EVE General Discussion

Your desperate attempt at a strawman aside, you know full well that is not what I meant.

What I meant is that your attempt to compare them is a category error. NPC corps and stations have the benefits that they do because they themselves are not assets. Meanwhile, you want a very literal asset to be all but immune to attack, and expect CCP to grant this ever.

Truthfully, I have no idea what you mean by strawman. Guess I can look it up though.

Maybe I am a simple point of view but here is what I see.

We have stations which players can do business and industry from without issue and hop betwen no risk via instawarps and jump clones. Stations are indestructible.

Then we have NPC corps which you cannot war dec.

So free incincibility, and if person is like me who does any exploration, wont care about any attempt at highsec pvp. At best you can catch newbs.


Citadels though are destroyable, cost in game assets and can be war decced.

Who cares how strong they are on top tier. You have players being players and not npc actors. I have never said immune. I said and will say again, on par. Result of going to war to take down a citadel should be exactly the same if executed right as if you faced off against same asset value in ships. Why should, number at random, 10b of structure be able to be contested by 1b of ships?

Anybody who sets up a citadel has now put eggs in one basket. Is either attackers back off, or lose it all. There is no partial loss to decide to dock up.

I'll put this as simply as I can.

Those things are that way solely because someone cannot own them. Player assets are always to be destructible, and more than in just theory at that.




Because you don't get isk tanking.

Full stop.

Doesnt explain anything. I dont see how it exludes small peeps. Ships have to travel, not everybody will be XL . All the new player stuff is still active. How are rookies screwed. Bloated highsec peeps already dont have to defend themselves, and its free.

$5 says he can't see beyond his own desire to have one of these doohickeys and it be impervious to mean people.

You mean myself or Kaarous?

There are massive piles of things in eve that are not capable of being done by newbs. Why is highsec war any different? Somebody is a ten year economic veteran in highsec with a massive industrial juggernaut corp? Then hell yes, it should take the same to disrupt them. A tril isk set aside for fortress or same for ships. One they will actually have interest in investing their isk to sitadels tank. Other, they just spend time on alts doing the same thing without war dec but now still have a tril in their wallet.

I doubt many newbs would cry and quit if you told them that they have no chance taking on higher end rich and elite players without being the same.

I dont care how tough they are. Just as long as is investment parity of attackers to defenders. Make em half the HP but half their cost. Now instead of one, you have two for teardown meaning fighting same time and losing just as much in total.

Edit: Is called endgame. Incentive to form larger pvp groups that might then actually head out to low and null. It just now means that a corp of six will have a more difficult time camping a large highsec alliance. Guess small and newbs will be limited to other small and newb.

Then correct me. It is really basic. I ask why it shouldnt take 10 bil isk of fleet to take out 10b of defence? Seriously. Because newbs and small fleet of cruisers might be left out? We need maximum number of locks on a target so that fleet of fifty can take on two thousand. Whaa whaaa. Small alliance of t1 fit ships cannot counter PL. I call foul!!!!

See this? He's admitting that he thinks PvP, the single strongest retention driver, should be totally out of reach of new players and small groups.

Basically, he wants to kill this game.

I wonder how many times it will have to be repeated before he understands that isk tanking breaks the game.





No.

You do not get "parity" or "fairness" or anything of that sort of bullshit. This is a sandbox game. If there is a fair fight anywhere in this universe, it's because someone ****** up.

Completely bass ackwards there.

I am saying this takes something that already exists FREE in highsec and makes it now a resource consumer. The main difference is it makes a station camp now have guns. New players still want pvp, but now it is more pvp. There are the other sizes for that siege by lower income players capable for combat as well. I said it takes resource, not SP to counter. There is absolutely zero reason why new players cannot assist veterans in these sieges the exact same way any other subcap pilot would.

The core of every argument vs the Xlarge is that they cannot be taken down without needing some stupid capitals. What part of capital siege is pvp for a new player? If anything, having them in highsec makes it more new player pvp friendly since now they actually might be able to get into a fleet to be part of large structure if they find a corp open minded enough to include pilots who don't mind probable death, running electronics supports and the like. All roles that currently exist and the players tell them to F-off.

From day one of eve, I have pushed for changing combat mechanics away from blob and alpha combat for the specific reason of granting more value on non dps roles which are ideally suited for low SP players. But there is this stubborn, misguided ideology that DPS is all that matters. Maybe it does, and that is wrong. Meta play is all fine and dandy, but tactics and organization should be a deciding factor in a fight in addition to just numbers. Make there be vital, but low SP fillable roles. Want to siege an XL with a small group and new players?

Have em in sniper dessies or something. They will die just as easily as if they went against a fleet of the same value as that structure. Do the turrets not need players controlling them? If the structure is put up by a single rich guy, all the better. Means he cannot hurt you and time for a nubbie swarm to tear it down. Fantastic.

I see it as a fantastic new player tool. I just don't see why you are so insistent that anything highsec must never require a fleet. Hence my examples. a small group of new players isn't going to be able to do anything to any other large group, so why should a mega isk corp be different. Fight power with power. New players are weak, so absolutely if something is strong, that is too bad.

Incursions
Drifters
Low/null NPCs
Most any non organized PvP
Market Trading
Missions
Exploration

Every single one is inaccessible to a new player without working with veteran corps. There is that entry for the small groups, but none of it can compete with the big dogs. Why should structure ownership and war decs be different? I have repeatedly trained and worked with larger industry/highsec corps on low SP counter pvp successfully. End of day, a small fish in a big pond is a small fish.




No.

You do not get "parity" or "fairness" or anything of that sort of bullshit. This is a sandbox game. If there is a fair fight anywhere in this universe, it's because someone ****** up.[/quote]

You are damned right, it is a sandbox game so if you want to take out a big expensive structure, nut up or shut up. That player is bigger has more isk than you. So you better get bigger than him if you want to take him out. The parity is just a level for balance. If that structure is bigger and stronger than you, then why the hell should something tiny, weak and cheap be all that is needed to take it out.

Your counter proves my point in it's entirety.

So what if it is a structure. That thing is bigger and more powerful than you? Then die. That is eve. Plain and simple. Yet a number of people here are complaining they will "need people and big ships" too take it out. Freaking good. If you are not big enough or strong enough to, there is a belt with a few T1 barges mining to go after instead.

I really don't get the arguement, I really do not. Myself and others have said so what if one part of it is too tough for small peeps. THERE ALWAYS IS! You say isk tanking isn't valid? Why not. Is a sandbox game. If said player has more isk than you, then he is better than you (or sold a bunch of plex?) so get off high horse and take the bruised ego. Or get together, toughen yourself up and give em a black eye. If somebody plexes their Citadel or is just seriously rich over years, the citadels are going to be a great way for them to lose a whole pile of isk fast.

Citadels=dickstar pos=station docked. This is better and more inclusive to the entire player base on a whole no matter how strong they are, unless they can alpha a bs right off the field, cause that is too much.


Once more I have presented a counter as to how they are great because they are tough

Your arguements consist of that just cause a player is better than you in a different way, that way of play should not be legitimate either. All I have seen so far is complaint about being blueballed because frigates cannot easily take out a titan. These at least can give the new player one more thing to shoot for and get a taste of to help them step up to big nullsec alliance.

So if the war dec discussion is going to continue, best to start with logical and supported statements.

Start with your definition if isk tanking? Why is it bad? Why should a better and financially powerful character not be allowed?

No, you are suggesting that protections previously only available to non player groups be applied to player assets.




No, it proves that you can't read.

I said that you will never be allowed to have isk tanking, to force someone else to field an inordinate amount of ships and people to kill something just because it's expensive. Particularly since your sole argument in favor of totally destroying game balance is some twisted sense of fairness.

I was mocking you. I still am.