Gabriel Locke
Sabotage Incorporated
Executive Outcomes
2
   |
Posted - 2013.10.02 09:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Everyone ever wrote:
Abloobloobloo, the GEWNS will take all my stuff.
Having to form up a fleet and deploy to some Highsec backwater every time a bunch of neckbeards want lower PI taxes? Replacing structures all over the universe until Logistics start crying? Yeah, that sounds like a huge amount of fun for a Nullsec alliance.
The only reason I can see for the dreaded Goons going for highsec POCO conquest would be if it made highsec carebears cry in an amusing fashion... OH WAIT, YOU'RE DOING IT ALREADY.
|
Gabriel Locke
Sabotage Incorporated
Executive Outcomes
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 12:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Chamile Eonic wrote:Can anyone explain why we need to be at war with the owner of the POCO?
From a game mechanics point of view it makes it much harder for small corps to get involved in the whole POCO bashing thing. While big groups can fight over them until Goons own the majority, wouldn't it be more interesting to have everyone fighting over them?
I assume there is something I am missing to explain why the wardec is needed.
This actually protects the little guys. If you didn't have to be at war, a large alliance could simply roll through highsec willy-nilly destroying POCO's. By forcing them to wardec each POCO owner they wish to nab, they have to spend time and prepare for the assault. This allows a little guy to call in allies, to setup defense fleets, etc. Furthermore, you could conceivable control 10 planets in a system, each under the ownership of a distinct corp, which stretches the resources required by a large group to claim all of your POCO's. Couple this with the ability to have those 10 POCO's come out every other hour of the day, and it will be an utter nightmare for an opponent to claim all your POCOs. This isn't really true. Sure the large alliance could roll through highsec killing reinforcing player owned customs offices, but the advantages you ascribe to the wardec scenario for the little guy are many times magnified if its a suspect flag situation. You can still call in allies, setup defence fleets, pretty traps etc because the large alliance fleet hitting the office will be suspect. And you'd be able to do it with some true surprise because lack of wardecs = unexpected escalations. And of course the cost for wardec fee is many times more significant for the little guys than the large alliance. Cost to grief a small outfit out of its POCO? = peanuts. Cost to take it back + hire mercs + fund friend's wardecs (billions a week). No way can that be said to protect any small power. So in essence no, it doesn't protect the little guys, it actively hinders them. (Which admittedly may be the point of the devblog and feature.)
Agreed.
I'm going to assume the point of the highsec POCO changes is to give large corps/small alliances that are too small to own Sov something to fight for and to have a stake in (as well as extra income).
If the barriers to entry in the POCO smashing game are low, it would mean that POCOs could only really be maintained by alliances that are deployed in or near that system on a fairly permanent basis. So a large corp/small alliance would be able to hold POCOs in their home system and nearby, but anyone that wasn't deployed there full-time would get pushed out easily.
This would make it almost impossible for large nullsec alliances to hold hundreds of POCOs across highsec, as any one of them could be attacked at any time by any number of smaller alliances that actually live there, and trying to redeploy fleets all over highsec playing whack-a-mole would be completely unfeasable (not to mention boring).
Also, it doesn't make sense that Concord would defend a POCO that is essentially defying Empire tax collection.
|