Player Features and Ideas Discussion

But you don't have to anchor a structure in a system just to turn on your mining lasers, do you?

Nor should you be expected to defend a structure just to access the basic mechanics of a particular playstyle. It's something that should be available to you regardless.




False.

You don't lose the ability to mine just because you died. You can still mine, you can go right back out when you feel like it and turn on those mining lasers.

Dying once in a mining barge doesn't stop you from mining for a week, does it? Then why should losing one fight in a war stop you from having the mechanic?

Oh wait, I know the answer. Because you personally dislike wars and think they should have punitive mechanics applied to them. But never you, of course.

Hypocrite.

ok... so basically no HS.
Hint, that was how Eve started, and it didn't work out too well.

You mean like you'd be able to declare a new war if you were deprived of one? Hypocrisy indeed.

Edit: Just so it's noted, I'm not in favor of lockouts for "destroyed" wars.

If only you had to pay fifty million isk per week to be able to turn on mining lasers.

Then you might have a point.

So we're back to "I paid isk for it so it should be guaranteed?" Can I apply that reasoning to my mining lasers? Actually, can I apply that to any consumable I buy? That would be great if I could avoid risk on anything I have with a pay per use mechanic.

No.

We're back to "you don't have to do a goddamned thing to keep your playstyle's existence available to you, so you have no grounds for suggesting that others should be handcuffed just because you don't like them."

When you have to anchor a structure in a system to mine at all, then we'll talk.

I think you're confusing two separate issues here.

Going back to the point you acknowledged earlier that currently you have to defend yourself, but not your playstyle.

In the same way that you have to buy/make your ships, pay for your Corp and structures, wardeccers have all of those same things to pay for (if they choose you have a structure).

No one is unique in that regard. We are all the same and there is complete equity for all players.

Your proposal however just aims to put another system in place that they need to pay for and then increase costs.

It's just an attempt to nerf highsec aggression, when all of the tools already exist for defenders to fight back if they want. If they don't want, that's their choice and there is no need for nanny mechanics to protect them from their choices.

Wardecs aren't perfect, but the current state is far better than this proposal.

I don't. I'm quite clearly advocating wars be treated equally with other assets, including the possibility of loss. Though I fully understand your objection to that, as well as the fact that it's self serving.

No, it really is quite right.

Edit: "Just like everybody else." is an interesting claim considering I can declare a war without ever boarding a ship or putting assets at risk in trade. The lack of any inherent war meaning makes such a dec no less legitimate than any other as well.

The thing about your last example is that they are still better off with the war structure than without. Being hampered by sec status would make taking advantage of the war structure problematic, but at the same time possible, where current mechanics do nothing to allow them to directly address the issue with their guns if it's just a nuisance dec to mess with recruitment.

Also how is there no choice for the attacker? They would have the choice of defending their was structure. Successful destruction is dependent on player actions on both sides, so while mechanically determined it's players who decide which mechanics prevail.

Exactly like arbitrarily declaring a war and allowing it to expire or using the surrender mechanic. In fact it's all mechanical when you get down to it, and just players manipulating those mechanics. The only difference is giving defenders as much say into which rules get invokes for the war itself by allowing them to actually overcome the attackers in a meaningful way.

You've said yourself that they pay for a wardec in order to remove CONCORD and allowing them destroy the ships of their intended target.
The only thing the structure does is present a juicy target for the defender which attacking could have a positive outcome, and for the aggressor, it brings their targets out into the open so they can shoot them..

If the defender is unwilling to fight over the structure, then the aggressor goes about the wardec the same way they do now, only the corp folding and/or players dropping corp has a notable penalty.

As far as your question on the costs.
Well, my intent behind costs it to keep balanced numbers and allow skill to determine the victor, so it may be who of us to block recruitment all together, thus even further incentivizing fighting on the defender's part in order to open recruitment back up.

It also has the benefit of both defender's and aggressors monitoring/cleaning their members of innactives in order to reduce dec costs and/or reduce numbers to avoid having to face more aggressors with less active members.
It also incentivizes corps putting their corp office where they actually are, so when a war goes active, the structure isn't placed way outside of their reach. People will often put their office in say Jita, but live out of Sinq region, in hopes to confuse and aggressor and/or defender.

As far as a lowsec entity with bad standings, You're in lowsec... if they want to kill you, they have to come to you, which likely isn't going to happen with most deccers as it increases risks.
... And if you want to consider this a logistics issue, most low, null, and even WH entities use alts to transport goods, so it doesn't effect them.
If they're actually using assets within the entity, they're losing out anyway...