These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

A fix for asset protection
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2017-04-13 00:07:32 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:
Kassimila wrote:
Rawketsled wrote:
I'm curious, what is actually broken about Asset Safety that requires a fix?


Excellent question. This is just my opinion, but there seems to be little value in attacking Citadels in general, especially in high sec. I see many systems FLOODED with astrahus's, because there is virtually no reason to attack them. Even without services/fuel requirements an attack has to work through 3 different timers, on the defenders schedule. What does the attacker gain for this hard work? 10% of the structure value is the current answer.

Giving the attackers some sort of incentive for their hard work will help generate game content, force players to actually defend their structures, and discourage citadel spam placement for no reason.

I think the smarter option is to add a small maintenance cost to structures. Spend fuel. Get a period of invulnerability.

Getting a payout as an aggressor is nice, but we all find KMs and GFs sufficient payout as it is. If you make shooting an abandoned structure less of a cancerous affair, people will do it more for ***** and gigs.

Have you shot a POS or a POCO just to get a fight? I have, and I wasn't getting paid for it.


I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure.
Cade Windstalker
#22 - 2017-04-13 00:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Kassimila wrote:
It's hard to gauge what you've actually done in this game based on that fact that the toon you're posting as hasn't done much of anything in the way of combat. That being said, most of the 'wars' you see going on are fought 'for the lulz, or something to do'. My idea gives people actual objectives to fight over. Currently PVP in eve is just a way to lose the isk you made. 95% of it has no objective.

To your other point about small groups holding citadels, you're basically making my point for me. As it stands today if say NC/PL/Goons/etc wanted to kill a 20 man corps structure we could. Absolutely nothing is preventing any of those groups from doing so. The only reason they don't is because there is 100% no reason to do so, there is nothing to be gained, and it's a huge pain to kill one. That's not a healthy game mechanic, and you always have the option of simply moving your stuff out if you get attacked. It's not like it can be instantly killed.


So, here's my point and response to this.

Why?

What sort of good behavior does this incentivize besides knocking over every Citadel in sight for fun and profit? You're taking an ISK sink (remember, disappeared ISK keeps the economy healthy) and turning it into a profit motive for anyone with the time and capability to kill a Citadel.

You say that it's not a healthy game mechanic for there to be no reason for Goons to run around killing Citadels, I say it's not a healthy game mechanic to overtly incentivize that.

On top of that just the fact that you would be paying your enemies to get your stuff back would be a big incentive against storing large amounts of stuff in Citadels. Saying "oh, well you can move it" just means you've created a reason not to keep more than you can reasonably evac. That's actually not a good game mechanic, as opposed to one you simply don't like...

Kassimila wrote:
I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure.


Being the attacker is the benefit. You get to attack, you get to choose to engage. To a significant extent you get to choose when, where, and how as well.

Also if you'd care to go back and read the dev blogs you'd know that CCP aren't adding a daily resource cost, the cost for Citadels is in the modules and the things you do with it. You can't do much more than dock up with a Citadel without modules and fuel.

The idea that Eve has "never been about a safe space for your stuff" is just ignorant. There has always been a degree of safety in this game, and there has to be for people to have any sort of foundation to build on. There's a reason CCP has never caved to the "let me kick over all the sandcastles" crowd any more than they've ever caved to the "make everything completely safe unless I say so" crowd.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#23 - 2017-04-13 00:32:49 UTC
Yep, i agree with Cade....

Making the current ISK sink of asset safety payable to attackers of a structure would mean less utilization and less stuff stored in them. especially in highsec where NPC stations are in abundance.

Your idea would cause the total opposite effect CCP wants for these structures, and after the initial wooha of doing so, things would go back to the way they are now according to you, Big groups not hitting them because they are not worth the effort.

Now if you are talking about nullsec, seeing you are NC, if its a structure in your area, or near your area, or in an area you are about to deploy too.......that alone should be all the incentive you need to knock it out if doesnt belong to you deem it a threat to future operations.

ISK should never be your motivation with these things.
Kassimila
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2017-04-13 00:51:41 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Kassimila wrote:
It's hard to gauge what you've actually done in this game based on that fact that the toon you're posting as hasn't done much of anything in the way of combat. That being said, most of the 'wars' you see going on are fought 'for the lulz, or something to do'. My idea gives people actual objectives to fight over. Currently PVP in eve is just a way to lose the isk you made. 95% of it has no objective.

To your other point about small groups holding citadels, you're basically making my point for me. As it stands today if say NC/PL/Goons/etc wanted to kill a 20 man corps structure we could. Absolutely nothing is preventing any of those groups from doing so. The only reason they don't is because there is 100% no reason to do so, there is nothing to be gained, and it's a huge pain to kill one. That's not a healthy game mechanic, and you always have the option of simply moving your stuff out if you get attacked. It's not like it can be instantly killed.


So, here's my point and response to this.

Why?

What sort of good behavior does this incentivize besides knocking over every Citadel in sight for fun and profit? You're taking an ISK sink (remember, disappeared ISK keeps the economy healthy) and turning it into a profit motive for anyone with the time and capability to kill a Citadel.

You say that it's not a healthy game mechanic for there to be no reason for Goons to run around killing Citadels, I say it's not a healthy game mechanic to overtly incentivize that.

On top of that just the fact that you would be paying your enemies to get your stuff back would be a big incentive against storing large amounts of stuff in Citadels. Saying "oh, well you can move it" just means you've created a reason not to keep more than you can reasonably evac. That's actually not a good game mechanic, as opposed to one you simply don't like...

Kassimila wrote:
I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure.


Being the attacker is the benefit. You get to attack, you get to choose to engage. To a significant extent you get to choose when, where, and how as well.

Also if you'd care to go back and read the dev blogs you'd know that CCP aren't adding a daily resource cost, the cost for Citadels is in the modules and the things you do with it. You can't do much more than dock up with a Citadel without modules and fuel.

The idea that Eve has "never been about a safe space for your stuff" is just ignorant. There has always been a degree of safety in this game, and there has to be for people to have any sort of foundation to build on. There's a reason CCP has never caved to the "let me kick over all the sandcastles" crowd any more than they've ever caved to the "make everything completely safe unless I say so" crowd.


I can tell by your statement you've never actually killed a citadel. First the time is set on the defenders time table, and always comes out of RF on their time table. The attacker doesn't get to choose the engagement.

Astra without modules you can Dock, Tether, Repair your stuff, and fit your ships. - 900mil cost. Takes 3 days and a fleet to take down. (Or a couple bombers if completely undefended). Maybe it will take there being 2000 astras in peremiter before you will see my point.
Cade Windstalker
#25 - 2017-04-13 01:31:59 UTC
Kassimila wrote:
I can tell by your statement you've never actually killed a citadel. First the time is set on the defenders time table, and always comes out of RF on their time table. The attacker doesn't get to choose the engagement.

Astra without modules you can Dock, Tether, Repair your stuff, and fit your ships. - 900mil cost. Takes 3 days and a fleet to take down. (Or a couple bombers if completely undefended). Maybe it will take there being 2000 astras in peremiter before you will see my point.


Let me clarify a little here, since something seems to have been lost in translation...

Yes, defenders get to pick when the Citadel comes out of reinforce and get to set the vulnerability timer. Within that the attacker still gets to pick when and how they attack, and at least some leeway within that. That, in and of itself, is an advantage. If you don't think you're going to win you can just not show up.

Might not be much fun to do that but it's still an advantage.

And yup, that's all an unfitted Astra provides. Not actually that much, all things considered.

Yes, there is currently an issue with structure vulnerability. That topic has been done to death, this is not a solution to that though, this is its own thing and has basically nothing to do with how easy or frustrating it is to kill a Citadel currently.

The claim that there will *ever* be that kind of Citadel spam is ridiculous. There are, at present, something like 35 Citadels in Perimeter. Since release a combined total of 67 Citadels and Engineering Complexes have died in Perimeter, or about 4 every three weeks and about twice the number currently anchored in that system.

The bogey-man of Citadel spam and cluttered overviews is just that, an unsubstantiated bogey man with little basis in fact or reality, nothing needs to be done to deal with this mythical issue because it's not an issue and it shows little sign of becoming one.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#26 - 2017-04-13 01:56:32 UTC
Cade, i dont think that has anything to do with it at all (your basis of last post)

I could be wrong on some or all of what im about to type.

Last i knew PL/NC had some kind of partnership going, PH (always thought was related to PL) last i knew was still running a campaign in perimeter.
Now if the PLEX lords from Null are no longer top of the food chain it makes sense fro them to bash these offshore trade hubs and stuff.

Only it costs time and ISK and replacement ammo, ships, etc....sounds like to me attrition of some sort is starting to take effect.
The problem with the Perimeter offensive is that killing the Structures there is like killing a gankers catalyst....it doesnt mean anything.
These trade moguls are far too entrenched, your only hitting the surface of their armor and only scratching the paint.

Now, a hilarious bit of advice from here........

If any of what i said rings true in any way (attempts to bring balance of power back towards Jita even a fraction) then Nullsec needs to go after the food source of these trade moguls.
Quit hitting their structures, of course you have to, but change the focus.
Your focus should be getting all of Null Blocs together for a Month straight.....and gank + Blanket Wardec anything and anyone using these structures that are not you. Literally lay waste and siege to everything in Perimeter and every other system around Jita for a Month straight, kill everyone that isnt a nullseccr.........

If your goal is to attempt to bring parity back towards to Jita, imo that is your only real option in fighting the trade moguls, bring the hammer down. Otherwise, just give up, let Highsec be controlled for once by someone that isnt Lording in Nullsec and return to your homes and figure something else out to do.

And like i said, i personally would find it funny if every single Nullsec Bloc united for a single month to do just that...basically instead of Burn Jita......it would be Burn Caldari State, question though......would yall be able to work together for that month? and is nullsec willing to for all intents and purpose officially declare war on Highsec?
Krysenth
Saints Of Havoc
#27 - 2017-04-13 03:44:04 UTC
I just skimmed it, but in case no one else has mentioned it, the idea also falls apart when you fail to take into consideration that asset safety is also triggered when the structure UNANCHORS. That alone opens up the biggest "**** you" options to people with freeported market citadels.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#28 - 2017-04-13 21:50:55 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.


Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Cade Windstalker
#29 - 2017-04-13 22:42:31 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.


Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.


Which would mean no one would ever actually live in these structures, they'd just keep barely enough ships to be usable in them.

Besides, in most areas of space Asset Protection only gets you as far as the nearest Station, if that, so you still have to move your stuff a fair ways, and a smart player can figure out where the stuff will end up and camp it out.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#30 - 2017-04-14 01:01:22 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.


Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.


Which would mean no one would ever actually live in these structures, they'd just keep barely enough ships to be usable in them.

Besides, in most areas of space Asset Protection only gets you as far as the nearest Station, if that, so you still have to move your stuff a fair ways, and a smart player can figure out where the stuff will end up and camp it out.


That's the nature of Aegis Sovereignty. You are not meant to build permanent empires protected by your past abilities. You are only as strong as you are today. Thus, you either stay strong or keep it light enough to travel.

A disciplined player can easily move everything a single character needs in a single capital ship (especially in this Cruiser and below dominated meta).

In the Eve sandbox, there is only sand. Not cement. Not big rocks. If I build a sand castle full of nice stuff, other people can come kick it over. If they do, they should get my nice stuff unless I move it out.

For long term storage, not day-to-day use, we have NPC stations. They are in every way less useful than player structures, but you cannot be locked out of them and they cannot be destroyed.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Previous page12