These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Proposal] Bodyguarding through EWAR

Author
Anna Shoul
#21 - 2012-06-15 12:05:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The only solution I can think of, is for the bodyguard to activate his beacon on a single target. This would limit the number of ships they can bodyguard to 8 max, given the max of 8 high slots..

That would actually be better in many respects, and solve at least one of the other problems you mentioned, (and possibly the ECM Burst problem, since the bodyguard could pack ECCM -- Il admit I didn't think of ECM Burst being too effective...) but let me explain why I didn't go that way from the beginning:

1. Unintended consequences going in the other direction. There's quite some interesting mischief one can possibly pull by target redirecting an unaware and unwilling target. By handing the responsibility of keeping the module activation to the bodyguard himself, we either reduce the options to control the relationship on both ends, or resign to things like 'lemme steal the shield rep from the opponent's logi'. Which would be fun in a way, but a bit too chaotic, if you ask me.
2. Avoiding the above would produce considerably more complicated module activation checks. For example, suppose that two people with beacon modules activate their beacons on a single industrial, and I try to target this industrial -- which ship of the three do I end up locking? Can two people do that in the first place, and if they can't, how will the server prevent this? What about selecting which ship classes it can and cannot be activated on?

I'd rather offer a suggestion as narrow as possible, if only because there's less chance of "I know what your agenda is!" flames otherwise. :)

Rico Minali wrote:
Miners in lowsec adn nullsec have fleets, defensive ships and scouts, sometimes a boosting command ship. Miners in lowsec adn nullsec rarely get ganked because they know what they are doing and are serious about it. Like it or not THIS IS JUST about hisec miners.

Notice that this only works because in lowsec every non-blue is a target. However, should you really have to to shoot first, always? Changes to the Crimewatch system described in the fanfest presentation, particularly the sec status logic described, appear to be trying to create a situation wherein in low sec, a neutral can be just a neutral, and not necessarily someone you need to kill to mine at all. Let me explain why I believe this is important:

Any 'not blue shoot it' situation promotes certain behaviors in players simply because players who don't do that suffer. In particular:

1. If you aren't looking for a fight, but are instead looking for a resource to harvest, you will attempt to find a location where a hostile engagement is as unlikely as possible, "watch local", and avoid engagement whenever possible. (Doing otherwise cuts into your income.) That leaves lots of resources unexploited at all, and in most cases, leaves you mining (and missioning) in high sec.
2. If you are looking for a fight, everyone is avoiding you as hard as they can because of the above, so you spend lots of time roaming until you find an opponent, and more often than not, you instead find bait.

In nullsec, large regions are populated by nothing but blues, due to the sov mechanics. But in lowsec, there's no sov mechanics and you never get many blues, so you shoot everyone and run from everyone. As a result, lowsec is a failed ecosystem, where everyone is forced to either be the predator, or the very quick and avoidant prey -- or avoid lowsec in the first place. There's very little middle ground, even if you cooperate, and the more you cooperate the more you become the predator by necessity. Coupled with the Crimewatch change, I believe the proposed change should create a more populous lowsec.
Previous page12