| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
   |
Posted - 2007.03.28 15:47:00 -
[1]
Empire war is kind of a blunt intsrument at the moment. A single corp can wardec an alliance for 50 mil and herras them in empire. Corps doing this often have tricks that a variations on the theme, scout with alt, IF enemy is weak THEN gank ELSE dock.
Now if we compare this situation to 0.0 we see that in the case of an empire war attackers have three major advantages over defenders:
I) The attacker can dock anywhere to resuply, refit and repair.
II) The attacker can use neutrals to scout enemy fleets.
III) There is no need for conquest to keep up the war.
Considering the amount of effort CCP invested into 0.0 warfare, can we expect that empire wars will get a strategic (or even tactical) element?
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 12:18:00 -
[2]
Well in response tho this i might add that empire wars can be exciting and fun for the attacked players as well. I have been in situations where we had to defend our own backward system to a bunch of mercs. Very nice. But that was something else. They came in to fight us on even terms and were no lamers.
The problems starts when the offence has a sniper attitude to warfare. They only fight when sure of a win. Empire wars make this possible. So i say change it so a war has to have an objective which requires risk taking on the part of the attacker.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 12:51:00 -
[3]
Perhaps:
I) Limit war to a single system. Wat to block 0.0 access for a specific alliance and exclude others from ganking you in 0.0? Then wardec the alliance in those systems that control entry into 0.0.
II) Center wardec around empire pos, that can be anchored regardless of corp standing using a charter worth 50 mil. Maybe the pos should be limited to a small pos because capital ships can't enter hig sec systems. So not only ganking but also defence is a concern for the attacker. If the pos is whiped out the war ends.
III) limit the war to certain ships. Like using the rigging system, a ship can gain free fire status using a charter that is placed in the ship. Ship lost? Attacker needs to buy a new charter for a new ship. This also prevents the war decing corp from stocking up ships that can be outfitted to counter a ship scouted a few systems away using an alt spy.
IV) limit the war to specific clones. If you lose the clone, a new war fee has to be paid. Control the war using a concord implant.
But now we risk being moved to features and ideas at which point we simply melt away into the void
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 13:12:00 -
[4]
I agree to that and the strenght of the game is its good pvp. Therefore after all the attention paid to 0.0 war, its time something is done to refine empire war. It is now misused and the war deccing corps heve no real goals except grinding down their opponents. I bet some even see this as a source of income.
This could be so much better. Things like the war deccing playstyle adopted by privateer alliance should be more of a risk to them.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 13:43:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: djenghis jan
It is now misused and the war deccing corps heve no real goals except grinding down their opponents. I bet some even see this as a source of income.
That's what RL war is usually all about 
Well in real life its about oil sometimes and if the decced party doesn't like it they can at least go on the offensive since that attackers now have to defend something. As soon as they win the initial victory they become in some sence defenders. And that is what i mean. The victorious player needs to run a risk too. Not only fight on his own terms, or simply dock.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 22:36:00 -
[6]
I) The defender can dock anywhere to resupply,refit and repair.
II) The defender can use neutrals to scout enemy fleets.
III) The defender dont need to defend anything in empire.
I like guys like you specially as frozen corpses.
Ah somebody completely misses the point here. Defenders do need to defend something, namely mining&industry and mission running operations. The isk to pvp has to come from somewhere. And actually my corps is floating somewhere. I killed some and then lost a ship+fitting worth 140 mil and enjoyed doing it. That's what its all about taking risk.
So once again the point is: enhance war in such a way that its not only about gate/station ganking anymore. I would like to see a tactical and strategic challenge for both attacker and defender. Not the counterstrike play style .
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 07:41:00 -
[7]
Ok,
i see some pro's and cons here, basically two sides. One thing is clear: people who are wardecced by a stronger opponent feel that they are griefed and rightly so. The other side points out that pvp is and should be non-consensual. These people also have a point.
From a gaming point of view we see that in EVE the odds can often be stacked against you in such a way that you lose a lot in a few seconds. Non-consensual pvp and comitted play is what makes this game great and exciting. Like ninja mining/ 0.0 trading or low sec pirating.
Having made this point we see that there are mechanisms being placed to even the odds. Log off griefing, warp core stabilizers etc etc. Even escrow and market scamming are being nerfed to protect the unwary.
So in my view its time Empire war was changed in such a way that regardless of the size of corps involved, serious risk taking on both sides should be incorporated.
How about allowing the attacker the same number of ships as the defender? Wardec a corp of 50 members, you get 50 concord permits to put in your hold and use to attack. Then it would be all about skills and such. Such a thing would be a start...
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 07:53:00 -
[8]
Hear Hear. I will not speak for the obviously depraved and corrupted factions, but know this: if the Emperor was still alive He would not have approved. Anyone who has read Pax amarria knows this. Frankly i think that His assassination must have something to do with this.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: djenghis jan on 31/03/2007 12:38:34
Originally by: Ki An
No no no... you've got it all wrong. You are free to leave any corp that has been wardecced. The exploit is for everyone to leave a corp, leaving a place holder alt to keep the corp in place, wait out the duration of the war and then rejoin it. This is quite clearly circumventing a game mechanic (wars), and thus an exploit.
Please feel free to leave the corp when you are wardecced. It won't save your cowardly skin, because every corp you join in the future would be decced immediately. At least that's how my corp operates.
Have a nice day.
/Ki
this is nonsense. You might as well state that logging off then on is an exploit. Jumping corp to avoid a war can never be considered an exploit. Not even when you rejoin after the war is finished. I double dare you to say "that" one more time
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 18:12:00 -
[10]
Edited by: djenghis jan on 31/03/2007 18:09:28
Originally by: Ki An
Edited by: Ki An on 31/03/2007 12:42:25
What do you want me to say again? I can tell you what the post you quoted said. It said that jumping corp to avoid a dec isn't an exploit, but for everyone in the corp to jump, leaving a place holder alt to keep the corp up, and then rejoining after the war, is an exploit. If you don't believe me, feel free to petition it to a GM.
/Edit: To my knowledge, it is also an exploit to close a corp that has been decced, and then reforming with another name.
/Ki
ok lets quote the book:
Game exploits
The common definition of an exploit is ôto use the game mechanics in such a way as they were not intended for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over other players.ö
Grief play
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others' lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities.
So if we apply these rules the griefer is reporting the exploit, or is it the other way around? I think if i jump corp, or if the whole corp decides to change to another corp you can't state that you have an advantage over other players just because you can't be ganked at the gates anymore and even can mine your veld in piece. Its plain ludicrous to call this an advantage over other players. If you desperately need to gank persons you can go to lowsec or even 0.0. Targets are plenty there. Acording to this line of reasoning refusing to undock is also an exploit
Well on a positive note: the idea behind this post was not to stop empire war, but to make it more interesting and less prone to grief play. So i think we basically agree on what style of play we want. So even the odds a little and we are all beter off.
|
djenghis jan
Amarr
Debiloff
|
Posted - 2007.04.01 20:58:00 -
[11]
Ok there are like i said two sides to this story,
what i would like to know is :
can we find a game mechanic that satisfies both sides of the issue? If assume that the pro empire war side is not into grief play and the contra empire war side is tempted to play tricks to avoid war. Then what form should the war mechanic have? any thoughts?
|
| |
|