EVE General Discussion

Don't we already have a blue donut

i mean we've already seen in the east that a massed super blob can grind timerless stations in less than 10 minutes each and they have a bit more hp than towers do so guess what will happen

Why limit yourself to outside of HS? Scout the HS moons and record every corp. Then shoot them a quick wardec.

1. Groups are already staging out of NPC space and LS to avoid being hellcamped. If they can have their sov flipped overnight without any possibility of defending it (short of an inverted hellcamp to keep the system pegged at cap), who in their right mind would live in a conquerable station?
2. There not being anything to defend is a problem.
3. Your proposal guarantees the success of every attack by a group that can field a system-cap fleet. What is your proposed method to defend against this? You've already demonstrated that detecting such an attack isn't feasible under your proposed system, so how do you defend against an attack that you can't detect and cannot directly attack? Magic?
4. You don't own what you can't defend. Under your proposal, nobody can defend any space. Ergo, nobody owns any space.



A pilot is guaranteed an opportunity to defend their ship (unless they do something to give that opportunity up). Why shouldn't a POS owner? Non-persistent assets (ships) are fundamentally different from persistent ones (POSes and structures).


Again, why should EVE magically limit the number of people in a system in order to guarantee the success of every single attack? Why should people not have the opportunity to defend their persistent assets?

See you in 319 station ~whoooo~

FWST > 319

since you continuously ignore the most important point here I'll put it at the top once: you can kill an unstronted tower in less than a siege cycle with a sufficient number of dreads. explain how you're proposing to form a defense in less than 5 minutes


your proposed system has some properties that we know of though:
1) a system cap of X people guarantees that the first group to stuff X people into the system wins by default because it is literally impossible for other people to contest it
b) no reinforcement timer means you can shoot the structure without recourse by the defending party because due to 1) they can't even be on the same grid as the tower
III) short of a massive number of spies across all alliances with a dread fleet you won't even know that your tower has died until you pull the killmail from api

there's nothing emergent and unstable about it, in fact it's pretty clear to everyone who has shot structures at some point in their eve career how a timerless tower handles, because guess what people sometimes forget to put stront in


it hasn't happened yet because shooting towers in subcaps while boat is leading the fleet is one of the worst possible experiences you can have in this game, worse than things like "getting shot by blap titans while blackscreened in the good old pre-tidi days" or "ratting"


you have to show to defend your stuff because if you don't, you'll lose your tower once it comes out of rf
of course your proposed system won't have defense fleets at all because alliances all over eve have repeatedly shown that it's possible to kill an unstronted tower in a single siege cycle, good luck getting a defense fleet rallied and to your tower in 5 minutes (that's assuming you notice your tower getting shot immediately when the dreads start sieging which is ridiculous in itself)


you mentioned it because you have no idea how towers, or reinforcement timers, or sov, or dreads work

I now think that it's safe to say that we reached a point where all you have in this thread is :retort: and :counter-retort:

They must be doing that for different reasons and by a different dynamic than the one you are predicting, because what we are talking about in this thread is hypothetical. None of it affects what they do.

1.Systems have limits. Why should the system be stretched to it's limits and beyond? It's a game, and we're supposed to work within the limitations of that game. A thousand or two thousand people is a hell of a lot of people. Rather than make CCP bend over backwards to fulfill our every gaming desire, maybe we could just accept a more realistic rule-set.



1)How many systems do you seriously think you can cap? If you have enough players that you can cap every system in null, why shouldn't you just win the game? I don't have a problem with that. Why would you?

b)No reinforcement timer means you would have to have a networks of scouts and sentries, not to mention an emergency response fleet, and the ability to withstand attacks on important assets.

III)Even the super rich have people that manage their assets and maintain their properties. Why should you be able to AFK your space empire? Why shouldn't you or somebody have to go and look at your tower to make sure it was still there churning out ISK for you? You live in null security space. That means "no security". Well, what the hell would you call a day long cloak of invincibility for your space house or your space factory?

...

We're calling it "defense", but what we're talking about isn't actually defense. It's an ambush. Defense would be if you stationed a force near the structure to combat any force that might try to attack it. Defense is expensive, and it doesn't always work.

What we're talking about is the structure owner being notified that a force will attack his/her structure, and when that attack is likely to occur, right down to the minute. The structure owner knows the likely identity of the attackers, has a few clues as to the minimum size and composition of the force. He/she has time to do reconnassaince, to plan and to prepare for the engagement and muster up an appropriately sized force of their own. That's not a defense. That's a trap.

They say that "the things we own own us". What they mean is that we have to take care of all the stuff we have and the more we have, the more care we have to take. That's fine, but you're not explaining why you think EVE should have to take care of that stuff for you, especially when some noob in a Venture can get ganked in the blink of an eye in high sec without any recourse.


shitshow

explain how you're going to mount a defense within a single siege cycle (5 minutes)


enough systems at once to kill the tower I want to kill (it's one, a tower doesn't exist in multiple systems simultaneously)
and when i kill the tower i can immediately afterwards cap another system and kill another tower because the first tower is dead so you don't have to cap that system anymore.


fine. you have a network of scouts and sentries, and a response fleet at the ready, 24 hours a day. your enemy is still one-cycling a tower (this means you have to get into the system and kill or at least tackle the dreads within 5 minutes). i dunno if you noticed it but dreads have jump drives, i.e. you can't properly preempt them on their way to shoot the tower, they just jump right next to it, push butan, and jump out.


yeah we have those too, they're called "space pixies"GSOL and they're the guys who tend to our towers
because turns out if you drop a tower somewhere and then expect it to autonomously shіt isk into your corp wallet until the end of time that isn't actually what happens


i'd call it a game design trade-off. if you don't have it then there's no point at all in dropping any kind of structure because it's impossible to defend. the reason for that being the point you conveniently choose to ignore continually: you can't mount a defense against an attack on structures without reinforcement timers because you don't have any reasonable amount of time (the amount of time you have is 5 minutes (please explain how to counter an attack within 5 minutes))