Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
LetGÇÖs face it, the current war mechanics could be improved. I think they are well-intended, but fall short in some areas. Right now wars canGÇÖt be won or lost; they are nothing more than a bribe so Concord will look the other way. A small 3 person corp using cloaked T3 ships can shutdown operations for a much larger corp while avoiding all fights but easy kills. It would be nice if wars encouraged fleet warfare and had an obtainable end goal.
I have an idea that could help wars feel a lot more like wars. First, my goal is to keep the existing war mechanics as similar as possible. Anyone who can declare wars now should still be able to. 3 vs 100+ wars might not work as well, but should they?
When a war is declared the aggressor deploys an object in space, we will call it the GÇ£War Hub.GÇ¥ No anchoring skills or standings required; it can be deployed anywhere in any system and remains for the durration of the war. It would be small enough to carry with any ship and would not require a module to deploy. Once deployed it becomes invisible and invulnerable to all natural parties and cannot be moved.
There is still the standard 24 hour wait after deploying the hub before fighting is legal. After that, pilots from the aggressing corp that wish to participate in the war must fly to the War Hub once every 24 hours to check in (an action that requires 2,500m proximity). Corp members that do not check in cannot legally attack or be attacked. DefenderGÇÖs corp ships may always be attacked.
If the defending corp wants to make the war mutual they must deploy their own War Hub (also takes 24 hours to take effect). At that point no one can avoid being attacked; all corp members on both sides are legal targets.
The war ends instantly if the defending corp finds and destroys the War Hub (limited engagement timers still have effect). If the war was mutual then the corp with the remaining hub becomes the aggressor and normal check-in rules apply at their hub. If the aggressor chooses to end the war or does not pay the renewal, then after the standard 24-hour cooldown the hub is removed from space and the war is over. The war history should show if the hub was destoryed in combat.
War Hubs can be found with combat probes, but only by someone involved in the war. The aggressor can deploy their hub in low or null and use a POS to defend it, but pilots still need to check-in daily. The hub should have 500,000 EHP (25,000 shield and 25,000 armor with 90% pan resists for both), shields do not auto regenerate. All corp members with an active check-in will be alerted if the hub comes under attack. It can be supported by logistics (by checked-in war targets only, non checked-in corp members would get a suspect flag, it is invisible to neutrals).
The addition of the war hub creates a point of combat where fleet battles can take place. Defenders who want to end the war early would seak it out, agressors would show up if they are looking for a fight or want to defend their investment in the war. Yes, it does somewhat resemble a capture the flag game. Questions or thoughts? |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Expanding on the idea a little, you could do some interesting things. Perhaps the War Hub could be put into GÇ£BattlefieldGÇ¥ mode, which would allow 3 warfare links to be installed, giving its war members in system bonuses when they are engaged with war targets. When in battlefield mode its resistances would go up to 98% (2,500,000 EHP), but its location would be broadcast to the opposing corporation. |

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
1898
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Expanding on the idea a little, you could do some interesting things. Perhaps the War Hub could be put into GÇ£BattlefieldGÇ¥ mode, which would allow 3 warfare links to be installed, giving its war members in system bonuses when they are engaged with war targets. When in battlefield mode its resistances would go up to 98% (2,500,000 EHP), but its location would be broadcast to the opposing corporation.
homefield advantage? Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Paul Panala wrote:Expanding on the idea a little, you could do some interesting things. Perhaps the War Hub could be put into GÇ£BattlefieldGÇ¥ mode, which would allow 3 warfare links to be installed, giving its war members in system bonuses when they are engaged with war targets. When in battlefield mode its resistances would go up to 98% (2,500,000 EHP), but its location would be broadcast to the opposing corporation. homefield advantage?
Exactly, but it also publishes where your homefield is. Just a thought, maybe 2,500,000 EHP is too much. Really my OP is my main idea, this was just an after thought. |

