Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If it is important that neutrals can join in, then why is a destroyer that opens fire on the one part of the duel concorded?

i wasnt taking it as a serious suggestion.

The idea was so biased towards defenders i took at as a knee jerk suggestion to make war decs horrible enough that no one would use them. Wars shouldnt be difficult nor biased towards the defender, they allow each corp to attack eachother on equal footing, its has nothing to do with the wardec mechanic itself that attackers are often better prepared than defenders. Thats an issue with the defender for not being prepared for what is a very significant part of this game. Thats why people tell u that its ur own fault.

Imagine playing a game of Civ and not preparing for the possibility of war, then claiming the mechanic is broken because u got war decced by another nation. U'd be told its your own fault there too.

ur idea is riddled with issues.

it forces war decs to go on until someone wins, all the while the aggressors are also forced to pay for it. Winning is arbitrarily determined by either the defenders fail cascading or the attackers withdrawing the dec. But not all decs are about fail cascades. There is no way to make an 'i win' scenario for the attackers in a sandbox, they dec for whatever reason they like, thats the point of the sandbox.

What if ppl were leaving the defending corp anyways? They lose the war for something that would have happened dec or no dec? How would u stop corps bumping up their numbers with empty alts to make sure they can never lose a dec and are guaranteed that 100mil?

the idea will never work as u intend it. its entirely unworkable.

I would like to see high sec wars improved too but what you suggest changes very little. I do feel like neutral logi is unfair (this coming from someone who was a high-sec war dec'er and used a neut logi alt). But fixing logi and changing the cost structure of a war will not make wars more interesting.

Wars needs to have some kind of mechanic to force people away from gates and stations to get interesting fights. There should also be a way to win/lose a war beyond the ISK lost count. I suggested long ago that the aggressor construct a war hub in a high-sec system of their choosing (instead of paying 50M), the war hub would only be a legal target for those at war with that corp. Once the anchored it would consume supplies costing about 50M per week. The war would end once the hub runs out of supplies or is destroyed.

The impact is identical, however. And let's leave the RP-fairy arguments alone: Everyone knows those are ultimately malleable if they need to be altered for mechanical reasons, so talking about what Concord is "concerned" with is ultimately pointless. From a design perspective, CONCORD is just the enforcement mechanic of structured rules of engagement for high-sec, and nothing more.



You won't get an argument from me about people railing against "effort", and I think you're probably familiar enough with my positing history to know that - I just don't think it's applicable here - or, at least, it's not *always* applicable here. The OP does reek of carebear a bit, but there is absolutely a legitimate argument about the ROE being lopsided with respect to neutral reppers.

All other "combatants" in a war become engageable at undock-time. Neutral reppers become engageable at module-activation. The disparity in risk is quite obvious, and the response options for neutral logi are, as a consequence, comparatively limited. You can't preempt them - you can only react, after they choose to enter the engagement. Sure, if you do your homework you can "plan ahead", but you're still artificially limited in how you can respond to them to actions taken AFTER they start repping.

This is much the same argument used by people who want to ban scamming, that there's no way to get back at the scammer.

The point is to not fall for it in the first place.

Much like here. The point is to realize that neutral reps *can* happen, and to plan accordingly.

The only true disparity in risk is between smart gameplay and stupid gameplay. And that disparity should, nay, must exist.

As previously noted, the difference between scouts, haulers, etc. and neutral logi is that you can actually quite easily solve neutral logi mechanically with no appreciable harm to... anything, really. I mean, except for neutral-logi tactics.





http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/08/article-0-0290058B00000578-290_468x286.jpg

Kindly refrain from blowing smoke up my ass.

As far as module activations go, you can boost and you can logi.

Guns are not the outlier, unless neuts, vamps, TDs, damps, painters, webs, missiles, scrams, drones, ECM, and smartbombs (did I miss anything?) are also "the outlier", and that's a pretty long list.

I agree. However, what all those things have in common is that they harm the target ships. Remote reps and command modules help the target ships. That's the dividing line.

And it doesn't really make sense for CONCORD to vaporize anyone who is assisting another person conducting a legal action.

Topic: "Hey, maybe we could use a slight change of the rules that would make this not-a-legal action?"

Response: "No, the rules are that..."

You understand that responding to a suggestion that the rules should be altered with, "No, because the present rule is XYZ..." isn't actually an argument, right?

It's like saying, "Hey, we should paint that house over that Red."

And then getting a response, "No, that doesn't make sense - that house is blue."

The current rule is merely the existing status quo. It doesn't, in and of itself, constitute an argument against changing the rule.

It would only be playing by different rules if the defender were forbidden from using it too. The playing field is even.



It goes for scouts and haulers too. Until local goes away, yes, this will always be the case.




Like I said above, same for scouts, haulers, and a bunch of other things to boot.

In fact, there are more reasons to not be in a corp, than to be in one.

Very good. A clarification of the current rules is not an argument. You are on your way to understanding how to think and process information. Keep at it!