EVE Search - Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2815	Posted - 2015.10.27 06:38:40 - [1] - Quote (TLDR at the bottom) Here's an idea ive been thinking of for a while and after vehemently shouting down others peoples ideas on the same subject, its about time i posted my own. Some idea's you'll have read before, some not. What I hope to achieve is to add accessibility, meaning and more interesting gameplay to the wardec mechanic by tying it to a structure or a service module. The idea in a nutshell is that these structures/modules would be a requirement to make decs against other corps, make wars mutual or join decs between other corps. Similarly, the elimination of this structure would invalidate any wars the owning corp has made, make wars non-mutual again and end their involvement in any wars they have joined. I will refer to it simply as a War Head Quarters (WHQ) for now. GOALS -Lower entry level for wardecs. -Give defenders an incentive to undock and fight back. -Give attackers a reason to use their decs and discourage guerrilla warfare. -Enable mercenary contracts Planting the Thing A WHQ can only be anchored in a hi-sec system (or fitted to a citadel in a hi-sec system) and by corps that are more than 7 days old. The system in which the WHQ has been anchored/fitted becomes public knowledge in the corps info tab, but in order to warp to it you will still have to probe the WHQ or its structure down as normal. A corp can have only one WHQ set-up at a time and, in the case of an alliance, only the executor corp can set-up a WHQ. (Where corps with an existing WHQ join an alliance, the corps WHQ will become offline and cannot be onlined, either in favour of the alliances WHQ or until the alliance executor corp acquires their own WHQ. Regardless, a corps WHQ ceases to function once it becomes part of an alliance unless it is the executor corp AND it has a Large WHQ) Making the Decs Once the WHQ has been anchored/fit to a citadel it starts in an GÇÿOfflineGÇÖ state. Whilst in this state the owning corp cannot make any wardecs but at the same time the WHQ does not consume any fuel. The WHQ can be switched to being GÇÿOnlineGÇÖ through the corps tab by anyone with roles and immediately it starts consuming fuel. The owners can then start making outgoing decs against other corps, joining other war decs and making decs made against them by other corps mutual. The WHQ can be turned off again through the corp tab at any point, even when in the middle of a war dec. Doing this will retract any and all war decs made by the owning corp/alliance, make any decs theyGÇÖve made mutual un-mutual again and end their involvement in any wars they have joined. (Note: wardecs are not ended immediately. They go through their normal 24 hour cool down timers.) Likewise the WHQ can be involuntarily GÇÿofflinedGÇÖ, through the use of the entosis link, a structure bash or the combination of the two. The exact details are a matter I leave open to discussion, but I suggest this process take several steps and a couple of days (upto three), to allow for an organised defence but also be quick enough to make a significant difference in a dec that is only a week long. Assuming the WHQ is a stand alone structure, when the bash is over, or the WHQ has been entosised to completion, rather than be destroyed or revert to an GÇÿOfflineGÇÖmode it becomes GÇÿDisabledGÇÖ. Whilst disabled the WHQ behaves much like it does when it is offlined in that it consumes no fuel and all decs are ended or made un-mutual. The difference being is that a disabled WHQ cannot be un-anchored or onlined again for a period (probably 7 days). During this time the corp/alliance is effectively unable to take part in any wars save for incoming decs. Once the WHQGÇÖs disabled timer has ended it resets to an Offline mode again with full HP etc. And is ready to go again. The point of this whole mechanic is to discourage corps from conducting decs in a guerrilla style war where attackers have no exposure. Instead they will be required to defend their WHQ rather than remaining docked or face losing the ability to wage further wars. And the point of disabling a WHQ rather than destroying it is to prevent owners simply anchoring new WHQGÇÖs every time one gets destroyed, further committing them to defending it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2815	Posted - 2015.10.27 06:43:01 - [2] - Quote The WHQGÇÖs Themselves I propose two separate forms of this structure/service module. The first, and smaller of the two, is designed for more casual war deccing corps and to provide a low entry barrier for people wishing to PvP with other corps. It would be cheap to buy and fuel but it would also be quicker to disable and it has a limit to the amount of decs the corp can make, join or make mutual. I suggest putting this limit to about 5 decs and all outgoing, joined and mutual decs count towards this limit. So a corp with a small WHQ could have two outgoing decs, joined as an ally in two other wars and be able to either start or join one other war. The second would be a large version of the above, with a higher cost to build and fuel and much harder to disable. The other advantage of using a large WHQ, besides it being tougher, would be that war decs are unlimited. This would be the WHQ that would be used by the more professional wardeccing groups and the ONLY WHQ that can be utilised by an alliance (and it must be owned by the executor corp). The Wardec Costs War decs should still cost isk to start and should still run on weekly intervals, but I imagine the fuel costs of running these structures/service modules will absorb at least a small amount of that. Say each war dec costs 20mil isk for a week, but the large WHQ itself costs 30 mil of fuel a week to run for a total of 50mil a week. What this does is reduces the entry barrier for decs (the small WHQ will cost less to run) and reduces the cost per dec with the more decs you initiate (using the example above, starting three decs would cost 60 mil per week, plus the 30mil per week for fuel would make 90mil total per week, or 30mil per dec). With every dec the corp makes, they take on more risk that someone will attack, or pay to have someone attack, their WHQ. It makes sense to me that this increase in exposure should come with diminishing costs. It is also an answer to the oft made argument GÇÿif I pay for a week to shoot you I want a weekGÇÖ. This way you pay to start each dec, but you have to keep your ONE WHQ online against ALL your enemies and their allies to make them last a week. Personally I would prefer if war dec costs did not scale with the number of targets either. By deccing larger entities you are exposing yourself to more enemies and, like above, the increased exposure balances itself. Allies and joining a dec Allies would work similar to how they do now but with two major differences. First would be to allow allies to join on both the aggressing and defending sides. Currently the ally mechanic is entirely one sided toward the defender and if the aggressor wants to include allies to match those of the defender, their allies must dec the defender and each of the defenderGÇÖs allies in order to fully join the dec. By instead allowing both sides to have allies, war decs will be less complicated, less expensive, more open, more organic, more balanced and frankly more in keeping with human history. The second major change would be the added requirement that the joining corp/alliance also has a WHQ. What I hope to achieve by this is to create the interesting option of knocking your enemyGÇÖs allies out of a war by disabling their WHQ. Mercs and Contracts One of the major benefits I foresee with using a mechanic like this is that it will enable mercenary contracts. By creating contracts where payment is triggered by the disablement of a WHQ and the ending of a dec, mercenaries will have a way to offer assistance to defenders with a clear objective. The defenders will also be reassured by the fact that money is not transferred to the mercs until the contract is complete and the dec is sure to end. Such contracts will also enable players to hire mercs to deny other corps to wage war by disabling their WHQ, even pre-emptively if so desired. Likewise, mercs can be hired by aggressors in a dec to remove unwanted allies of the defenders. Corp duelling It had occurred to me that the proposed mechanic would mean groups like RvB could be prevented from doing their thing by trolls attacking their WHQGÇÖs. So I suggest a new mechanic be created where the duelling mechanic is adapted to work on a corp/alliance scale. One corp/alliance can request to duel another. The request costs no isk and does not require a WHQ. The GÇÿdefenderGÇÖ has 48 hours to answer and if the request is rejected, nothing happens. If the request is accepted the two corps enter a mutual war after a short waiting period (2-6 hours?). Allies can still join in a corp duel on any sides and any participant can decide to leave at any time. (a corp that wishes to leave need only wait for a cool down of an hour, or even a matter of minutes.) Corp duels last indefinitely or until all the participating corps of one side have left. TLDR Starting or joining wars requires you to anchor a structure (or fit a service module) in hi-sec first. The location is public knowledge and the defender can disable this structure by means of entosis link or structure bash to end the dec early. Corps that have their structure successfully attacked have their outgoing wars auto-invalidated, are kicked out of wars they have joined and lose the ability to wage or join wars for 7 days. Lower war dec costs. Allies on both attacking and defending sides. Allies can be GÇÿknocked outGÇÖ of wars by losing their structure. Mercs can be paid for attacking these structures. Corp duels allow groups like RvB to continue. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2822	Posted - 2015.10.30 10:28:05 - [3] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: It is an interesting concept, and it may help to make wars meaningful. In cases of mutual wars, neither side should be required to deploy a WHQ. The reason I wanted to include mutual wars in this mechanic is to allow attackers to fight their way out of wars that have been made mutual. For example, when a defender gets decced, then calls in 50 allies to wtfpwn the aggressors and makes the war mutual, I feel the attackers should have the same opportunity as the defender to fight their way out. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2822	Posted - 2015.10.30 10:40:01 - [4] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Why make it have to be scanned down? The exposure is a good thing, so why not have it in the open? On one hand, this is conceptually this is very sound. As you say, attackers have no exposure. On the other hand, you risk raising the bar too high for War Decs, and possibly making a situation where only very large groups can effectively wardec by having the numbers to both attack and defend simultaneously. The best fix for wardecs is to invert the cost. A small group wardeccing a larger one should be basically free. A large group wardeccing a smaller one should be expensive. Think about it. Smallish PVP corps could perma-dec Imperium, Marmite, PIRAT, etc etc, effectively playing sheriff on their bullying. Large antagonist consortiums could not wardec every last 4 member corp into oblivion blindly. Less complicated is better. The reason I wanted it to be scanned down was to make it behave like other structures. This was before I realised every anchored structure would be easily discoverable with a new piece of ui. I intend to alter things accordingly. I hope this wont raise the bar too high. A small Corp with a small whq deccing another small Corp will hopefully go relatively unnoticed by big groups more concerned with not over stretching themselves. An aggressing Corp can always deliberately plant their whq close to their targets to make it easier to attack and defend. And of course the defenders have the option of moving to make things more difficult for them too. Personally I feel the cost of a dec scaling with members is a bit 'gimmicky'. It can encourage groups to hang on to inactive members and create alts to make themselves more expensive to Dec or, done the other way, it can encourage groups to try and minimise their members, reject weak/New/players who are leas active due to RL to make themselves more expensive to Dec. Either way id prefer to detach cost to membership to allow players to freely hire or shed dead weight at their own discretion. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2823	Posted - 2015.10.30 13:30:57 - [5] - Quote Like wardecs now, the mechanic is very much focussed on hi-sec. Anyone with a whq could war Dec a WH Corp and try to take shots at them when they enter hi-sec and the WH Corp would be free to try and rid themselves of the Dec by attacking said whq. However, a WH Corp would not be able to anchor a whq in WH space and make or join decs from there. They'd have to plant a whq in hi-sec or be part of an alliance that maintains a whq in hisec if they wanted to take part in wars. Otherwise we would have the same guerilla warfare problem only switched. They would still be able to conduct Corp-duels instead. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2824	Posted - 2015.10.30 15:40:49 - [6] - Quote @ Donna worried you're expecting hand outs for smaller corps. The proposal gives an option defenders to end a dec early, but its not to make things easier on them 20v5 will still be one sided. I personally dont see a problem with that. Donnachadh wrote: Entosis This is entirely upto debate, but i suggest an Entosis link contest in its entirety should take around 2-3 days with several reinforce phases to make sure of this. Small ships doing the entosis'ing do not get protection. In a manner of speaking, entosis'ing the structure is an invitation for open battle scheduled for when the structure passes through certain reinforce timers. The defender may or may not answer the call, but no one is granted any bias (except maybe the structure owner if it comes to an entosis tug of war). Donnachadh wrote: Bash This dev blog and specifically damage mitigation addresses your concerns here. Donnachadh wrote: Other thoughts. At the moment my proposal essentially changes nothing for 100v20 wars. This can be changed to a system that we have in sov now where the entosis tug of war is conducted in sites that spawn across the constellation. This forces groups to split up but is not a complete answer to the N+1 'problem'. I believe numbers being asymmetrical is part of the sand box and is answered by other means eg. You can make/hire more friends, attack outside enemy time zones, bring tougher ships etc etc What my idea DOES do, from the perspective of Marmite, is give every single one of their targets a single structure to focus their efforts against. So having 100 active wars with potentially 1000s of players will make it harder and harder to defend that one structure. And once that structure goes down, all their out going wars are ended. For this reason my proposal may encourage groups like marmite to be more conservative about their decs, forget about the less significant decs of 100v20 and focus instead on decs that are more meaningful to them. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2824	Posted - 2015.10.31 01:36:31 - [7] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: If a defender isn't willing to bash the structure within their home system, then they're certainly not going to travel to the attacker's home system. That being said, those that are willing to bash to defend their home system, likely wouldn't have the means to OMGWTFGGFACEPWN the aggressor within their home system. Not every aggressor can overpower their target in a straight fight. They often dock up when the defenders bring a fight and wait it out until an easy kill is available. But my proposal changes nothing for helpless defenders who cannot/will not fight back against their aggressors. They are still free to dock up/log off for a week. All my proposal does is give them the option to end the dec early. I am not trying to hand freebies to the defenders or make it a massive pain in the arse for aggressors to conduct wars. Just trying to create some balance where aggressors have a soft target that means something to them. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2824	Posted - 2015.10.31 01:53:35 - [8] - Quote @ Pedro 1) This is something that is open to discussion. We can do anything with it from vulnerability timers, to entosis contests or damage mitigation. Whichever way its done, there will be several phases of 'breaks' and timers in between assaults that will allow the owners to organise themselves. Personally i dont want vulnerability timers. I dont think they are necessary when the bash could instead be a 2, 3 or 4 step process with timers between each step. But if vulnerability timers are preferred and make this idea better then we can do that. 2) Corp hopping is a separate issue. I'd personally solve it with corp hop-cool downs and the proposal that a corp less than 7 days old cannot anchor a structure of this type. Plus making corps more expensive to make. 3) There is no absolute safety in this mechanic. It is everything we have now, plus the option of ending a dec early by un-docking and exposing yourself to the very people who want to kill you. And not only that but it encourages the aggressors themselves to come out and fight rather than play station games. It does not prevent conflict, it will accelerate conflict and destruction compared to what we have now. Black Pedro wrote: Wars are here to stay. They are needed to remove structures in highsec. For citadels this apparently will now take more than 7 days forcing someone who just wants to clear a citadel out of their system to have to renew the war at least once. CCP is not going to make it so that if you manage to shoot my WHQ while I am sleeping at some point during those 8-14 days, your structure is 100% safe. In my proposal the WHQ owners will have a matter of days to respond and timers to tell them when to respond. Ive been part of war decs that have taken more than 7 days to destroy a POS. If you're that serious about removing a structure, you'll extend the dec. If your not, you wont. Meaningful choices need to be made. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2824	Posted - 2015.10.31 02:05:21 - [9] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: This especially. With the way citadels are turning out, any way to pre-emptively end the war stands to make it impossible to actually destroy structures in highsec. Which is so unacceptable that it's hard to put in words. Im not as skeptical. Large structures should attract the attention of large aggressors and will need powerful groups to maintain and defend. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2824	Posted - 2015.10.31 14:02:03 - [10] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Your proposal would also mean that during those 7 days I also have to continuously guard a button, and if I can't log in for whatever reason to protect it when it comes out of reinforce, say because it is in the middle of the week and I am at work or sleeping, then the defenders can invalidate the war without my consent and their structures are 100% safe. Im not worried about this. POS owners have been anchoring structures in hi-sec for years with the risk that people can attack their stuff in the middle of the week. Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors. People have still been putting up POSs and people will still make wardecs to take down citadels. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2826	Posted - 2015.11.02 10:25:30 - [11] - Quote Who's chickenshit or 'elite' is irrelevant. Black Pedro wrote: The problem isn't that the attacker has something at risk - I actually support that. The problem is that the defender's structures are now immune to attack by any attacker who cannot babysit a WHQ for 7 days. CCP isn't going to release something like that. That isn't engaging game play: declare war to remove your bitter rival's citadel only to log in the next weekend to find that they and their structures are now immune to you because you were not able to to show up to that 4am reinforce timer. It stifles conflict and provides too much safety. Disputes over structures should be settled by a fight on-grid with that structure, not prevented from happening because someone couldn't defend a WHQ. POS owners have been babysitting structures for 7 days and longer during decs whilst their aggressors were just as immune. This has apparently been fine for years. But if it worries you that much, we can propose that reinforcement timers in hi-sec are shorter than 6 days. Just like they will be different in WH's. My proposal that gives defenders and incentive to fight back, outside of station games, is immeasurably better gameplay than what we have now. And will still be better gameplay when people are defending their citadels against wardeccers that have no assets of their own. Black Pedro wrote: I can tell you that I would not declare war with my small corp under that situation. Even if I did, I am not capable of being online to defend a structure for 7 days straight making it likely that my opponent would be immune to us by the time the final reinforcement phase of a citadel rolled around. Instead, I would be forced to join one of the large wardec alliances (or hire them) who are capable of defending their WHQ 23.5/7. This will not hinder the large wardec alliances - it will make them stronger by forcing the smaller entities to consolidate with them and further magnify the discrepancy in the capability of the two sides of a wardec. Sure, once in a blue moon a nullsec entity will come by and smash their WHQ disrupting their operations for a week, but the rest of the time it will just be business as usual for them which will be booming as the smaller guys will all have been put out of business. Thats the point. Just like we've been telling people they need to make friends and work hard if they want to own assets, aggressors will have to also make friends and work hard to take down the same assets. Your small corp could always use a small WHQ and indulge in a fewer amount of decs at a lower cost. You dont have to dec people with citadels, you can leave that to the bigger and more serious groups. If the people you have decced roll up and knock your WHQ, you get a few chances for a fight, if you miss them, you just cant dec again for 7 days. This is not a huge punishment for people who do not rely on war decs for content and do not dec that often. We tell corps and solo players that their playstyle gets no special favours. if they want to be more effective they should join together to make larger groups, 'its a multi-player game after all' and all that. Im bringing the same concepts to war decs. You dont get any special treatment and if you cant/wont defend what you own, you didnt deserve it anyways. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2827	Posted - 2015.11.02 12:36:32 - [12] - Quote You can entosis their Service Modules (maybe including the WHQ if it is a module) without having to destroy the entire citadel. So they wont enjoy all the benefits of their citadel during its reinforce period. Small corps could effectively dec other small corps with this proposal. But what will become much harder to do is 3 man corps troll-deccing a 200man alliance for easy miner kills. And that is a good thing. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2827	Posted - 2015.11.02 13:22:43 - [13] - Quote If this proposal prevents an aggressor making a dec because they fear the defender will be too strong for them, then that is as good a meaningful decision as we can hope for and it will be working as intended. im not apathetic to the 'road block' im putting up. But war decs as they are have little to no counter play. This is my suggestion for the way forward and tweaking, balance passes etc can be used to fine tune it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2827	Posted - 2015.11.02 13:41:52 - [14] - Quote Mechanics like reinforce timers and damage mitigation are there so you dont have to babysit anything 24 hours a day. I agree it is easy to mitigate a war through avoidance, and i agree that should be addressed. But this idea is fairly independent of that and is simply to introduce more direct counter play that is sorely lacking. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2828	Posted - 2015.11.02 13:58:18 - [15] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: You proposal is like setting up a "pre-war" before the real war can happen. If I want to remove your citadel I should be able to try, even if I am just three dudes and you are a corporation of 20. If you win on the battlefield, well played and you earned the right to keep using that structure. If you shoot some beacon I am suppose to protect while I was at work, well then you haven't even given me a chance to attack. This proposal lets you try and opens a battlefield around your WHQ. If you win, well played and you earn the right to keep using that WHQ. Black Pedro wrote: The structure is effectively 100% safe from me - it is literally impossible for my corp to kill that structure. Citadel reinforce timers can be adjusted Much like it is impossible for weak corps to operate during a war dec, your corp can also change how it does things to increase its chances of success, like hire more people. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2828	Posted - 2015.11.02 14:15:03 - [16] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: "Push button, get safety" is absolutely unacceptable. Or "orbit with entosis, get safety". The problem is that your proposal raises the barrier of effort immensely for the attacker, to a degree that functionally takes the mechanic out of the hands of small groups and individuals completely, and drastically lowers the barrier of effort for the defender, to that of an F1 of an entosis link. Your mechanic would in every way encourage the defender to actively not fight, but instead to **** around with the already toxic entosis mechanic instead of actually risking anything more than a T1 frigate with an jesus laser. Do you not see the problem there? I dont. The entosis event or bash takes a matter of days. The defender is exposed for the duration of this event and its only 'push button, get safety' if the WHQ owner never turns up. Thats assuming it uses the entosis mechanic at all. If it is preferred it can be tied to a bash and made immune to entosis links. It doesnt just drastically lower the barrier of effort for defenders, it allows them to do something that otherwise was impossible no matter how much effort you put in. But does so at the price of exposing yourself to the very people trying to attack you. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2828	Posted - 2015.11.02 14:20:20 - [17] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Much like it is impossible for weak corps to operate during a war dec It's absolutely possible. Not only that, it's downright easy. Much like it is easy to entosis/siege a citadel even if you are a 3 man corp deccing a 20 man corp if no one turns up to defend it. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2828	Posted - 2015.11.02 14:33:35 - [18] - Quote You're assuming things that have yet to be determined. If the entosis event needs to take longer, then it can be made so. If we need to remove the entosis mechanic from the proposal entirely and make it a bash, then that can also be done. If you decide you will not adapt and will never make another dec again because of this proposal and choose to get your quick fixes from low sec instead then fair enough. There will be other deccers willing to adapt that will replace you. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2830	Posted - 2015.11.03 10:16:16 - [19] - Quote Lol no I havent sold my char kaarous. This is my usual 'its ok to quit if you dont like it. Others will take your place' just not directed at the usual crowd. And thats what would happen. Some deccers will stop, others will adapt and some groups will come back to wardeccing and some groups will start wardeccing. Thats of course assuming the idea gets traction. What I hope to achieve with the idea has been included in the op, but just again quickly for you, the purpose is to give an incentive and an opportunity to defenders for some direct and concrete counter play to wardecs. Im. aware it does not cater to small or solo war deccers and I dont think it needs to: - Its a multi player game and if its ok to say that to bears and solo PvPers when they dislike features then its ok to say it to deccers. - These small/solo deccing groups are the most guilty of deccing corps and then docking up whenever the defenders bring a fight.This idea deliberately punishes that style of dec. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.