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
1898
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote: When a war is declared the aggressor deploys an object in space, we will call it the GÇ£War Hub.GÇ¥ No anchoring skills or standings required; it can be deployed anywhere in any system and remains for the durration of the war. It would be small enough to carry with any ship and would not require a module to deploy. Once deployed it becomes invisible and invulnerable to all natural parties and cannot be moved.
I re-read this.
No. No cloaked hub, no no anchor skill, and no anchored anywhere.
uncloaked, big as a POCO but less ehp, anchored at celestials/moons, and destructible, also should be allowed for both parties if you want it to provide boosts.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Paul Panala wrote: When a war is declared the aggressor deploys an object in space, we will call it the GÇ£War Hub.GÇ¥ No anchoring skills or standings required; it can be deployed anywhere in any system and remains for the durration of the war. It would be small enough to carry with any ship and would not require a module to deploy. Once deployed it becomes invisible and invulnerable to all natural parties and cannot be moved.
I re-read this. No. No cloaked hub, no no anchor skill, and no anchored anywhere. uncloaked, big as a POCO but less ehp, anchored at celestials/moons, and destructible, also should be allowed for both parties if you want it to provide boosts.
My goal was to make a minor change to the way wars are dec'ed, requiring ancoring skils and standings would make wars hard to declar. Maybe require ancoring skills to put the hub in this battlefield mode, but like I said, that was just a silly after thought. |

Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour Hopeless Addiction
233
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Having served in the military and been in real wars the last thing you want to do is make eve war more 'real'
Eve is full of timers and structures to manage anyways why add another one.
Currently is a 3 man corp can shut down a 100 man corp then the 100 man corp is doing it wrong.
Afterall is a galaxy that is controlled by mega corps and fanatical empire goverments why wouldn't a war dec between small private corperation be anything other than a bride to the authorities to allow them to attack one another.
Within the context of the game world the current war mechanics are prossible the most logical outcome. No to more structure crap. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Having served in the military and been in real wars the last thing you want to do is make eve war more 'real'
Eve is full of timers and structures to manage anyways why add another one.
Currently is a 3 man corp can shut down a 100 man corp then the 100 man corp is doing it wrong.
Afterall is a galaxy that is controlled by mega corps and fanatical empire goverments why wouldn't a war dec between small private corperation be anything other than a bride to the authorities to allow them to attack one another.
Within the context of the game world the current war mechanics are prossible the most logical outcome. No to more structure crap.
In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
Someone who is good at flying a cloaky T3, has the patience to scout around and only starts fights he knows he can win will cause a lot of trouble to a mid-sized high-sec corp. I am not saying the dec'ers will never lose a ship, but they will probably kill a lot more than they lose. Meanwhile defending corp members are not able to do anything but chase cloaked ships who don't want to fight them. It becomes this stupid standoff that you as the defender can't control. It is extra frustrating when you know that you are so over powered that you could smash the space dust out of them if they would just engage. After a while you start to see people getting bored and not logging in as much.
I just feel like if you have a fleet, you want to fight, and you are at war, there should be something to shoot at. If the players involved chose to stay docked because they know they can't beet you, then you should be able to end the war. |

Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour Hopeless Addiction
234
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote: In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
Someone who is good at flying a cloaky T3, has the patience to scout around and only starts fights he knows he can win will cause a lot of trouble to a mid-sized high-sec corp. I am not saying the dec'ers will never lose a ship, but they will probably kill a lot more than they lose. Meanwhile defending corp members are not able to do anything but chase cloaked ships who don't want to fight them. It becomes this stupid standoff that you as the defender can't control. It is extra frustrating when you know that you are so over powered that you could smash the space dust out of them if they would just engage. After a while you start to see people getting bored and not logging in as much.
I just feel like if you have a fleet, you want to fight, and you are at war, there should be something to shoot at. If the players involved chose to stay docked because they know they can't beet you, then you should be able to end the war.
nah. If a 100 man corp is shut down by a 3 man corp then they need to learn how to operate under a dec.
If they aren't pvp types and have no interest in fighting other players there is no need to give then a structure to shoot?! They leave a 'caretaker' toon in the corp and all drop to npc for the duration of the dec. The attacking corp then just gets blueballed. If a corp want to fight the war then a 3 man corp can do some damage but the addition of structures to HS wars just plays more into the null corp hands and wont help HS carebear corps at all. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 03:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Paul Panala wrote: In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
Someone who is good at flying a cloaky T3, has the patience to scout around and only starts fights he knows he can win will cause a lot of trouble to a mid-sized high-sec corp. I am not saying the dec'ers will never lose a ship, but they will probably kill a lot more than they lose. Meanwhile defending corp members are not able to do anything but chase cloaked ships who don't want to fight them. It becomes this stupid standoff that you as the defender can't control. It is extra frustrating when you know that you are so over powered that you could smash the space dust out of them if they would just engage. After a while you start to see people getting bored and not logging in as much.
I just feel like if you have a fleet, you want to fight, and you are at war, there should be something to shoot at. If the players involved chose to stay docked because they know they can't beet you, then you should be able to end the war.
nah. If a 100 man corp is shut down by a 3 man corp then they need to learn how to operate under a dec. If they aren't pvp types and have no interest in fighting other players there is no need to give then a structure to shoot?! They leave a 'caretaker' toon in the corp and all drop to npc for the duration of the dec. The attacking corp then just gets blueballed. If a corp want to fight the war then a 3 man corp can do some damage but the addition of structures to HS wars just plays more into the null corp hands and wont help HS carebear corps at all.
I never said they didn't want to fight. Lets say they do. But the dec'ers avoid any combat that isn't a sure win for them. This happened to me not too long ago. Night after night we went around looking for a fight, they stayed docked or cloaked for hours just watching us with neut alts. As soon as someone said "screw it, I am going to do something else," they would get picked off. How does that make any sense at all? To suggest they should leave the corp and avoid the fight...where is the fun in that??? What if we want to fight??? Why should we have to run and hide when we are the more powerful corp? |

Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour Hopeless Addiction
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 09:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Paul Panala wrote: In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
Someone who is good at flying a cloaky T3, has the patience to scout around and only starts fights he knows he can win will cause a lot of trouble to a mid-sized high-sec corp. I am not saying the dec'ers will never lose a ship, but they will probably kill a lot more than they lose. Meanwhile defending corp members are not able to do anything but chase cloaked ships who don't want to fight them. It becomes this stupid standoff that you as the defender can't control. It is extra frustrating when you know that you are so over powered that you could smash the space dust out of them if they would just engage. After a while you start to see people getting bored and not logging in as much.
I just feel like if you have a fleet, you want to fight, and you are at war, there should be something to shoot at. If the players involved chose to stay docked because they know they can't beet you, then you should be able to end the war.
nah. If a 100 man corp is shut down by a 3 man corp then they need to learn how to operate under a dec. If they aren't pvp types and have no interest in fighting other players there is no need to give then a structure to shoot?! They leave a 'caretaker' toon in the corp and all drop to npc for the duration of the dec. The attacking corp then just gets blueballed. If a corp want to fight the war then a 3 man corp can do some damage but the addition of structures to HS wars just plays more into the null corp hands and wont help HS carebear corps at all. I never said they didn't want to fight. Lets say they do. But the dec'ers avoid any combat that isn't a sure win for them. This happened to me not too long ago. Night after night we went around looking for a fight, they stayed docked or cloaked for hours just watching us with neut alts. As soon as someone said "screw it, I am going to do something else," they would get picked off. How does that make any sense at all? To suggest they should leave the corp and avoid the fight...where is the fun in that??? What if we want to fight??? Why should we have to run and hide when we are the more powerful corp?
That my friend is were you start setting traps. if you have 100 people in your corp get some to setup some neutral alts to monitor their alts and mains. go run a mission but in a pvp bait ship. Trap them, gank them and drink their tears.
It was boring because you played it their way. Figure out your own way that is fun for you and have at them! If you need a hand think about hiring some mercs to get you combat ready or gather intel on them and start setting up to take them out. If they are the griefing kind then they will quickly move onto a softer target. If they are in it for the isk then make them lose a couple of those super Tech 3 ships they like and they'll move onto another target.
Above all don't let someone else dictate how you play this game of ours.
Fly dangerous and have fun o7 That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
307
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 13:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
I kind of like the idear, but i agree it should be the size of a POCO and visible for everyone.
One said if the 100 man wont fight they wont blow up a HUB.. Well that even a better reson to hire mercs, to give them a task posible.
Ill have to add this WAR HUB should be launched in the region you wana fight the targets. It will make no sence to have a high sec war going but the HUB are in the middle of NULL.
Nisroc Angels Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
|

Dasola
Rookie Empire Citizens Rookie Empire
142
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 14:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lol how much more real you want war in eve to be? Destruction of npc stations? Prevent clone usage on that station. Sabotage of corporate hangars, destruction of jumpgates, etc...
How ever i dont like this war object thingy, would make highsec wars like structure grinding that everyone hates in 0.0... Quess why 0.0 is so peacefull right now? Becouse everyone hates structure shooting...
Want those warlinks? Get someone that can actually fly commandship. Thats valuable target all ready and im sure opposing force will try kill it.
Heck even regular battlecruiser can fit couple links...
There was idea of victory conditions before current incarnation of wardeck mechanics hit us... Sadly developers didint implement those... That would have been nice way to determine victory or defeat in war. Maybe those highsec griefer corps would actually start wardecking worthy targets once their stats would start to show: War- Defeated (Not enought inflicted damage)..........
Yes im sure we all agree theres still plenty of things in wardecking that could be improved. Im sure even empty headed developers have some ideas still left they might want to implement over time... After all we now have brave new development model of eve... Small changes often, instead of one massive patch....
[Insert something funny or smart here]
Good lord has set me on path, sometimes im confused about what he wants from me. But path leads on, towards why he placed me on this wonderfull planet... |

Elvis Fett
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
191
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 15:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:
In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
I was unaware they got rid of acceleration gates for high-sec missions. Apparently D-Scan doesn't work in high-sec either? |

Banly
Liandri Sanctuary Corps Liandri Covenant
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 17:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Wars do not have an objective other than what the participates (both willing and forced) set for themselves. If the attackers goal is to get as many easy kills in a week as possible it sounds like they are doing a good job. If your goal is to lose no ships during the war it sounds like you are losing. Adding a forced objective to the war mechanic is not going to provide a benefit for anyone except people who are too simple minded to realize that setting your own goals and having to deal with other players goals are some of the main ideas in eve.
Change your goals and tactics to force your attackers to decide this war is not worth fighting. Sit in station or drop to an NPC corp so that you don't provide any targets for them, hire mercenaries to attack them for you, go out there in cheap frigates and have fun annoying them, set traps and see if you can catch one of them, bribe them to stop the war... endless possibilities. If you can't ruin their goals, change your own goals to make the war more fulfilling for yourself. If that means you really want a structure to shoot at do some research - they probably have a POCO or POS somewhere and you can call blowing that up a victory.
Wars only last a week or so in a game where flying a ship competently can takes months of work. Just have fun playing and if you aren't go do something else for a while until the war is over.
Paul Panala wrote:LetGÇÖs face it, the current war mechanics could be improved. I think they are well-intended, but fall short in some areas. Right now wars canGÇÖt be won or lost; they are nothing more than a bribe so Concord will look the other way. A small 3 person corp using cloaked T3 ships can shutdown operations for a much larger corp while avoiding all fights but easy kills. It would be nice if wars encouraged fleet warfare and had an obtainable end goal.
|

Manu Militari
La Familia Alvilla
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 18:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Paul Panala wrote: In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
Someone who is good at flying a cloaky T3, has the patience to scout around and only starts fights he knows he can win will cause a lot of trouble to a mid-sized high-sec corp. I am not saying the dec'ers will never lose a ship, but they will probably kill a lot more than they lose. Meanwhile defending corp members are not able to do anything but chase cloaked ships who don't want to fight them. It becomes this stupid standoff that you as the defender can't control. It is extra frustrating when you know that you are so over powered that you could smash the space dust out of them if they would just engage. After a while you start to see people getting bored and not logging in as much.
I just feel like if you have a fleet, you want to fight, and you are at war, there should be something to shoot at. If the players involved chose to stay docked because they know they can't beet you, then you should be able to end the war.
nah. If a 100 man corp is shut down by a 3 man corp then they need to learn how to operate under a dec. If they aren't pvp types and have no interest in fighting other players there is no need to give then a structure to shoot?! They leave a 'caretaker' toon in the corp and all drop to npc for the duration of the dec. The attacking corp then just gets blueballed. If a corp want to fight the war then a 3 man corp can do some damage but the addition of structures to HS wars just plays more into the null corp hands and wont help HS carebear corps at all. I never said they didn't want to fight. Lets say they do. But the dec'ers avoid any combat that isn't a sure win for them. This happened to me not too long ago. Night after night we went around looking for a fight, they stayed docked or cloaked for hours just watching us with neut alts. As soon as someone said "screw it, I am going to do something else," they would get picked off. How does that make any sense at all? To suggest they should leave the corp and avoid the fight...where is the fun in that??? What if we want to fight??? Why should we have to run and hide when we are the more powerful corp?
It's called Guerrilla Warfare. It's how the American revolution was won. If your the more powerful force don't fall into their terms. You are at war you know? Times of war call for drastic changes to everything you do. Be prepared to assist each other at a moments notice, only run missions w friendlies in system, always be in a pvp ship. Adapt.
Sent from iPhone |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 18:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Elvis Fett wrote:Paul Panala wrote:
In null and low you are right, the big corps are able to hold their own because the game mechanics work in their favor. In high sec, yes a 3 person corp can shutdown a 100 person corp. All it takes are some cloaked T3 ships and a few trial account scouts in neut corps they can pretty much pick and choose their fights at will. Pick off mission running ships, mining ships, low skill point members all they want. When they see a fleet or a high skill point player they just stay cloaked.
I was unaware they got rid of acceleration gates for high-sec missions. Apparently D-Scan doesn't work in high-sec either?
What are you even talking about? Missions??? |

Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 12:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aggressors shouldn't be able to dock unless in a pod. |

Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch The Bloody Ronin Syndicate
381
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 20:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
no |

Shadow Adanza
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 06:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
I like the idea of being able to 'win' wars, but this... This is not it. Hey! You're no zombie! |

Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
239
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 08:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Wars in High sec!
I mean c'mon people! The empire governments and concord aren't going to allow a full on war! The only thing that is feasible is a bride to concord to look the other way while you smack around some immortal pod pilot....
War in eve is null sov. and maybe just a little of FW.
War Decs are just a bribe. Take it as that and get over it! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Princess Saskia
Hyperfleet Industries xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
63
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 11:42:00 -
[22] - Quote
Make it so when you win a war you gain 40% of the shares of the corperation. Fighing for an influence rather than fighting for kills. AN OBJECTIVE!
/P Hyperfleet Industries is selectivly recruiting. Enquire today. Killboard
|

Hidden Snake
Hidden Squid Society
264
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 11:45:00 -
[23] - Quote
u in the wrong part of the eve .... go to FW ... or null wars ... both are broken, but might serve your needs.
FW has problem of farmers and pve mechanics ruining the system capturing mechanics and null is so static, that only massive blobs or massive amount of metagaming can change the map.
High sec wars really only the bribe (or fee) to Concort to not to pop u. |

Marsan
Caldari Provisions
87
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 16:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
I like this idea, but I don't think you should be able to anchor in NS or LS. The war mechanism is all about HS, and why give the Goons, Test and the like even more of an advantage in wars? A far as why this is needed is that the current war mechanism fails to provide interesting content. I've been in a number of wars, 95% of the time we'd form up a fleet, the opposing side would station up and talk smack, and only come out when the numbers were x2-4 in their favour. The only fights were station games, and the occasion us vs them vs x2 neutral logi. (Thankfully that's gone.) The result was we'd kick our hauler alts out of corp, and wait the war out in our wormhole, and occasional around in cloakies or standard LS travel fits. If I had any fun at all it was getting the other side to chase my BS/BC 6-10 hops before they gave up in disgust. The funny thing is in all the wars I never got them to follow me into LS or a wormhole. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a bitter small portion of the community. |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Someone EveMailed me asking why the War Hub should be cloaked and what the point of checking in is. I am going to reply here so everyone can see it.
The purpose of the check-ins goes along with my capture the flag mediator. The war hub can be hidden anywhere, in any system. If corp members did not have to check-in there would be no way to find the thing, unless you got very lucky. With check-ins required, the defender has an opportunity to scout enemy movements and find the hub. It also means the dec'ing corp will not want to deploy the hub too far from the war zone.
It isn't a true cloak. It is only invisible to neutral parties, if you are involved in the war, on either side, it is visible. The reason is to prevent war hub location sharing webpages from starting or using neutrals to probe a system the aggressors are trying to defend. I don't want it to be too easy to find. Wars should not become a joke.
I know another approach would be to make the hub known to both sides at the start of the war and not require any check-ins. However, then you would basically need a POS to guard it or they could come kill it within hours of the war starting. I also didn't want to use concepts like fuel or anchoring because I do not want to make it harder for young corporations to use. A corp made up of month old players should be able to war dec someone else without much more complexity than currently exists. |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Wars in High sec!
I mean c'mon people! The empire governments and concord aren't going to allow a full on war! The only thing that is feasible is a bride to concord to look the other way while you smack around some immortal pod pilot....
War in eve is null sov. and maybe just a little of FW.
War Decs are just a bribe. Take it as that and get over it!
Yes, War Decs are just a bribe, does that mean it can't be any better? People have the option to move to Null or join FW. But it should still be possible to have a high-sec war. I am trying to suggest options to make the war a little more interesting for both sides. Wars as they stand now suck, the sad truth is that high-sec players end up staying docked up and logged off during a war, I don't think that is good. I would like to give them something better to do during that time, something that will bring them into combat zones. |

Paul Panala
Among the Shadows
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Marsan wrote:I like this idea, but I don't think you should be able to anchor in NS or LS. The war mechanism is all about HS, and why give the Goons, Test and the like even more of an advantage in wars? A far as why this is needed is that the current war mechanism fails to provide interesting content. I've been in a number of wars, 95% of the time we'd form up a fleet, the opposing side would station up and talk smack, and only come out when the numbers were x2-4 in their favour. The only fights were station games, and the occasion us vs them vs x2 neutral logi. (Thankfully that's gone.) The result was we'd kick our hauler alts out of corp, and wait the war out in our wormhole, and occasional around in cloakies or standard LS travel fits. If I had any fun at all it was getting the other side to chase my BS/BC 6-10 hops before they gave up in disgust. The funny thing is in all the wars I never got them to follow me into LS or a wormhole.
I hear what you are saying about the War Hub location, I honestly debated that before posting. I went the way I did because I think more powerful corps should have some kind of an advantage. What if someone complained that wars are dumb because the hub gets popped too easily? The answer to that is, put up a POS and deploy the hub there. Meaning the corp with more power and resources has a better ability to keep the war going. Seems more realistic. I donGÇÖt think the War Hub should be able to be deployed inside a control towerGÇÖs shields, but right outside in range of the defenses, sure. |

Marsan
Caldari Provisions
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Marsan wrote:I like this idea, but I don't think you should be able to anchor in NS or LS. The war mechanism is all about HS, and why give the Goons, Test and the like even more of an advantage in wars? I hear what you are saying about the War Hub location, I honestly debated that before posting. I went the way I did because I think more powerful corps should have some kind of an advantage. What if someone complained that wars are dumb because the hub gets popped too easily? The answer to that is, put up a POS and deploy the hub there. Meaning the corp with more power and resources has a better ability to keep the war going. Seems more realistic. I donGÇÖt think the War Hub should be able to be deployed inside a control towerGÇÖs shields, but right outside in range of the defenses, sure.
Are moons in HS without POS really that rare? (Never had the urge to setup a POS in HS.) I agree that having a POS involved would raise the bar hopefully. CCP will allow us to anchor POSes or their replacement every where. Also LS POS are pretty fragile due to Dreads. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a bitter small portion of the community. |

Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
240
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:Wars in High sec!
I mean c'mon people! The empire governments and concord aren't going to allow a full on war! The only thing that is feasible is a bride to concord to look the other way while you smack around some immortal pod pilot....
War in eve is null sov. and maybe just a little of FW.
War Decs are just a bribe. Take it as that and get over it! Yes, War Decs are just a bribe, does that mean it can't be any better? People have the option to move to Null or join FW. But it should still be possible to have a high-sec war. I am trying to suggest options to make the war a little more interesting for both sides. Wars as they stand now suck, the sad truth is that high-sec players end up staying docked up and logged off during a war, I don't think that is good. I would like to give them something better to do during that time, something that will bring them into combat zones.
TBH nothing you can do that will make people in HS fight wars if they are not so inclined.
I do like the idea of an objective for a 'war' in HS.
Maybe make it part of the 'bride to concord' That the war will end if you destroy xx isk in ships or take yy number of pods or destroy zz number of POS's. Those are tangible objectives that gives the target something to defend against so they don't 'Lose' a war. Maybe even changing the cost of war if it has a set objective.
From a story perspective it also gives concord a reason for doing what you are doing so if the officer you bribed gets audited can justify the action of the warring corps easier.......just throwing thoughts out there.
Wars DO NOT need more structures to shoot! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1067
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 02:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
I'm failing to see how anchorable structures make wars more like actual wars. I'm pretty sure that Germany didn't need to set up an kind of arbitrary structure in the middle of the ocean so they could invade Poland in 1939, also fairly sure they didn't have to pay an arbitrary sum to any overarching authority or allow Poland 24 hours notice prior to invading.
I'm also unsure exactly what structure anywhere in the world an the Iraqi republican guard could have blown up to magically end the coalition invasion of their country. There's also the cases of crazy VC soldiers hiding out in the jungle for decades fighting a war that has been over for decades against an enemy that isn't there anymore.
In reality wars typically don't come with a warning, rarely have formal declarations, may not actually have well defined beginnings or ends, don't often result in one side definitively "winning", spread around so that more and more previously uninvolved parties get involved, the objectives change constantly or even don't exist at all and often aren't even between well defined groups.
Adding meaningless structure grinding as a mandatory component of wars wouldn't make wars more like wars, it would make them less like wars and diminish their usefulness as a tool for people to actually achieve the objectives that they want to achieve. It's a pointless contrived pain in the ass that would serve as another reason for people in highsec not to bother fighting each other.
The war mechanics don't need any more senseless convolution, they need iteration that makes them a more viable option for the average highsec resident looking to shoot at a particular group of people for whatever reason.
If you want a war to end you can go and render the opposing party unable to fight or negotiate an agreement with them and guess what? That's how wars actually end, not with the destruction of a magical structure that has no actual purpose or value to anyone. |
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |