|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1962
   |
Posted - 2016.03.15 02:45:46 -
[1] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Sibyyl wrote:
The only broken mechanic in connection to wardecs was NPC Corp immunity to them.
I think watchlists should be nonconsensual as long as you're in space.
Where it up to meGäó NPC corps would wardec each other on random occasions as part of lore and immersion (etc. etc.). That would really stir the pot a bit. I would even give player corps options to assist as a means of gaining corp-corp standings for faction building. It's not up to me, so I can just scratch my ass instead. As was already pointed out rather well people play for themselves not the overall goals of the game, whether immersion or conflict consensuality. Plans like these have the benefit of making NPC corps bad places to dwell for those that might do so, but for those that want to fight for their chosen faction we already have a mechanic making this redundant.
Unless the goal is an exodus to one man tax and war dodging corps, or just general inactivity from those who try sticking with their corps, neither the idea of getting rid of NPC corps or making them dec each other make much sense.
Really the idea of mechanically forcing widespread conflict hasn't worked out no matter where it's tried. I expect that to hold true in highsec as well.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1963
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 09:10:23 -
[2] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Geronimo McVain wrote:What deccing really needs is some way that the attacker can loose and is forced to stop the war. No, this is the last thing this game needs - yet another way to isolate yourself from the risks of the sandbox while carrying on with your economy-altering grinding and/or industry. The irony of this stance is that leaving defenders effectively powerless to affect any real goal in a war makes doing exactly what you say the game doesn't need the optimal solution in every conceivable manner.
They can't end the war, they likely don't care about the kills if they wanted out, so what is the obvious solution?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1963
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 09:48:33 -
[3] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Geronimo McVain wrote:What deccing really needs is some way that the attacker can loose and is forced to stop the war. No, this is the last thing this game needs - yet another way to isolate yourself from the risks of the sandbox while carrying on with your economy-altering grinding and/or industry. The irony of this stance is that leaving defenders effectively powerless to affect any real goal in a war makes doing exactly what you say the game doesn't need the optimal solution in every conceivable manner. They can't end the war, they likely don't care about the kills if they wanted out, so what is the obvious solution? They have to defend their stuff. If they don't want to defend their stuff, then they lose it, but that then begs the question why are they in a corp if they do not care that much about their corporate assets to begin with? Tax avoidance comes to mind as a corp asset that requires literally no defense. Same with "organizational benefits" as they can be easily ported to a new corp risklessly so long as they aren't static, in space assets. So if they can have it without defending it why would they defend it?
You can speak of the principle of defensive capability all you want, but doing so completely misses the point that without any impetus to do so it remains the least intelligent response to a war. And if you're not willing to turn wars into actual confrontations because you're overly attached to a week long timer so be it. I'm content with them being meaningless and wholly avoidable as well.
Beyond that the rest of your post is really just blustering about the realities of the game regardless of whether you are at war or not. None of those truths actually change even if wars as a whole were to go away.
The one exception is the idea that such wars are somehow less player driven than the current incarnation. That's just patently false. A war that ticks on to a mechanically driven end with no player interaction whatsoever is by definition less player driven that one determined by a fight. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1964
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:17:34 -
[4] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Tax avoidance comes to mind as a corp asset that requires literally no defense. Same with "organizational benefits" as they can be easily ported to a new corp risklessly so long as they aren't static, in space assets. So if they can have it without defending it why would they defend it? I fully expect the ability to tax to be moved into the Citadel at some point. Either as part of a revamp of wars or of corporations. You are right it makes no sense that corporations do not have to defend that major perk of player corps. Looking into my crystal ball wars will completely focus on structures in the future. In that case, it probably makes sense to forbid wars against corporations without structures in-space as they will really have no benefits above the NPC corp. I can't really see it as it runs afoul every objection typically had with goal oriented warfare. Corps becoming wholly dependent on citadels directly nerfs small entities without significant defensive presence for both aggressive and defensive entities. It also effectively attaches decs to structures in exactly the same way a war goal mechanic does, save the fact that it goes further in escalating potential war cost to the billions.
Unless the mechanic is one way (you can dec but you cannot be dec'd, which is really terrible) it creates an effective "you must be this big to participate" style on play. |
|
|
| |
|