These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#121 - 2014-05-30 19:54:54 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?



There's only one edge case, and that would be if, for example, they decided to engage somewhere like the Jita 4-4 undock, where a suspect flag is probably more dangerous (thanks to the high surrounding population) than actually being IN the war.

But like I said, it's an edge case, and one the neutral can exert more or less complete control over, so even though the scenario exists in theory, in practice they're effectively always better in the neutral corp.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-05-30 19:55:05 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.



My argument for would be simple: It's best to nerf NPC corps at each opportunity.

I don't see a massive revamp to them happening any time soon (sadly), but chipping away their abilities bit by bit would seem to be an effective strategy as to adding balance to them.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#123 - 2014-05-30 19:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

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.


Things that do so in a far worse manner are explicitly permitted by CCP. Hence my point about dealing with the reality of the situation.


Quote:

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.



Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.

The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.

"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
#124 - 2014-05-30 20:00:01 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
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.



My argument for would be simple: It's best to nerf NPC corps at each opportunity.

I don't see a massive revamp to them happening any time soon (sadly), but chipping away their abilities bit by bit would seem to be an effective strategy as to adding balance to them.


Honestly, you wouldn't need a massive revamp. It's basically dead simple, and would use only a slightly modified version of the existing Crimewatch mechanics.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who IS a valid combat target for the logi, the logi can rep.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who is NOT a valid combat target for the logi pilto, the logi can... suicide rep. Lol

Between the existing flagging mechanics and the safety, virtually all of the alleged problems (incursions, etc.) are resolved automatically.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Chick Sauce
Doomheim
#125 - 2014-05-30 20:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Chick Sauce
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
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.

Neutral haulers are not actively involved in conflict. Neutral logistics are. You are ignoring the logic here because you have arbitrarily drawn a line in your head where supporting changes to neutral logistics is somehow "carebeary" and God forbid you should ever be associated with such vermin. Roll

I have used this suspect mechanic to my advantage many times. I am not whining because it has been used against me; no, quite the opposite!
There are many players who thought like you - that it was obvious whether or not neutral logi was around - and they paid dearly for that assumption. I am amazingly sneaky.

That does not me I have to argue what I am doing is fair. This is a major problem in this community; people argue what they do and what they like is fair, instead of arguing through logic and reason.

So why is it not balanced?
There's no real way to determine if neutral logi are around. You can guess but that's it. It's called a cloaking device. It's this wonderful thing that combined with the right rigs/implants/skills allows you to decloak any ship type in like 7 seconds.

If I had more friends I'd thoroughly enjoy wardeccing your corp to prove this point. Alas I don't and you guys seem a bit active Lol
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#126 - 2014-05-30 20:05:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.

The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.


Still waiting for the answer on the previous question, but I see since you have no basis for anything you say you just let it go and start up something new.

In order for Crimewatch to be consistent, it would need to have similar punishment for similar "crimes".

So ... which one doesnt belong?

"Stealing from a can" "helping in fight by shooting at the enemy of friend" "helping in fight by repping friend".
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#127 - 2014-05-30 20:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.





The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

On the "CONCORDOKKEN!" side of the line we have nothing but combat actions: Shooting, disrupting, Ewaring, droning, missiling, etc.

On the "Suspect" side of the line, we have one specific combat action - logi - and theft. Nothing else on the suspect side of the line actually has ANY chance of endangering another player without their taking action.

If I loot a wreck, I go suspect. I do not endanger the victim of the theft, unless he aggresses me.
If I blow up an MTU, I go suspect. I do not endanger the owner of the MTU, unless he aggresses me.

If I remote rep a player, I go suspect, and I'm DEFINITELY endangering the opponent of my target. The nature of the action (and its consequences) has FAR more in common with "red" actions than "yellow" ones.

Quote:
The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.


