These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Improve Hi Sec Wars

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#101 - 2014-05-30 18:58:12 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


And I told you that is hardly a unique situation in the game. It's actually fairly normal.


And to answer surrenders question, yeah it can be good for the game.

alt cyno's, scouts, RR etc are what enable the sneaky tactics that eve players love so much.


Sneaking and skullduggery are the hallmark of EVE, after all.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#102 - 2014-05-30 19:00:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the viability of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the value of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.



First, let's establish that it's actually a problem.

To date, this has not been done. Aside from the OP's outrage that people might fight dirty, which if you ask me is hardly reason to do a damned thing.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#103 - 2014-05-30 19:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the viability of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the value of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.



First, let's establish that it's actually a problem.

To date, this has not been done. Aside from the OP's outrage that people might fight dirty, which if you ask me is hardly reason to do a damned thing.


You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#104 - 2014-05-30 19:07:53 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?



You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#105 - 2014-05-30 19:11:59 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:


and where the heck do you get the nerve to state that someone is not worthy to a corp? i always thought that the only reason to be corp worthy is paying monthly fee by cash or plex and ofc a corp that is willingly to accept, which the OP has managed, not every EVE player likes PVP


Where do ppl get the nerve when they think they can make a corp without understanding it makes them vulnerable to the full force of wardecs?

Not every player likes PvP combat, but they have no right to be excluded from it in this game. It is entirely a PvP environment.


wardecced is ok but neutrals should not be able to help with immunity to being attacked, that is all there is to it. now they can boost and be on grid and the defending party cant attack the boosters without dying to concorde same for logi. that is wrong period.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-05-30 19:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?



You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?


I invite you to debate it, then.

You want to think of this as "smart gameplay" but it really isn't. It's not clever. It's obvious. It's an objectively correct tactical decision that should never not be made: If you're going to use logi in high sec, they should be neutral. Always. There's no tradeoff or reason not to do it that way. It's always correct, which, most of the time, is in fact indicative of a problem.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2014-05-30 19:13:51 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:

wardecced is ok but neutrals should not be able to help with immunity to being attacked, that is all there is to it. now they can boost and be on grid and the defending party cant attack the boosters without dying to concorde same for logi. that is wrong period.


Neutral Logi are not immune to being attacked!

They are suspect flagged when they rep, so you can shoot them just like everybody else.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#108 - 2014-05-30 19:16:59 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?



You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?


I invite you to debate it, then.

You want to think of this as "smart gameplay" but it really isn't. It's not clever. It's obvious. It's an objectively correct tactical decision that should never not be made: If you're going to use logi in high sec, they should be neutral. Always. There's no tradeoff or reason not to do it that way. It's always correct, which, most of the time, is in fact indicative of a problem.


No different than using neutral haulers.

It's always the correct choice. No tradeoff, no reason to do it any other way.

The very existence of NPC corps themselves are the problem. You have blinders on about logi, but the problem is more broad than that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-05-30 19:17:27 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

wardecced is ok but neutrals should not be able to help with immunity to being attacked, that is all there is to it. now they can boost and be on grid and the defending party cant attack the boosters without dying to concorde same for logi. that is wrong period.


Neutral Logi are not immune to being attacked!

They are suspect flagged when they rep, so you can shoot them just like everybody else.


They ARE immune to being attacked until they take action, though. That has immense value, and is what makes the, "B..b...but logi go suspect!" argument so disingenuous. The normal combatants on the field aren't given that benefit.

I'm right with you on boosters, as well.



Quote:
No different than using neutral haulers.

It's always the correct choice. No tradeoff, no reason to do it any other way.


I agree! And that's unfortunate. I see no good solutions for those that wouldn't care more problems than they correct, however. If you've got one, then by all means.

Quote:
You have blinders on about logi, but the problem is more broad than that.


No. I agree the problem is more broad than that. I simply recognize that logi is a trivially correctable instance of the problem.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#110 - 2014-05-30 19:21:14 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

They ARE immune to being attacked until they take action, though. That has immense value, and is what makes the, "B..b...but logi go suspect!" argument so disingenuous. The normal combatants on the field aren't given that benefit.

I'm right with you on boosters, as well.


Meaning that until they do, they have zero mechanical effect on the game, and when they do, they are free targets.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#111 - 2014-05-30 19:23:10 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=SurrenderMonkey]


Meaning that until they do, they have zero mechanical effect on the game, and when they do, they are free targets.


If a wartarget is on-grid, but doesn't do anything, he's having zero mechanical effect on the game. He's a valid target regardless.

Why do logi deserve to be able to choose when they become free targets in an engagement where all other combatants begin in that state?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#112 - 2014-05-30 19:28:34 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

If a wartarget is on-grid, but doesn't do anything, he's having zero mechanical effect on the game. He's a valid target regardless.

Why do logi deserve to be able to choose when they become free targets in an engagement where all other combatants begin in that state?


Not just logi, any neutral.

For offensive actions, the result is death and a criminal flag. For a non offensive action, the result is a suspect flag.

For boosting, oddly, the result is nothing. But boosting is all round broken, and needs a full rework as soon as they can figure out how to code it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#113 - 2014-05-30 19:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Not just logi, any neutral.

For offensive actions, the result is death and a criminal flag. For a non offensive action, the result is a suspect flag.


Yes, I'm quite aware of the existing rules. As noted before, merely stating the existing rules isn't actually a useful rejoinder to an argument that the rules could benefit from revision. In this case, the suggestion is that logi could be reclassified on the other side of the line. Where the line is presently drawn is known and understood by all participants, and isn't, in and of itself, an argument against a redefinition of the line.

Quote:

For boosting, oddly, the result is nothing. But boosting is all round broken, and needs a full rework as soon as they can figure out how to code it.


Agreed. Boosting is ******. But we know that, and we know that they're working to correct it, which makes it ******, but uninteresting as an F&I topic.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#114 - 2014-05-30 19:35:50 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Yes, I'm quite aware of the existing rules. As noted before, merely stating the existing rules isn't actually a useful rejoinder to an argument that the rules could benefit from revision.


I'd still love to hear why this supposed problem needs to be fixed. Or why it's a problem in the first place.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#115 - 2014-05-30 19:36:45 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

Make NPC corps incapable of trading in contracts...just saying. red frog would hate me for it, but its there.


That is only focused at hurting Red Frog, it is not a mechanic that will help the general problem of people hiding in NPC corps.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#116 - 2014-05-30 19:41:38 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?



You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?


Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#117 - 2014-05-30 19:43:04 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?


Are you unaware of what a suspect flag is?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#118 - 2014-05-30 19:48:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Yes, I'm quite aware of the existing rules. As noted before, merely stating the existing rules isn't actually a useful rejoinder to an argument that the rules could benefit from revision.


I'd still love to hear why this supposed problem needs to be fixed. Or why it's a problem in the first place.



I was veering more toward, "This could be done a lot better," than, "This is a huge problem that must be corrected!" Not everything warrants fixing merely because it's hugely problematic. Sometimes things can just be better, and this is definitely one of those things.

With that said, the inverted risk/reward curve is a small problem, given the overarching ethos of the game. The game SHOULD encourage membership in player corps where possible, and this does the opposite.

It's also simply inconsistent with the rest of crimewatch flagging. Though it's not offensive, logically speaking, the use-case for logi has more in common with offensive actions than it does with actions that grant suspect flags. I can get a suspect flag without ever doing ANYTHING combat related, whereas, while not offensive, remote reps are explicitly a combat action.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#119 - 2014-05-30 19:50:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?


Are you unaware of what a suspect flag is?


Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#120 - 2014-05-30 19:53:20 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?


Are you unaware of what a suspect flag is?


Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?


Once again, I question whether you actually know what a suspect flag is.

The reason one would wish to have their reps in corp is to not permit anyone passing through to attack your logi. A suspect flag can get you your ass handed to you in more than a few ways.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.