for 0.0 fighting, they don't need to be expanded to cover highsec too.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 19:51:00 -
[4]
AS intriguing as this idea sounds... forcing wars to take place with established assets to defend... it would cause alot of headaches and be too drastic a change.
Not supported... but clever..I'll give you that. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 20:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dzil Recapping: The aggressor will have to defend at least one nearby target to maintain the war. The aggressor will have to maintain logistics to at least one POS in the effected area.
I'd do this in place of the existing isk for war mechanic, though perhaps requiring separate diplo modules for each aggressed entity.
Issues: What if an oligarchy claims all the moons in a region, and becomes invulnerable to war? A: There would need to be a balance where a handful of low sec systems were considered within the range of such a high-sec blockade, either base it on jumps or ensure there is enough low sec within each empire region. You can strike low-sec POS without an empire war. Might need some tweaking to prevent massive security hits.
I can't hire mercs/friends to defend me if they don't have presence in the region? A: Correct! This would work both for pirates and anti-pirates: in order to operate in spite of concord in high sec, you have to own at least one asset in high sec, giving your targets a fair vulnerability to counterattack. So if a merc counterattacks a pirate corp, the pirates have a way to try and retaliate against the mercs too!
It's an interesting idea. It would certainly reduce spur-of-the-moment grief wars, because the declarant would need to be engaging in soul-crushing POS maintenance at the same time, and griefers that are in it just for the fun won't do that.
Destroying a defended POS without the help of dreads, though, is extraordinarily difficult. It invites blobs and soul-crushing fleet battles. And I don't like the idea that it becomes harder to hire mercs.
I think this proposal is an unintended blow to the most legitimate use of wars: to challenge a dominant corp (or alliance)'s control of resources. Requiring the declarant to maintain a POS makes it much more difficult for a small corp to legitimately challenge a big one for resources in areas of scarcity - a small corp can fight smart using small gangs, but forcing them to defend a static position, especially against a well-heeled opponent, puts them at a huge disadvantage.
I like that this is a creative take on a difficult problem, but not the solution to that problem. --------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 23:10:00 -
[6]
Sorry, but anything that forces people to do anything I will simply not support. Your idea would be crushing and cause a lot of crying.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
|
Fille Balle
TachyonTubbies Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 08:45:00 -
[7]
Hang on a minute! You're saying you don't want to be forced to do something, and yet you think it's fine for you to force other's to pvp via random grief wardec's?
Ok then, how about this: Since it's possible to force others in to a combat based war, how about industry corps can force the wardecers to mine? Yes, when you declare war, the defender can now choose method of engagement. Mining, manufacture, mission running, trade or combat:
1. Mining, both corps have to mine as much minerals as possible, and hand over to an npc. No combat is allowed between involved parties. The corp that mines the most wins, and the looser has to pay a fine of 100mil isk to the winner.
2. Manufacture, both corps have to build as many different items as possible, and hand them over to an npc. No more than one of each item can be used. Market value or mineral content has no meaning, only the total number of different items count towards victory. Who ever produces the most wins. Again, the looser has to pay a fine of 100mil isk to the winner.
3. Trade, both corps have to make isk from buying and selling items on the market. Who ever makes the most isk wins. Again, the looser has to pay a fine of 100mil isk to the looser.
4. Mission running, both corps have to complete as many missions as they can. Who ever completes the most missions wins. Looser has to pay a fine of 100mil to the winner.
5. Combat, same as before.
All wardec fees are removed. If the looser can not pay the fee within one week, the corp is disbanded, and the CEO is banned from forming a new corp until the fine has been payed in full. There we go, no one is forced to do anything they don't want to do. After all, nobody is forcing you to declare war.
Sounds like fair game to me.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 12:06:00 -
[8]
Quote: Declaring an empire war should work in regions, and should require establishing an empire based (high or low sec) POS in that region. Add a diplomacy module or some such that would be mounted to a POS. The aggressed corp would be made aware of which POS/POSes are allowing their aggressor to operate.
bad idea so far.
Quote: The main point of this is that it gives the aggressed something to attack, as was claimed in some other ideas some kind of victory condition, that can allow them to win and end a war, and return to normalcy. By contrast, a lot of merc and pirate corps use wars to take down POS and grief, but they themselves have little to lose if they don't have a POS up or conduct any empire side logistics, and can often therefore maintain aggression indefinately.
In my opinion alliances with Sovereignty shouldnt be wardeccable. You should be forced to go into 0.0 and attack them that way if you have a gripe.
Having this be the same thing for empire is just a bad idea.
Sure it would kind of good idea... but wardecs are supposed to be simple and petty and griefy. That's the whole point. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 19:32:00 -
[9]
That would only add to the cost of war deccing someone. Not supported.
I'd rather see an increase in the price to war dec a corp though. 1 mil is laughable at best. My siggy ran away... |
Grann Thefauto
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 19:34:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Grann Thefauto on 01/05/2009 19:35:16 This is silly. If anything just makes war deccing smaller corps more expensive and have the cost increase over time. Easier fix and make maintaining a war indefinitely very expensive on the aggressors.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |