Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1176
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 01:34:43 -
[391] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I still feel there's nothing that could be said that would change my mind on allowing a defender for forcefully end the war (win) without the consent of the aggressor.
On the flip side, I'm glad at this stage that CCP don't currently share your view. There are lots of problems with the current wardec mechanics and I wish I was able to come up with a workable alternative that gives more meaning to a war, while still allowing freedom of aggression in highsec for people that don't want to gank. Unfortunately I can't, but I'm definitely glad CCP don't allow a defender to force an end to a war without the attackers consent. The current "close Corp" mechanics already achieve that in a very poor way (poor for both parties).
Well, you're not going to convince them to fight the war without an incentive. The only incentive most are willing to fight for is the ability to end the war...
As far as CCP's beliefs on the war mechanics, they keep it hush hush as they can't even come to an agreement within CCP that was depicted in 2012... Fozzie has spoken on how he feels there should be more meaning in wars and risks on the attacker, while Rise would like claim (just a hunch) that the system is fine and/or needs to favor the aggressor more.
Honestly, the fact that 70-80% of wars (CCP's numbers) end with zero kills, only goes to show that there is a problem with the current system. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42445
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 02:18:57 -
[392] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Well, you're not going to convince them to fight the war without an incentive. The only incentive most are willing to fight for is the ability to end the war... There is nothing about the wardec system that has to convince anyone to fight a war.
That's not what it's for. It's to allow someone to shoot someone else without CONCORD or Crimewatch consequences. It achieves that.
If the other guys don't want to fight, so what? That can just as easily be a successful outcome for someone's objective.
These threads often focus on the Marmites, P I R A T and other dedicated mercenary groups and claim that clubbing seals is bad.
They rarely consider that the wardec system can be used in other ways to, even for the reasons they think will be created, and the changes suggested often serve to make it harder for groups to go to war. That's not a good outcome; and baby seals don't exist in Eve. Everyone already has the tools they need to fight back. They just refuse to use them, whether by directly fighting or metagaming. That's their choice.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2938
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 02:55:19 -
[393] - Quote
Giving defenders the chance to end the war through effort is not necessarily an incentive to fight. It is more an option where the defenders can choose to pit themselves against the aggressors and possibly succeed in ending hostilities sooner. Its an option that some would jump at the chance to have a go and would find more fun and engaging than station games. Some players are already willing and ready to fight, but when they turn up, the wardeccers dock up/log off, leaving the defenders holding their dicks in their hands for a week.
Others who dont want to defend themselves can continue to do everything they do now and there would be absolutely no difference.
Its often said that 'if you're not willing to defend your playstyle you dont deserve it' and 'if you cant do it on your own, make friends. get help'. I dont see the problem with applying these rules to wardeccers as well.
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
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2855
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 03:01:16 -
[394] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I've never been in charge of a corp and actually probably never been on the attacker side of a wardec so I'll just ask. Technically, you can disband/leave corp?
So can the defender though, so if that's considered a way to 'end a war', then both sides can do it. Assuming for the moment that the corps are actually fighting over something, then that is a victory for whichever side is left. And once we get assets in space like Citadels that can't dodge a wardec, that provides something to fight over.
As for giving defenders the ability to end a war by fighting, I restate what i said before, are you prepared for attackers to be able to force the defenders to pay surrender payments in return. If one side can end a war early by fighting, both sides need to be able to end the war early by fighting. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2938
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 03:11:43 -
[395] - Quote
And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day.
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
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2855
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 03:43:06 -
[396] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day. Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.
But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1177
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 04:26:07 -
[397] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender.
But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.
No problem with the surrender option. Many corps do surrender.
However, often times the longer a wardec lasts and the defender doesn't fall apart, the more likely they are to get a surrender payout.
So, it either happens early on, or after a long while... Which is subject to change...
Point is, it doesn't matter the likelihood of when they'll surrender, it's more about the likelihood that your target will surrender at all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 04:32:31 -
[398] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day. Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender. But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly. No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.
All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2855
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 10:16:24 -
[399] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.
All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection. It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost. I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender.
Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2940
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 12:55:04 -
[400] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day. Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender. But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly.
And hows that supposed to work? if i think im about to lose, or get wardecced at all, i just empty the corp wallet. Trying to say ending decs early is a bad idea because your unworkable version doesnt work is what's silly.
If you think wardeccers are getting less war dec for their isk then lower costs or make them last two weeks instead. If you think they are biased against the defender, then level the playing field with allies. But you choose instead choose to make a stroppy ******** argument?
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
|
|
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
313
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 17:35:50 -
[401] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day. Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender. But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly. And hows that supposed to work? if i think im about to lose, or get wardecced at all, i just empty the corp wallet. Trying to say ending decs early is a bad idea because your unworkable version doesnt work is what's silly. If you think wardeccers are getting less war dec for their isk then lower costs or make them last two weeks instead. If you think they are biased against the defender, then level the playing field with allies. But you choose instead to make a stroppy ******** argument? Just want to let you know your signature is wrong because docking in a station allows the complete avoidance of all pvp conflict. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2942
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 19:40:42 -
[402] - Quote
You should read section 7 of the faq. Might give you a bit of context and a better understanding of PvP.
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
|
Iain Cariaba
2257
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 20:01:35 -
[403] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:And what would your suggestion be?
Most wardeccers would choose to ignore whatever means you give them to end a dec early because they'd be trying to extend the war for as long as possible or at least as long as they need to complete whatever objective they gave themselves. If they want to destroy a certain structure (or any objective for that matter), they can and end the dec themselves the next day. Unless of course ending the wardec early for the attacker allowed them to force a surrender payment of a certain size. In which case they make more isk the faster they can end the wardec, which adds incentive for the attacker to end it fast, and the defender to actually fight since they lose isk either way. So since we want to promote meaningful wardecs this is obviously an amazing idea that will make defenders fight either way, since either the defender fights to kill the attackers structure, or fights to defend their own to avoid paying the surrender. But I'm betting you don't want the attacker to be able to force a billion isk surrender payment from the defender.... And that is why the defender being able to force a war to end early is silly. And hows that supposed to work? if i think im about to lose, or get wardecced at all, i just empty the corp wallet. Trying to say ending decs early is a bad idea because your unworkable version doesnt work is what's silly. If you think wardeccers are getting less war dec for their isk then lower costs or make them last two weeks instead. If you think they are biased against the defender, then level the playing field with allies. But you choose instead to make a stroppy ******** argument? Just want to let you know your signature is wrong because docking in a station allows the complete avoidance of all pvp conflict. Market, local scams, contracts, etc. PvP isn't limited to ship-to-ship combat.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
314
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 20:21:40 -
[404] - Quote
You don't have to participate in any of those activities. You are literally invulnerable in every possible way in a station if you choose to be. Therefore what his signature says is wrong, and what I said is right. |
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 20:33:53 -
[405] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Well, you're not going to convince them to fight the war without an incentive. The only incentive most are willing to fight for is the ability to end the war... There is nothing about the wardec system that has to convince anyone to fight a war. That's not what it's for. It's to allow someone to shoot someone else without CONCORD or Crimewatch consequences. It achieves that. If the other guys don't want to fight, so what? That can just as easily be a successful outcome for someone's objective. These threads often focus on the Marmites, P I R A T and other dedicated mercenary groups and claim that clubbing seals is bad. They rarely consider that the wardec system can be used in other ways to, even for the reasons they think will be created, and the changes suggested often serve to make it harder for groups to go to war. That's not a good outcome; and baby seals don't exist in Eve. Everyone already has the tools they need to fight back. They just refuse to use them, whether by directly fighting or metagaming. That's their choice.
This has got to be the most ignorant post I've read on this.
What an utterly clueless twit.
Try reading the thread next time before making such an ill informed comment.
|
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 20:42:37 -
[406] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
As for giving defenders the ability to end a war by fighting, I restate what i said before, are you prepared for attackers to be able to force the defenders to pay surrender payments in return. If one side can end a war early by fighting, both sides need to be able to end the war early by fighting.
Completely unnecessary.
The deccer started the war. They can finish it by letting it play out for the week and 'win' it by damaging the other side more and/or having their structure remain intact.
Alternatively they can end it simply by asking for a truce, and if the party they decced agrees it ends.
Why should CCP keep catering to the sorts of people that probably ought to be in prison in real life.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1849
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 21:15:18 -
[407] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.
All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection. It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost. I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender. Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is. So wait, the attacker pays for a penalty to put towards the defender, and that's balanced, but giving the defender the ability to negate that negative isn't?
I suppose if you consider the wardec cost an entitlement to something that can't be lost that makes sense, but considering there isn't a single other thing in game that works like that it makes the mechanics surrounding paying for an immutable wardec the unbalanced outlier.
Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them. Giving defenders a means to do so introduces balance, and as such doesn't need counterbalanced.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 21:31:07 -
[408] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:No, it's really not silly. Attackers are free to demand payments from defenders for ceasing decs as is and the surrender option exists to allow it at any time. What you're suggesting is equivalence between ending the dec and a loss payment.
All giving defenders a means to end a war does it put the war itself at risk, while some argue this ability to act in space without concord intervention should be invulnerable, unlike every asset the defender has in space. Adding a billion isk for the attackers to the pot just further disincentivizes even being in a corp for anything that doesn't explicitly need it, and staying in the corp for anyone still in it if you aren't sure of victory. It does nothing to even the playing field since there is no possibility of that dec costing a bill to begin with and further if they win it means they already got what they paid for, the week without concord protection. It is silly because you are putting a penalty in vs the attacker corp if the defenders fight well above and beyond the cost of the ships lost. I.E. The attacker gets less wardec for their isk Therefore for it to be balanced, the attacker needs to be able to inflict a penalty on the defender above and beyond simply inflicting ship losses on the defender. Hell, I fight avidly against people demanding nerfs to highsec, and even I can see how lopsided the ability for the defender to end the war early without the attacker being given some other advantage is. So wait, the attacker pays for a penalty to put towards the defender, and that's balanced, but giving the defender the ability to negate that negative isn't? I suppose if you consider the wardec cost an entitlement to something that can't be lost that makes sense, but considering there isn't a single other thing in game that works like that it makes the mechanics surrounding paying for an immutable wardec the unbalanced outlier. Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them. Giving defenders a means to do so introduces balance, and as such doesn't need counterbalanced.
It doesn't need counterbalanced, but at the same time it does.
Giving the defender a means a which to forcefully end aggression is a necessity for balance, however, the ally mechanic was a back handed attempt at providing the defender with options. HOWEVER, in removing the ally mechanic, you then allow the aggressor to overwhelm their targets by heavily out numbering them so they can never reach the structure. So, this must than be counter balanced. The best way to do this is through costs. Base cost would be 50 or 100 mil... Then, the aggressor would pay an additional 20 mil per member they outnumber the target corp by. This also means that it's less costly to wardec large alliances, unless you outnumber them which isn't likely.
Point is, there's still a lot of balance that would need to be done not only to balance the mechanic, but also to balance the balance, in order to make a more fun and engaging mechanic.
The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1849
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 22:30:05 -
[409] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:It doesn't need counterbalanced, but at the same time it does.
Giving the defender a means a which to forcefully end aggression is a necessity for balance, however, the ally mechanic was a back handed attempt at providing the defender with options. HOWEVER, in removing the ally mechanic, you then allow the aggressor to overwhelm their targets by heavily out numbering them so they can never reach the structure. So, this must than be counter balanced. The best way to do this is through costs. Base cost would be 50 or 100 mil... Then, the aggressor would pay an additional 20 mil per member they outnumber the target corp by. This also means that it's less costly to wardec large alliances, unless you outnumber them which isn't likely.
Point is, there's still a lot of balance that would need to be done not only to balance the mechanic, but also to balance the balance, in order to make a more fun and engaging mechanic.
The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it. Personally I'd say if the ally mechanic were to remain in place alongside a war goal it should a) be limited to 1 ally, period and b) should cost the greater of either the cost of the dec against the corp seeking help or the cost that would be incurred by decing that ally.
Applying another group to the war should be comparable to declaring another war since that's essentially what it is.
That specific aside, the mechanic itself at it's core hasn't changed for all the behaviors the details have created in one form or another. Dogpiling needs fixed to allow meaningful combat potential between small entities and cost logic likely needs revised amongst other things. That said the basic mechanic still has that one central glaring imbalance that IMHO trumps and in some cases justifies the other issues wars as a whole have. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2945
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 22:43:14 -
[410] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:You don't have to participate in any of those activities. You are literally invulnerable in every possible way in a station if you choose to be. Therefore what his signature says is wrong, and what I said is right.
So to avoid PvP you just never do anything in the game.
Who knew? Glad you took the time to divert focus from the topic at hand and enlighten us all on that very important point.
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
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15639
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 22:59:16 -
[411] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them.
That's not unbalanced.
You don't have to "defend" your ability to mine, or mission, or trade. You just get it, because those are supported and intended playstyles. Just like wars.
You can shackle my playstyle to a useless structure when yours is shackled to one first.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42453
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:04:31 -
[412] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it. Sure and this could be done very easily, much more easily than the proposal in this thread.
1. Remove CONCORD 2. Remove wardecs
Job done.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1849
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:08:20 -
[413] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them.
