|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
19
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 18:30:03 -
[1] - Quote
@ Black Pedro: what is the attacker, that's you, putting in danger? In another Thread you said that Docking was a viable tactic against Bad odds. Where is the difference between Docking and taking down a POS? When the attacker has to have a Citadel in the rgion he wants to attack it would be fair. You can't defend your Citadel you have no right to attack someone else. |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 05:36:34 -
[2] - Quote
The Defender is putting his ships at risk like the attacker. But he ALSO has his citadel at risk.the attacker can pull back but there is no way to retaliate for the Defender. Ifthe attacker needs to have an equal Citadel in the Region he is also at risk. Docking is a viable tactic against Bad odds but why should only the attacker have this possibility? Example: if goonswarm is hunting you you Dock up and change to an alt but what could you do with a Citadel? To clarity it: the attacker can always choose the best odds while the Defender has to stand Fall against Bad odds and that's unfair. With a mandatory Citadel you might think twice if you want to attack every other Citadel in the Region because someone might get back at you orthe other Clans might Kick you out of the Region by popping your Citadel whenever itgoes up |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 08:02:29 -
[3] - Quote
So where is the Problem if the attacker needs to have a Citadel on it's own? And if ,you pull back an attack because of high resistance youare doing the same as someone packing up his Citadel because maybe the Defender wants a Fight. I don't like the idea of packing a citadel but only when the attacker puts a citadel in danger himself. |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 13:42:09 -
[4] - Quote
Where is the risk for the attacker? if you know what you're doing the risk is very limited and you can pull back anytime. I want the same risk forboth sides: the attacker hooses the right and the Defender can retaliate or even stop the attacker if he blows the attackers citadel to Kingdom come. This way the attacker also creates some PvP Content. |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 06:56:31 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: Just as you quickly move PI into the POCO as your Viator dies on a lowsec pick up, or you pull implants from a scrammed pod, so too you'll have to kill the research and move your blueprints to safety. The citadel is just disposable hull, nothing more. Once you learn to think of your POS/Citadel this way, you'll learn to enjoy the game far more.
The industrial cat and mouse game is a lot of fun, get in the game and just let it go! After all they're only space pixels.
Pretty much this, you can easily get back all your stuff but the Citadel itself is both an investment and a liability. The same as undocking in any ship is potentially a liability.
Instead of running away we are trying to encourage you to stay by giving you big guns instead
BTW if you are not comfortable investing in your own citadel you could use someone elses[/quote] IMHO is this a great misunderstanding. There is no liability in EVE. People need to have a reason to defend their citadel. This has nothing to do with cowardice or carebear but is strictly rational!
Let's take a look at the situation from the defenders side: 1. Can we win? These guys are no seasoned PvP player so they are at a disadvantage from the beginning. Sacrificing ships for a lost case is throwing good money after bad. So it might be a good decision NOT to fight just to minimize you losses. 2. What happens if we win? The other side can prolong the wardec indefinitly so the chances are high that you will have to do the same next week and the week after and..... PvP isn't their playstyle and you are forcing them to do it again and again. Risking their ships and the citadel so there are multi billions at stake for something you don't want and even a victory will just buy you a week. A good fight might even encourage others to attack you cause you are giving them what they, not you, want: good PvP. 3. You are training non PvP corps to be cowards! Every industrial or mining ship is just a target. Miners/freighter pilots ALWAYS need to flee because they have nothing to defend themself. Why doen't give the Skiff 5-6 large turret/missle points but no benefits for damage/falloff etc? Maybe even ultraexpensive ammo with a big bang? You are training every industrial pilot to be a coward because even for a Billlion he will not get a ships that will give him a chance to defend himself. 4. Many Industrial-Corps will do the math: how long will I have to profit from the citadel till I reach break even? Is it worth it?
What to do: 1. People take greater risk when the stakes are small. Player die a dozen time in a Battlefield match because there is nothing at stake when you die. So maybe raise the insurance? Or make citadel defender contracts mercs which will be paid if the citadell survives the downtime. 2. Give it a meaning! If you defend your Citadel the wardeccs of the attackers are lifted and they can't wardecc you for 4-8 weeks. There are enough other targets out there. In Low and Null you don't need a wardecc to attack. Give them something more then just another week before the same happens again. 3. Give guns to the miners. Where is the imbalance to gameplay if you are sitting in a belt with big guns sucking astroids dry? 4. Accept it: It's smart and there is nothing you can do about it. If things have a meaning in Eve you will always do the math if risk and reward are balanced. Maybe make a citadel insurance with weekly fees?
In the end NOT defending a citadel is the same decision PvP players make against overwhelming odds: They dock up to minimize the losses. And dismanteling a POS may be smarter then to defend it because you might even encourage the attacker to come back again and again. |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 07:08:28 -
[6] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:[quote=Geronimo McVain] New Eden is not an especially fair place. There are no mechanics that automatically allow you to automatically retaliate against an attacker. If you want vengeance, you have to go out there and earn that revenge. I don't see why you think Citadels should be something different. Simply because you are paying to have fun?????? You are bringing up honor and contend at the moment it is beneficial to you but when it's not you hide behind game mechanics (docking up, using alts etc.). You've got low and Null for everything you want and a fight in Sov-Null even has a meaning but you desperately want to fight the people that don't want to. When I'm in low or Null efficient is the word and forget fair. But high has other rules. nobody wants to take away Null or low so why do you need High? You want others to put up contend in High so you can tear it down but don't like to have to put something at stake yourself? When you want to attack something you need a citadel yourself (in High) so if you **** of enough people they might decide to do something to you or pay someone to do it. This will force you to be contend for them as you are asking them to be. In the end the miners will profit because citadels need a lot of minerals...... |
Geronimo McVain
McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc
20
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 09:37:36 -
[7] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Geronimo McVain wrote:Simply because you are paying to have fun?????? Yes, I pay to have fun, and my fun derives from the fact that Eve is a PvP sandbox where I can compete with the other players for power and resources. For New Eden to be a sandbox, it cannot have balanced matches, or "free" revenge. Players have to have the freedom to tell their own stories by initiating aggression, and players have to be vulnerable to their opponents for any of it to have consequence. If you want balance, or fair fights or the absence of permanent loss, go play Eve: Valkyrie./quote] Nobody wants absence of permanent loss but the possibility to fight or achieve a goal and might it be just not be harrased by some other player. You are not fighting for resources in High because you can't own resources in High. Thats what Null is for. [quote=Black Pedro]In this game it is often the people who least want to fight that you most need to shoot. It is the haulers that are carrying valuable cargo and miners/missioners who have fit expensive modules to their ships that least likely to want to fight yet the most important for you to shoot if you want to gain resources from another player. Highsec is not suppose to be a safe space for moving cargo, grinding resources or doing industry. It is a place like any other where the players can interact and jockey for power and resources. Again, why don't you do it in Null. Thats where everyone, including me, has fun jockeing for the resources and accepts that you can get ganked any second. You just want player rats that you can shoot for the money and the grief. I don't like this playstyle because you are not using the sandbox for your gameplay but other players. Why not fight, fair or unfair, with other players that have fun at this playstyle too? Why do you NEED to shoot players that don't like it? The simple answer is, that these other players use every game mechanic like you so it is hard dangerous work to separate them from their stuff while it's so much easier to do it with people that don't. I have no objections to your playstyle in Low or Null. Everyone there is a fair target. But is really disapprove of this playstyle in High simply because you are using the security measures in High to be save most of the time just till the point where you are at an advantage. Take a look at the monthly economic report and where most of the goods in Eve are mined or produced even when the best ore etc. are in Null. Simple truth: You need high or else Null would die. Where is a tradehub in Null?
Okay, I think we both made our points clear. |
|
|
|