These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ideas for "Worm-hole" More Conflict......
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#61 - 2013-02-07 06:32:09 UTC
Roime wrote:
Yes, it would lead to bigger rewards and thus more sieges, which would result in stronger incentive to form contacts to fight the invaders.

I just think a situation that promotes small entities teaming up to protect themselves leads to more everyday pvp- a system full of active players has more potential to give birth to ad-hoc encounters than a system occupied by a small corp that is protected by lack of motivation from invaders caused SD mechanics.

Furthermore corporations teaming up in one hole with others are more likely to last longer and thrive than small startups setting up operations in some desolate hole.

Some people will say that increased risk will disencourage people from settling w-space, but I don't see any difference between a completely empty hole and one occupied by a 5-man harvesting operation who are either offline or sit in POS. Neither has any fights and we'll just roll a new one.

This of course raises the question of the amount of wormhole systems and unique properties that OP talks about. Would w-space be better if there were less holes, or more systems that would be worth fighting for than others?


I would argue that it would lead to bigger rewards, more sieges, and a stronger incentive to blob. This is distinct from forming contacts to "fight the invaders". Wormhole space would become more about forming mega coalitions to fight off other mega coalitions to... wait, are we talking about null sec again?

Honestly, I'd say that 5 man operations look like a "harvesting operation" to you because you don't want to try to engage them with something that is realistic to fight. I'd say that the idea that you want to only see mega coalitions in every wormhole speaks volumes about the kind of play style you want to force on the entirety of wormhole space.

To me, the coolest thing about wormhole space is how the entire mechanics of the space are custom designed to eliminate the kind of blobbing mega coalition you are encouraging to form.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#62 - 2013-02-07 06:45:10 UTC
Now you are just making assumptions out of thin air. "Play style", "mega coalitions", "I don't want t try to engage them reasonably" wtf. Do I look like 1000-man alliance to you? Shiva Furnace has 26 members :D

Why would I need a blob to siege a wormhole? Currently we simply won't, because spending a weekend for a 100mil tower killmail is not worth our time.

.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-02-07 06:48:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Arguing for arguments sake is what Liang does best Big smile

I don't think he/she even lives in w-space...

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#64 - 2013-02-07 06:50:46 UTC
That's exactly what I was getting at. Right now you won't spend a weekend sieging someone out of their WH, but you would if the mechanics provided extra rewards for it. You even went so far as to say that this would encourage coalitions to defend themselves and which would require coalitions to attack which would require coalitions to defend which ... [etc].

You then went on to state that you believe wormhole space should be smaller so that fewer people in larger blob coalitions can take part in it. I just don't see how you can say I'm making this up out of thin air.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#65 - 2013-02-07 06:55:20 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
How many ships constitute a "blob"?


I'd say it depends on what you realistically expect to engage. If you're cruising C2s in a 50 man T3 gang then you're blobbing. Doing the same thing in a C6 is probably pretty normal and par for the course. My goal isn't to try to draw distinctions on what's blobbing and what isn't, but more about illustrating the fallacy of bringing incredibly superior forces and demanding everyone fight to the death or be labeled a "farmer" or "carebear".

If you bring massively superior forces, you're blobbing. That's not a bad thing if your goal is system domination, but don't pretend like you're not. And don't pretend everyone's a bear or that WH space would be better off if everyone fleeted up in the biggest possible fleets to defend their space.

There's room for all of us here, with all of our play styles. Do try not to force C6 blobs on C1 wormholes?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#66 - 2013-02-07 06:56:14 UTC
No, that's not exactly what you were getting at. You said I wanted to make a megablob to kill everyone and that the reason we don't get fights because we always drop massive megablob of something that nobody can even imagine engaging.

I'm talking about improving a situation where 20 guys won't fight 10 invaders because they can just SD and get most of their money back and move on to another hole. And how I find these kind of small invasions excellent entertainment for both parties, and if it means that those three guys and their alts would need to team up with 5 similar corps to defend their system, it would result in a livelier wormspace.

.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#67 - 2013-02-07 07:01:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Roime wrote:
No, that's not exactly what you were getting at. You said I wanted to make a megablob to kill everyone and that the reason we don't get fights because we always drop massive megablob of something that nobody can even imagine engaging.

I'm talking about improving a situation where 20 guys won't fight 10 invaders because they can just SD and get most of their money back and move on to another hole. And how I find these kind of small invasions excellent entertainment for both parties, and if it means that those three guys and their alts would need to team up with 5 similar corps to defend their system, it would result in a livelier wormspace.


The situation you presented naturally escalates, especially when you start talking about kicking the "leeches" and "useless" and "farmers" and "carebears" out of wormhole space. If the only goal was to prevent people from receiving an insurance payout on SD, then I'm fine with it. But if the goal is to force a 5 man corp in a C1 to always cede all their assets to an invading 60 man T3 blob then I'm not fine with it. SD is a great way to deprive the invaders of assets.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-02-07 07:09:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Firstly your not going to get a 50 man T3 gank through many c1 - c3 without many of the holes closing on you and secondly, how do you know if you are bringing overwhelming numbers in a part of space with no local?

It would be nice if we could all have fair and even fights all the time but that is not how humans work. Someone will want to be the "best" and if being the best means having the most numbers in someones mind, guess what will happen...

Roime is right, not being able to SD inside a ff would encourage pos bashing and it would also provide more opportunities for large groups to get more fights by defending the little guys.

Liang please stop pulling the hypothetical examples out your arse and using them to back up your flawed arguments.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#69 - 2013-02-07 07:12:57 UTC
Ok, so remove all insurance payout from SD inside POS shield? Would make sense. This would still allow this magically important "asset denial" but with real consequences.

.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#70 - 2013-02-07 07:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Rek Seven wrote:
Firstly your not going to get a 50 man T3 gank through many c1 - c3 without many of the holes closing on you and secondly, how do you know if you are bringing overwhelming numbers in a part of space with no local?

It would be nice if whe could all have fair and even fights all the time but that is not how humans work. Someone will want to be the "best" andif being the best means having the wost numbers in someones mind, guess what will happen...

Roime is right, the SD issue would encourage pos bashing and it would also provide more opportunities for large groups to get more fights by defending the little guys.


Roime says that it's "depressing" to watch someone SD a bunch of assets - and he's absolutely right. It sucks when you sit there and watch someone SD 10 billion ISK worth of ships. On the flip side, it's kinda depressing to SD 10 billion ISK worth of ships. The best possible situation here is that SD affects all parties equally and that nobody gets anything out of the deal.

IMO preventing SD simply means that mega blobbing someone forces them to either fight you or give you all of their assets. It discourages negotiation and deal making. It encourages POS bashing, which is quite possibly the most boring action in the entire game, which encourages bringing more numbers, which blah blah blah blah.

No. It doesn't solve the problem that you're looking to solve.

-Liang

Ed: You can definitely get a 50 man gank squad into a C2. I've seen people drop them on me so I know it can be done. Lol

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#71 - 2013-02-07 07:16:47 UTC
Roime wrote:
Ok, so remove all insurance payout from SD inside POS shield? Would make sense. This would still allow this magically important "asset denial" but with real consequences.


I'm totally fine with simply disallowing insurance payout from SD as a whole. P

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-02-07 07:36:12 UTC
So decrease conflict drivers? Shocked

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#73 - 2013-02-07 07:45:53 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
So decrease conflict drivers? Shocked


I don't see how the status quo decreases conflict drivers.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-02-07 08:15:42 UTC
Well it's been explained to you over the last two pages so idk what more I can say if you fail the understand the primary motivation of human actions I.e what's in it for me?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#75 - 2013-02-07 08:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Rek Seven wrote:
Well it's been explained to you over the last two pages so idk what more I can say if you fail the understand the primary motivation of human actions I.e what's in it for me?


I don't see how the status quo decreases conflict drivers from the current situation. By definition, it cannot decrease conflict drivers. I honestly don't even know why you're ship toasting anymore, because Roime and I have already come to an agreement over how to at least make it not "profitable" (I use the word a bit loosely) to SD all your ****.

-Liang

Ed: At any rate, I'm off for the night and I'm not going to continue debating how not changing the game decreases conflict drivers from how the game is right now. Roll

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-02-07 08:40:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
So two guys agree and that's the end of it? And I don't think anyone agreed with you. It just looked like roime was forced to concede because you wouldn't stubbornly refused to look at things from other peoples perspective.

You proposed changing the game so that there are no insurance payouts. That is not maintaining the status quo. Your method decreases reasons to fight where as roime's creates incentives. But i'm sure you will come back with some half baked argument as to why we're wrong and we're all a bunch of blobers...

Edit: FYI the thread is about how to change the game to increase conflict, so perhaps we should stick to that.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Night Beagle
Beagle Inc
#77 - 2013-02-07 09:15:38 UTC
Getting back to clear solutions that do not involve hiring psychologists and tutors for players:

- How about a new WH, with 2 hours lifetime, accepting only subcaps. Proposed WH's will be only random, not statics, thus increasing the possibility to stumble upon interesting pew. In my opinion this will offer the possibility to make quick fights and could encourage a new gameplay, the "blitz"


The world needs you to stop being boring!