That's not unbalanced. You don't have to "defend" your ability to mine, or mission, or trade. You just get it, because those are supported and intended playstyles. Just like wars. You can shackle my playstyle to a useless structure when yours is shackled to one first. Actually yes, I do. Well that or evade any aggression. Or just lose that capacity as soon as someone wants to take it. And that's just it. The moment someone wants to take it I lose it or have to respond. Period. Wardecs on the other hand? Unlike the person wanting to take my ability to mine or mission, or interfere with my trades for whatever reason, I have no means to deprive them of a war they've declared against me.
Anyone who claims those activities don't need defended while having suggested people fit smart, scout routes, be aware of their surroundings and have help moving large ships is being less than genuine when it suits them. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42455
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:11:52 -
[414] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Actually yes, I do. Well that or evade any aggression. Or just lose that capacity as soon as someone wants to take it. And that's just it. The moment someone wants to take it I lose it or have to respond. Period. Wardecs on the other hand? Unlike the person wanting to take my ability to mine or mission, or interfere with my trades for whatever reason, I have no means to deprive them of a war they've declared against me.
Anyone who claims those activities don't need defended while having suggested people fit smart, scout routes, be aware of their surroundings and have help moving large ships is being less than genuine when it suits them. I think what Kaarous means is that there is no permitting mechanism up front to allow you to mine.
After all, the same guys that can try to interfere with your mining, could also go and interfere with anyone else in highsec, including wardeccers.
However, there is no requirement in the game for you to go stake your claim in order to be permitted to mine.
This proposal wants to put such a system into place in order to allow legal aggression in highsec, when there's already a mechanism for legal aggression.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15639
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:12:23 -
[415] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Actually yes, I do. Well that or evade any aggression.
But you don't have to anchor a structure in a system just to turn on your mining lasers, do you?
Nor should you be expected to defend a structure just to access the basic mechanics of a particular playstyle. It's something that should be available to you regardless.
Quote: Or just lose that capacity as soon as someone wants to take it.
False.
You don't lose the ability to mine just because you died. You can still mine, you can go right back out when you feel like it and turn on those mining lasers.
Dying once in a mining barge doesn't stop you from mining for a week, does it? Then why should losing one fight in a war stop you from having the mechanic?
Oh wait, I know the answer. Because you personally dislike wars and think they should have punitive mechanics applied to them. But never you, of course.
Hypocrite.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:12:26 -
[416] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Wardecs are unbalanced in that they never have to be defended as is because there is no mechanism to deprive aggressors of them.
That's not unbalanced. You don't have to "defend" your ability to mine, or mission, or trade. You just get it, because those are supported and intended playstyles. Just like wars. You can shackle my playstyle to a useless structure when yours is shackled to one first.
Actually, you do have to defend those play styles.
When it comes to mining, you have to defend yourself from rats and other players. In missions, half of what you do is defend yourself from the NPCs.. The other half is shooting them. But you also have to be prepared for other players. In the case of trade, you defend yourself by competing over pricing and/or being proactive in monitoring prices so that you can grab the best sale prices and/or sell to the best buy prices.
In the case of all 3, the best defense is a good offense, in that the faster you are at mining out the good roids, the faster you are at taking down the NPCs, and the faster you are at monitoring and acquiring/selling goods, the less risk you put yourself at. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:13:25 -
[417] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it. Sure and this could be done very easily, much more easily than the proposal in this thread. 1. Remove CONCORD 2. Remove wardecs Job done.
ok... so basically no HS. Hint, that was how Eve started, and it didn't work out too well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15639
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:15:07 -
[418] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Actually, you do have to defend those play styles.
No, you don't.
You have to defend yourself. The playstyle does not require defending at all, in any way whatsoever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1849
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:15:25 -
[419] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:False.
You don't lose the ability to mine just because you died. You can still mine, you can go right back out when you feel like it and turn on those mining lasers. You mean like you'd be able to declare a new war if you were deprived of one? Hypocrisy indeed. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42456
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 23:17:31 -
[420] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The current mechanic is just broken in all kinds of ways.. So, I guess I should say we'd need to completely replace the mechanic as opposed to balancing it. Sure and this could be done very easily, much more easily than the proposal in this thread. 1. Remove CONCORD 2. Remove wardecs Job done. ok... so basically no HS. Hint, that was how Eve started, and it didn't work out too well. Sure there'd still be highsec. Crimewatch would still apply and people would face security status loss, criminal and suspect flags, etc.
Players would then be able to police the safety of highsec. Anti-gankers for example would have a much more varied playstyle available to them because they could actually be proactive and provide defence.
There'd be lots of options for play.
Nullsec has no Crimewatch impacts.
It would certainly be a much more interesting proposal than this attempt to handcuff aggression in highsec.
As to that's how Eve started. Yeah I know and I thought it was fine.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |