These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Hit them where it hurts

Author
Die Unknown
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2013-02-03 12:13:47 UTC
It's not easy to unseat a powerful alliance. More often then not, large alliances are destroyed from within, as opposed to any military action by their enemies. With their large incomes, they can lose a titan on a Monday, and have it replaced on Tuesday.

Here lies the problem; prolonged military campaigns are completely ineffective in upsetting the status quo. Sure, we still have the ability to infiltrate and destroy from within, but that's not so difficult to protect against. More importantly, that should not be the only option. INR, logistics are everything, and any disruption wreaks havoc. This is a problem Alliances are almost entirely immune to in Eve.

Not only has logistics in Eve have been simplified over time, there aren't any tools available to us to disrupt them altogether. A jump freighter in an NPC corp can operate 99.99% risk free. So no matter how many titans and motherships you blow up, big power blocks have an uninterpretable faucet of isk they can replace them with.

No one should be able to hide in an NPC corp. The solution is simple, we should be able to wardeck individuals in an NPC corp. They could still join or form player corporations, but the wardeck will follow them. This introduces a new level of complexity that we sorely need.

TL;DR: I need about three fiddy
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#2 - 2013-02-03 12:16:37 UTC
I'm confused as to how being able to wardec people in an NPC corp equates to breaking nullsec corps.
Or do you happen to know the names of every alt they have and know how this cane be used without such a system being used solely to grief newbies.
Dave Stark
#3 - 2013-02-03 12:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
translation "i want to gank freighter pilots, in high sec, without penalty"
Die Unknown
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2013-02-03 12:34:42 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
I'm confused as to how being able to wardec people in an NPC corp equates to breaking nullsec corps.
Or do you happen to know the names of every alt they have and know how this cane be used without such a system being used solely to grief newbies.


Paying 25-50m a week to grief one newbie would be incredibly stupid. However, your question highlights exactly how this mechanic introduces a richer gameplay. You will of course need to make use of intelligence and recon tools to find out exactly who is doing all the hauling. You will not be able to shut down the logistics overnight, instead this would be another tool in your arsenal when fighting a prolonged military campaign.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#5 - 2013-02-03 12:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
I think he is saying that the null sec players all have highsec NPC corp alts to move things around and do business in JITA. And that if those alts could be wardeced it would be a way to strike out at null corps.

I've often wondered why wardecs have to be specific to a corp. It would cool to be able to war dec an account or maybe all the players with a certain avatar model, or to wardec anyone flying a specific ship ie. all Hulks!

It seems to me that wardec's are just a bribe to CONCORD to turn a blind eye, I'm sure those same officials would be happy to offer a greater variety of targets...for a price!
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#6 - 2013-02-03 12:42:53 UTC
Or maybe wardec a specific region, constellation, or system. Or maybe sort it by majority play time, or just everyone in systems X,Y,Z, and G between the times of 0300 and 0700.

I remember reading something about the cost for wardecs being based on the number of targets that you would get from the dec. It seems like it would be easy enough to calculate target numbers for non-corp wardecs and come up with the same kind of price scheme.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-02-03 12:45:23 UTC
Die Unknown wrote:
TL;DR: I need about three fiddy

I'll give you ten piffles and the holy shrubbery

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Sriracha Nighthawk
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-02-03 12:47:32 UTC
Die Unknown wrote:
TL;DR: I need about three fiddy

You had a good point, but you totally ruined it with that.

"Kind of like the Caldari version of Adama I guess." -Kairavi Mrithyakara

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#9 - 2013-02-03 12:48:29 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Or maybe wardec a specific region, constellation, or system. Or maybe sort it by majority play time, or just everyone in systems X,Y,Z, and G between the times of 0300 and 0700.

I remember reading something about the cost for wardecs being based on the number of targets that you would get from the dec. It seems like it would be easy enough to calculate target numbers for non-corp wardecs and come up with the same kind of price scheme.

Wardeccing a region of space would effectively turn it into a nulsec zone, and that's a terribly bad idea because it would break the fundamental workings of EvE. It's an idea that has been shot down countless times because of the issues it poses.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#10 - 2013-02-03 13:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Xindi Kraid wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Or maybe wardec a specific region, constellation, or system. Or maybe sort it by majority play time, or just everyone in systems X,Y,Z, and G between the times of 0300 and 0700.

I remember reading something about the cost for wardecs being based on the number of targets that you would get from the dec. It seems like it would be easy enough to calculate target numbers for non-corp wardecs and come up with the same kind of price scheme.

Wardeccing a region of space would effectively turn it into a nulsec zone, and that's a terribly bad idea because it would break the fundamental workings of EvE. It's an idea that has been shot down countless times because of the issues it poses.

It would be like lowsec not null; no bombs and no bubbles. And the fundamental underpinning of Eve is "anything for a price." There's all kinds of limitations that could be imposed as well; no T1 ships, only combat ships, or a player from the corp that bought the wardec only gets so many kills.

CCP always tries to balance things, I think they could balance this and it would be a ton of fun. Something different to try out and explore anyway.
darmwand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-02-03 13:28:10 UTC
Die Unknown wrote:
A jump freighter in an NPC corp can operate 99.99% risk free.


Just keep popping those cynos, we're working on that.

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#12 - 2013-02-03 13:28:59 UTC
Oh, well in that case, next time I go through Rancer, I should pay concord to turn that into high security space for a day
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-02-03 13:30:17 UTC
While the US may consider corporations people, they lack anatomical features that would result in a mound of soft flesh laced heavily with nerves from which I may go and apply sufficient pressure to cause hematoma.
Therefore I suggest that all such grouping of people should be made to have critical must protect infrastructure that they must actively defend.
The loss of said infrastructure should result in the immediate disbandment of the corporation and forfeiture of any all assets in but not limited to corporation hangars within stations, POSes, market orders on their behalf, S&I jobs and contributory sovereignty.
This will at once enable the so called golden BB effect as done by smaller corporations, but it will also force the wars of aggression so necessary to the proper and right functioning of the nullsec ecosystem.
As such I move that the health for sov structures should be reduced to 10% of current values and be made to require constant maintenance starting at an approximate ISK value of 50 million per month and scaling on an exponential curve based on the activities of its members as defined by their Crest.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#14 - 2013-02-03 13:34:04 UTC
And those wardecs could be limited to a certain % of empire space. So if you don't want to fly in them it would be easy enough to just move out of the systems in question. To me it just seems like would make Eve much more dynamic. And more sinks are always good!

Right now everything seems so static and fixed. Highsec grinds along without the need to interact with the game and Null is stuck at place where the biggest dogs can control how big any new dogs get.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#15 - 2013-02-03 13:34:13 UTC
You know, in a war, the military likes to target enemy infrastructure. Like airfields, bridges, roads, ports and bridges.

It's much easier and more effective to target the static locations, like bridges, than trying to catch the machines doing the transporting. Also less prone to subterfuge.

I watched a movie once, called "A bridge too far". Now I don't want to jump to any conclusions; but I think you might find it somewhat informative in regards to your issue.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#16 - 2013-02-03 13:35:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
Xindi Kraid wrote:
Oh, well in that case, next time I go through Rancer, I should pay concord to turn that into high security space for a day


Im good with that! And maybe pay for CONCORD protection in nullsec to if you want to go out there and mine a bit. Just anything to get people moving around and out of their ISK grind ruts.
Die Unknown
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2013-02-03 13:40:25 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
You know, in a war, the military likes to target enemy infrastructure. Like airfields, bridges, roads, ports and bridges.

It's much easier and more effective to target the static locations, like bridges, than trying to catch the machines doing the transporting. Also less prone to subterfuge.

I watched a movie once, called "A bridge too far". Now I don't want to jump to any conclusions; but I think you might find it somewhat informative in regards to your issue.


We already have structure grinding and that will never go away entirely. What we need is a more options. There is also an underlying point: should anyone be immune to pvp in Eve?
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#18 - 2013-02-03 13:41:04 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
You know, in a war, the military likes to target enemy infrastructure. Like airfields, bridges, roads, ports and bridges.

It's much easier and more effective to target the static locations, like bridges, than trying to catch the machines doing the transporting. Also less prone to subterfuge.

I watched a movie once, called "A bridge too far". Now I don't want to jump to any conclusions; but I think you might find it somewhat informative in regards to your issue.


I was looking at jump bridges the other day trying to find some weakness, some material that could be monopolized from highsec. I couldn't find anything like that, they are tough and not hard to build.
Vexen Lyre
Doomheim
#19 - 2013-02-03 13:42:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vexen Lyre
Die Unknown wrote:
We already have structure grinding and that will never go away entirely. What we need is a more options. There is also an underlying point: should anyone be immune to pvp in Eve?


'cos no one will sub. end of.

Docked in Jita - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#20 - 2013-02-03 13:43:07 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
And those wardecs could be limited to a certain % of empire space. So if you don't want to fly in them it would be easy enough to just move out of the systems in question. To me it just seems like would make Eve much more dynamic. And more sinks are always good!

Right now everything seems so static and fixed. Highsec grinds along without the need to interact with the game and Null is stuck at place where the biggest dogs can control how big any new dogs get.

Unfortunately, I think being able to change to sec status of a system could prove too disruptive. The comment about don't fly in the disrupted areas doesn't work since any spot can be disrupted at any time and this could lead to issues like highsec islands or lowsec spots that interrupt trade traffic. That goes beyond breaking the foundations of any one alliance, also, while players can move, infrastructure can't. By having the ability to change the sec status of a system you interfere with how POSes and PI (more specifically, customs offices) operate.

I can see more harm than good coming from this. That's all before you get into pissing off the playerbase and reducing the population of EvE.

At the very least, you shouldn't have too much effect on sec status, so if you could bribe concord to step their game down, only the fringe systems actually drop from their protection (or gain it), the core systems would only suffer a reduced response time.
123Next pageLast page