Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SuccessfulBlackMan SBM
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 03:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
Highsec PVP is just lame pvp. Being able to hide with concord is just lame you know.
They should allow cynos to be lit in highsec where only covert ops jumping and titan bridge jumping will work with it.
This oughta spice up pvp in highsec, keep them guessing.
Highsec PVP is way to easy and predictable, having hotdrops will make things interesting and force players to take risks like they
do in lowsec and nullsec. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
321
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 03:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ill admit i haven't really thought this through.
But it seems to me it should be cheap to wardec large alliances if you have the cajones and expensive to war dec starter corps. Perhaps the rp could be that the larger corps/alliances have racked up numerous reasons that could be treated as an act of war but the smaller purer corps have not.
I don't think we need mechanisms that promote the sort of peaceful/carebear large coalitions eve sees now. We need mechanisms that promote smaller groups that can turn on eachother. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Robbie Robot
Hendrix Angels Fabricated Confabulations
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:04:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Ill admit i haven't really thought this through.
But it seems to me it should be cheap to wardec large alliances if you have the cajones and expensive to war dec starter corps. Perhaps the rp could be that the larger corps/alliances have racked up numerous reasons that could be treated as an act of war but the smaller purer corps have not.
I don't think we need mechanisms that promote the sort of peaceful/carebear large coalitions eve sees now. We need mechanisms that promote smaller groups that can turn on eachother. I don't know what CCP's goal is, besides 'sandbox', and multiple ways to make isk and hurt people, and lots of subscriptions. Do they want mega alliance? Do they want lots of small corps? What is the purpose of wardec'ing? Frankly, I doubt they know either, and that they are making changes to fix a problem that they cannot identify (wardec'ing doesn't work) because they don't know what the thing they have is supposed to do (ie, what is the purpose of wardec'ing?), probably because of some philosophy of "let the players decide how to use the tools we give them." With this philosophy, you'll see people trying to use the tools for all sorts of purposes, like people using a screwdriver to pound something in, or for in game analogy, using the friend invite system to create corp members to increase the cost of wardec'ing.
As for logistics in the superalliance, you are right in that it will reach a critical mass and not be able to grow. They will probably supplement the inability to move people by spamming trials into their alliance/altallaince/altaltaltalliances. I know I would. Sure, they could make rules to combat this, or even discourage large corps to begin with (200K/month per member charged to corp wallet). The question CCP needs to ask of themselves, "What is wardec used for? Do we want small corps to be viable? Who are we favoring with changes?" They can't make changes to a competitive system without favoring one side. They also can't revamp a system without making certain tactics unusable.
TL,DR: You can't call something "not working as intended" if there is no intentional use. |
qDoctor Strangelove
Beware of the Red Fox
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:55:00 -
[34] - Quote
Robbie Robot wrote:In order to shield themselves from wars, it seems likely that with current costs of alliance membership (2M/month) that people wanting to avoid war in high sec will use the cost of 500K per member to their advantage. I imagine each person will have their main and one alt in their corp, and that large amounts of corps will ally together to possibly get around 2,000 members (many inactive), making the cost of wardec'ing them over 1Billion isk. If someone shells out that much, unless people are unable to leave the a wardec'ed corp, I imagine they would migrate each member over to a secondary alliance for the duration. Besides, the cost of making a new alliance (1B isk) means that it becomes a war of isk, with the high member super alliance probably being more able to foot the bill. This leaves the aggressor with a wardec that is now against a alliance that just has place holder alts.
Wars cannot be fixed by making it more expensive to war'dec larger numbers of people. Wars should be about territory and resources. Both sides should have a target, within a reasonable amount of jumps, that, if destroyed, ends the war. This would necessitate a structures that can be deployed in most systems that isn't a POS or POCO, whose only purpose is to enable war.
Seriously, WTF! To wage war in NULL sec you need to invest BILLIONS in infrastructure and sov bills each month. Why should empire wars stay sub-billions? It is just stupid. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 12:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mechael wrote:I like where this idea goes. First and foremost, war should be about resources (which currently are way too abundant, imo.)
Key problem of eve. There is no real reason for war, except for the lulz. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
328
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 15:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
Robbie Robot wrote:Cearain wrote:Ill admit i haven't really thought this through.
But it seems to me it should be cheap to wardec large alliances if you have the cajones and expensive to war dec starter corps. Perhaps the rp could be that the larger corps/alliances have racked up numerous reasons that could be treated as an act of war but the smaller purer corps have not.
I don't think we need mechanisms that promote the sort of peaceful/carebear large coalitions eve sees now. We need mechanisms that promote smaller groups that can turn on eachother. I don't know what CCP's goal is, besides 'sandbox', and multiple ways to make isk and hurt people, and lots of subscriptions. Do they want mega alliance? Do they want lots of small corps? What is the purpose of wardec'ing? Frankly, I doubt they know either, and that they are making changes to fix a problem that they cannot identify (wardec'ing doesn't work) because they don't know what the thing they have is supposed to do (ie, what is the purpose of wardec'ing?), probably because of some philosophy of "let the players decide how to use the tools we give them." With this philosophy, you'll see people trying to use the tools for all sorts of purposes, like people using a screwdriver to pound something in, or for in game analogy, using the friend invite system to create corp members to increase the cost of wardec'ing. As for logistics in the superalliance, you are right in that it will reach a critical mass and not be able to grow. They will probably supplement the inability to move people by spamming trials into their alliance/altallaince/altaltaltalliances. I know I would. Sure, they could make rules to combat this, or even discourage large corps to begin with (200K/month per member charged to corp wallet). The question CCP needs to ask of themselves, "What is wardec used for? Do we want small corps to be viable? Who are we favoring with changes?" They can't make changes to a competitive system without favoring one side. They also can't revamp a system without making certain tactics unusable. TL,DR: You can't call something "not working as intended" if there is no intentional use.
I am not making any claims as to what ccp intends or doesn't intend. I am just expressing my own view.
My view is that the game has been pretty boring with large coalitions like cfc. BOB used to go out looking for fights and starting large wars, like the "Maximum Damage" campaign. But that was mostly because they were doing that for the fun of it. It didn't make any sense in a "serious internet spaceship business" way.
It was sort of like the "burn jita" campaign. Maybe the goons are doing this for pr but mainly I think they are doing it just to have some fun. It is not as interesting as what BOB used to do because BOB was fighting large alliances and sending in capital fleets, instead of just getting ganks in high sec.
Unfortunately the current mechanics combined with the carebear/isk first mentality of certain null sec leaders leads to lots of peace in null sec. IMO this makes for a boring game.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
307
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 01:34:00 -
[37] - Quote
Non-aggression pacts and non-invasion pacts are as much about the alliance XO's having a couple of months to play the game without boring as old people sex sov grinding as it is about some horrible conspiracy to turn the game into ratting, botting ISK-printing Online.
As long as you have someone to roam, who really wants interminable siege timers for 6 months on end? The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu https://twitter.com/#/trinketsfriend
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 07:34:00 -
[38] - Quote
The deployable war target structure is an interesting idea. I've toyed with it in my head but the problem is that the structure must have low hp since dreads aren't allowed and it needs reinforcement timers which brings many very lame and unfun tactics and hardly any pvp.
I believe the answer lies in giving the defender cheap and accessible options to fight back (if they don't have the required ships/skills themselves) I figure most carebears would jump at the chance for a way to hire something to kill off the attackers and make them pay and regret they ever messed with them.
I think the new mercenary system will go a long way towards giving the defender an option and bring about more pvp. Mercenaries may be prohibitively expensive now but that is because nothing is enforceable, you can hire mercs for 10b and they can walk away. With an ingame system and with war decs being hard to shake off and evade I think merc prices will go down if they can actually get pvp out of a contract. For example, you can pay me 200m isk/hr to sit on a station and do nothing or pay me 10m/hr if I actually get to blow stuff up.
I know I'd love to be in a merc defender corp. Some high sec "pvp" corp decs some random carebear corp and surprise now they hired me and my merry band of killing experts and we get forever to make your lives miserable. You say you are "pvp" , well now you get to prove it or die. Or both. |
Jayden Natinde
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 07:54:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kestrix wrote: The fact that war in eve is not consensual is what makes this game great.
Wrong.
You are looking at war from a griefing pov, and not someone who truly loves to pvp. If war was consensual, wouldn't you get a lot more epic battles because both sides wanted to fight?
War in high sec is not about resources; it's about making high sec bearable. War in low sec/null is about resources (moons, stations, etc.).
This game would be a whole lot better if limited resources in high sec essentially forced both interested parties to go to war with each other, and keep fighting until one side decides it isn't worth it any longer.
|
Ryday
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:41:00 -
[40] - Quote
IronLemur wrote:Sounds like high sec war deccers crying?!?! Omg let me mine your tears and tell you the same thing you tell industry corps that complain about being wardecced...
DEAL WITH IT OR GROW BALLS AND MOVE TO 0.0
.....or go back to WoW
this.
Also, 1B isn't that much isk anymore. You should be able to recover the fee in a few days with 2000 targets. People pay to get on the KB anyways so it's not a total loss even if you don't recover the isk in full. |
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient Electus Matari
271
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 20:23:00 -
[41] - Quote
Jayden Natinde wrote:Kestrix wrote: The fact that war in eve is not consensual is what makes this game great. Wrong. You are looking at war from a griefing pov, and not someone who truly loves to pvp. If war was consensual, wouldn't you get a lot more epic battles because both sides wanted to fight? Probably, but not all of us are after "epic battles", even when we enjoy combat. PvP combat in EVE is so much more than just bashing each other in an arena type environment and watching pretty explosions. The really fun part is on a much higher strategic level.
To say that high sec wars are not about a goal or resource is wrong. Some of them might not be, but there are a lot of reasons for high-sec wars beyond simple "yay easy prey". (Not that I think "yay easy prey" is a problem in itself. Just saying it is not at all the only reason why people fight in high-sec.) |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 00:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
War deccing a bigger corp/alliance should be free. Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |