These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Upgrade wardecs with deployables, to create actual wars
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2017-04-21 23:00:40 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
  • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?

    • It isn't easy to attack a large and capable defender. Doing so tends to result in ship losses and little gain. What is easy is attacking a large and incompetent defender, the kind of corp that has lots of individual PvE players floating around obliviously on their own separate farming goals but little organization or ability to fight back. And that should continue to be easy because incompetence should be punished.


    So drop the wardec structure in some out-of-the-way lowsec system where they'll never find it, and continue as usual. Unless someone else decides to kill it for no reason (no drops, lots of HP to chew through).

    Or drop it in their home system, defend it, and laugh at them when they try and attack it, and you wreck them.


    What this does pretty directly attack, is people who wardec someone, and dock up whenever they actually show up to fight. Then when the fleet gets bored and wanders off, and the Netflix episode ends, the "brave attacker" resumes bravely camping the trade hub to get easy kills.


    Your first paragraph contradicts the second.

    "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

    8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
    grgjegb gergerg
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #42 - 2017-04-22 07:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
    Marika Sunji wrote:
    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Defending structure is a bit boring but at the same time, if your enemy want to close the war, they have to show up there. Actual wardeccers are ebtter placed to give their opinion on how they think their business would do with such new mechanics.


    It'd change nothing - most PvE players would still drop corp rather than risk grinding structure timers and getting dropped on (which would happen), and wardeccers would just ignore the structure altogether unless someone actually had the gall to rf it. The problem is that (from personal observation and conversations) the players who drop corp to avoid wardecs do not want the fight. They just want the safety and easy money. Simply adding a structure to let people end wars prematurely wouldn't end anything. Also, structure grinds where the defender can field even a moderately capable and not hopelessly outnumbered fleet are very, very bloody for attackers.

    It might change nothing. You could be right.

    It's far simpler and cheaper to scatter.

    Or, someone could hire a merc, or htfu and do it themselves. What is a merc goal in wardec defense, currently? They're expected to kill the aggressor across an unspecified volume of space until the wardec ends. Aggressors who can dock up at any sign of resistance. This is boring.

    There's no way for a defender to end a wardec. No way to generate an interesting fight, it's all just ganking. Aggressors ganking careless defenders. Defenders ganking careless aggressors.

    Structure timers would create a single point of failure. The wardec structure could be shoved into reinforced, which would require a response from the aggressors. They would just have to repair the shield back up, and cover it for the duration. And the "careless" targets who are generally chosen for their inability to fight back, would have to somehow kill a fleet that the attackers have had ~24 hours to prepare to field.

    My main point is that if someone declares a war, and has 24 hours to prepare to fight the people they declare war on, and cannot win, they don't deserve the easy kills. Because they are bad.
    Tessa Sage
    Long Pig Luncheon Meat
    Sending Thots And Players
    #43 - 2017-05-01 09:42:44 UTC
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:

    It might change nothing. You could be right.

    It's far simpler and cheaper to scatter.

    ...

    Structure timers would create a single point of failure. The wardec structure could be shoved into reinforced, which would require a response from the aggressors. They would just have to repair the shield back up, and cover it for the duration. And the "careless" targets who are generally chosen for their inability to fight back, would have to somehow kill a fleet that the attackers have had ~24 hours to prepare to field.

    My main point is that if someone declares a war, and has 24 hours to prepare to fight the people they declare war on, and cannot win, they don't deserve the easy kills. Because they are bad.


    I like this argument, if normally the wardec disintegrates due to abandoning of contested posts or simply excessive zero sum, then give both sides a very clear point of contention. I posit a free-for-all marker. What is the wardec, but a kill right in reverse. Instead, park a deployable that, if near a busy enough interchange, becomes ground zero. Anyone and everyone can brawl.
    grgjegb gergerg
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #44 - 2017-05-05 20:03:59 UTC
    Tessa Sage wrote:
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:

    It might change nothing. You could be right.

    It's far simpler and cheaper to scatter.

    ...

    Structure timers would create a single point of failure. The wardec structure could be shoved into reinforced, which would require a response from the aggressors. They would just have to repair the shield back up, and cover it for the duration. And the "careless" targets who are generally chosen for their inability to fight back, would have to somehow kill a fleet that the attackers have had ~24 hours to prepare to field.

    My main point is that if someone declares a war, and has 24 hours to prepare to fight the people they declare war on, and cannot win, they don't deserve the easy kills. Because they are bad.


    I like this argument, if normally the wardec disintegrates due to abandoning of contested posts or simply excessive zero sum, then give both sides a very clear point of contention. I posit a free-for-all marker. What is the wardec, but a kill right in reverse. Instead, park a deployable that, if near a busy enough interchange, becomes ground zero. Anyone and everyone can brawl.

    That, and that MOST people just use decs as a very thin excuse. They pick the easiest, largest targets they can find, and dec them all. Then they camp trade hubs, and kill easy targets or people fit for PVE. At the first real response, they dock up and wait it out.

    And what's the counter? I always see people rationalizing it with "the target is bad and should feel bad" and not much else. If the target hired mercs, the merc can force the deccer to... dock up, until the merc gets bored, then they wander off and the deccer goes back to ganking.

    Making decs more expensive could work, but lacks elegance and is also boring.

    If the deccer had to drop a structure, and the defender hired a merc, they could come in and reinforce the structure, and when it came out of reinforcement, SOMETHING would expode: just the structure (and the dec), or the merc fleet, or the deccer fleet AND the structure.

    And I rationalize this by simply pointing out that the deccer WANTED a war, and is very literally willing to pay for fights. How can they possibly complain about getting fights, when they invest millions or billions into asking for them?
    Alderson Point
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #45 - 2017-05-05 20:38:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    Tessa Sage wrote:
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:

    It might change nothing. You could be right.

    It's far simpler and cheaper to scatter.

    ...

    Structure timers would create a single point of failure. The wardec structure could be shoved into reinforced, which would require a response from the aggressors. They would just have to repair the shield back up, and cover it for the duration. And the "careless" targets who are generally chosen for their inability to fight back, would have to somehow kill a fleet that the attackers have had ~24 hours to prepare to field.

    My main point is that if someone declares a war, and has 24 hours to prepare to fight the people they declare war on, and cannot win, they don't deserve the easy kills. Because they are bad.


    I like this argument, if normally the wardec disintegrates due to abandoning of contested posts or simply excessive zero sum, then give both sides a very clear point of contention. I posit a free-for-all marker. What is the wardec, but a kill right in reverse. Instead, park a deployable that, if near a busy enough interchange, becomes ground zero. Anyone and everyone can brawl.

    That, and that MOST people just use decs as a very thin excuse. They pick the easiest, largest targets they can find, and dec them all. Then they camp trade hubs, and kill easy targets or people fit for PVE. At the first real response, they dock up and wait it out.

    And what's the counter? I always see people rationalizing it with "the target is bad and should feel bad" and not much else. If the target hired mercs, the merc can force the deccer to... dock up, until the merc gets bored, then they wander off and the deccer goes back to ganking.

    Making decs more expensive could work, but lacks elegance and is also boring.

    If the deccer had to drop a structure, and the defender hired a merc, they could come in and reinforce the structure, and when it came out of reinforcement, SOMETHING would expode: just the structure (and the dec), or the merc fleet, or the deccer fleet AND the structure.

    And I rationalize this by simply pointing out that the deccer WANTED a war, and is very literally willing to pay for fights. How can they possibly complain about getting fights, when they invest millions or billions into asking for them?



    You are of course entirely right. Just one small observation.

    Wardeccers do not want fights.

    They want kills.

    And will stamp, and scream, and throw themselves in the floor, and the teddies thrown Out of the pram are a positive health hazard, when somebody talks of taking the meat grinder with the dual V8s powering it away.

    Because " I deserve it! I'm entitled to it !!!! It is MY game make them play MY way !!!"
    (red faced runny nose and puffy eyed)

    Cue them holding their breath until they turn blue.

    At that point most parents regret That romantic weekend away.
    Valkin Mordirc
    #46 - 2017-05-05 20:59:43 UTC
    Alderson Point wrote:




    You are of course entirely right. Just one small observation.

    Wardeccers do not want fights.

    They want kills.

    And will stamp, and scream, and throw themselves in the floor, and the teddies thrown Out of the pram are a positive health hazard, when somebody talks of taking the meat grinder with the dual V8s powering it away.

    Because " I deserve it! I'm entitled to it !!!! It is MY game make them play MY way !!!"
    (red faced runny nose and puffy eyed)

    Cue them holding their breath until they turn blue.

    At that point most parents regret That romantic weekend away.



    My word, can you project more? Or is that your limit? Your dad probably wasn't that bad.
    #DeleteTheWeak
    Alderson Point
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #47 - 2017-05-05 21:01:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
    Valkin Mordirc wrote:
    Alderson Point wrote:




    You are of course entirely right. Just one small observation.

    Wardeccers do not want fights.

    They want kills.

    And will stamp, and scream, and throw themselves in the floor, and the teddies thrown Out of the pram are a positive health hazard, when somebody talks of taking the meat grinder with the dual V8s powering it away.

    Because " I deserve it! I'm entitled to it !!!! It is MY game make them play MY way !!!"
    (red faced runny nose and puffy eyed)

    Cue them holding their breath until they turn blue.

    At that point most parents regret That romantic weekend away.



    My word, can you project more? Or is that your limit? Your dad probably wasn't that bad.


    At least make a little effort.
    Lazy troll 0/10
    grgjegb gergerg
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #48 - 2017-05-07 03:17:30 UTC
    Alderson Point wrote:



    You are of course entirely right. Just one small observation.

    Wardeccers do not want fights.

    They want kills.

    And will stamp, and scream, and throw themselves in the floor, and the teddies thrown Out of the pram are a positive health hazard, when somebody talks of taking the meat grinder with the dual V8s powering it away.

    Because " I deserve it! I'm entitled to it !!!! It is MY game make them play MY way !!!"
    (red faced runny nose and puffy eyed)

    Cue them holding their breath until they turn blue.

    At that point most parents regret That romantic weekend away.

    Well, yeah. But as far as ingame lore goes, they are asking for fights.

    CCP can't help it if people wardec on their PVP alt, and safely PVE on anonymous characters who are mostly safe through obscurity.

    I did post another idea about haxoring player data, mostly just to see who is funding who- https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6900864#post6900864

    Then, when oh-so-brave docking-games-playing funded-by-PVE-alts PVPers engage people, they can get their transaction history revealed, and any PVE alts can be found and tracked down...
    Previous page123