Er... The suggestion is, "Slightly modify the criteria so that it's Y instead of X." Saying, "But the criteria is X!" isn't actually a response. We know what X is. We started with X, and then suggested it be changed to Y.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2014-05-30 20:09:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


Honestly, you wouldn't need a massive revamp. It's basically dead simple, and would use only a slightly modified version of the existing Crimewatch mechanics.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who IS a valid combat target for the logi, the logi can rep.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who is NOT a valid combat target for the logi pilto, the logi can... suicide rep. Lol

Between the existing flagging mechanics and the safety, virtually all of the alleged problems (incursions, etc.) are resolved automatically.


I would make that applicable to NPC corps, and allow it from player corps.

If it's a player corp, treat the entire corp as valid war targets for some preset period (a day, or a week). No more NPC logi, and if a corp interferes, you have some ability to hurt them in return.

And, yes, it could be gamed. In fact, it would be an awesome way to surprise some poor corp, by joining and repping someone who is in a war.

If that couldn't be done, just make it applicable to NPC corps only.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#129 - 2014-05-30 20:11:27 UTC
Chick Sauce wrote:

Neutral haulers are not actively involved in conflict.


If you're playing EVE, you're actively involved in conflict. Whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Neutral logistics are. You are ignoring the logic here because you have arbitrarily drawn a line in your head where supporting changes to neutral logistics is somehow "carebeary" and God forbid you should ever be associated with such vermin. Roll


No, I'm ignoring it because it's fallacious as all get out.

You can't callout logistics in NPC corps, and say it's not acceptable that a neutral character is optimal in that situation, and then dance around the FACT that neutral characters are optimal in way more situations than that.

Quote:

So why is it not balanced?
There's no real way to determine if neutral logi are around. You can guess but that's it. It's called a cloaking device. It's this wonderful thing that combined with the right rigs/implants/skills allows you to decloak any ship type in like 7 seconds.

If I had more friends I'd thoroughly enjoy wardeccing your corp to prove this point. Alas I don't and you guys seem a bit active Lol


So, your argument in favor of people who don't want to use effort or get intel is "cloaking devices"? You're kidding right?

If they want to gimp their ship like that in a circumstance in which they ARE going to get a suspect flag, fine with me.

As for your last sentence, good call. Picking your battles is important, that's what this thread is railing against of course, but it's still true nonetheless.

"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.
#130 - 2014-05-30 20:14:22 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.


There is no inconsistency. There is no nature of the actions.

There is what uses offensive modules and triggers CONCORD, and there is what does not use offensive modules and triggers a suspect flag.

It is perfectly consistent.

"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
#131 - 2014-05-30 20:15:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You can't callout logistics in NPC corps, and say it's not acceptable that a neutral character is optimal in that situation, and then dance around the FACT that neutral characters are optimal in way more situations than that.



Uh, actually, you can. It's like saying, "Hey, here's a cure for leukemia," and then getting the response, "Oh yeah? Well what about pancreatic cancer? Lung cancer? Neuroblastoma? Got a fix for for those?!?"

You want to talk about fallacies? Being able to improve one instance of a given issue is not logically contingent on being able to fix all instances of the issue. For some reason, you keep implying that it is, and that if all such issues cannot be improved, then none should.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#132 - 2014-05-30 20:16:17 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.


There is no inconsistency. There is no nature of the actions.

There is what uses offensive modules and triggers CONCORD, and there is what does not use offensive modules and triggers a suspect flag.

It is perfectly consistent.


You should probably look up "begging the question".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#133 - 2014-05-30 20:16:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


As for your last sentence, good call. Picking your battles is important, that's what this thread is railing against of course, but it's still true nonetheless.


This thread isn't against being able to pick your battles.

This thread is against only aggressor being able to pick their battle.

Out of corp logi chooses when it when wants to fight, I can't choose to shoot it down when it is on the way to battle. That is why I want it in corp, so I can seek it out and shoot it down when it is not in the middle of a huge fleet.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#134 - 2014-05-30 20:19:12 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You want to talk about fallacies? Being able to improve one instance of a given issue is not logically contingent on being able to fix all instances of the issue. For some reason, you keep implying that it is, and that if all such issues cannot be improved, then none should.


Your blinders are getting in the way again. I have no idea where you got that from.

I am telling you that it is quite clear that CCP has no problem with the things that are optimal in an NPC corp. There are craptons of those in the game, and they are permitted to exist. Whether I think they should burn NPC corps to ashes or not is completely irrelevant with the reality of the situation.

"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.
#135 - 2014-05-30 20:21:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:

This thread isn't against being able to pick your battles.

This thread is against only aggressor being able to pick their battle.


The tactic is in no way denied to you.

Quote:

Out of corp logi chooses when it when wants to fight, I can't choose to shoot it down when it is on the way to battle.


Yes, you can. You're just too chicken to suicide gank them. You're not smart enough to spot them and adjust for it either.

You, specifically you, do not deserve to be in a player corp. At all.

Quote:

That is why I want it in corp, so I can seek it out and shoot it down when it is not in the middle of a huge fleet.


Then go buy some Catalysts.

"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
#136 - 2014-05-30 20:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

You want to talk about fallacies? Being able to improve one instance of a given issue is not logically contingent on being able to fix all instances of the issue. For some reason, you keep implying that it is, and that if all such issues cannot be improved, then none should.


Your blinders are getting in the way again. I have no idea where you got that from.


Probably from the fact that you keep harping on other instances of neutral-optimal conditions as if their existence constituted a credible argument against changing this one particular instance of a neutral-optimal condition.

Quote:
I am telling you that it is quite clear that CCP has no problem with the things that are optimal in an NPC corp.


Dude, you keep speaking on their behalf. I don't see a CCP logo next to your name.

You want reality? Reality is that the rules of the game change frequently. Citing the present rules as an argument against changing the present rules is a circular argument, akin to asserting that the Bible is infallible, because it's the word of god, who defintely exists, because the bible says so.

If, "CCP is obviously fine with this things because that's the way it is right now," had any validity as an argument, literally nothing would ever change. We'd still have nano, because CCP would have obviously been fine with nano, because we have nano. We'd still have remote AOE doomsdays, which CCP was obviously fine with, because at the time we had remote AOE doomsdays.


Again, quit begging the question.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#137 - 2014-05-30 20:23:41 UTC
The OP has demonstrated, repeatedly, that this is about not wanting to put in the same effort that other people are putting in.

I honestly don't know why anyone else is entertaining this incredible display of selfishness and entitlement.

"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.
#138 - 2014-05-30 20:27:01 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Probably from the fact that you keep harping on other instances of neutral-optimal conditions as if their existence constituted a credible argument against changing this one particular instance of a neutral-optimal condition.


You need to actually read what I'm saying, then.

Yes, I hate those things. I hate the fact that NPC corps exist at all. The fact that some people are immune to every kind of PvP but suicide ganking is disgusting to me, because I believe in the sandbox, and highsec as a whole should be burned to the ground for it's affront to player freedom.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I recognize the reality of the situation, and act in accordance with that reality.

Quote:

Dude, you keep speaking on their behalf. I don't see a CCP logo next to your name.


Oh, not that trite nonsense. I expected better of you.

If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it. In the case of POS mechanics, that is unable.

In this case, it's unwilling. It's quite simple to deduce.

Quote:

You want reality? Reality is that the rules of the game change frequently. Citing the present rules as an argument against changing the present rules is a circular argument, akin to asserting that the Bible is infallible, because it's the word of god, who defintely exists, because the bible says so.


Yeah, let's go ahead and get the bigoted atheist arguments out of this, if you don't mind.

"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
#139 - 2014-05-30 20:29:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The OP has demonstrated, repeatedly, that this is about not wanting to put in the same effort that other people are putting in.

I honestly don't know why anyone else is entertaining this incredible display of selfishness and entitlement.


You keep trying making it about me, instead of about the issue. Having to resort to personal attacks instead of arguments usually shows you have nothing intelligent to say about the subject.

There are still 2 questions waiting for answers as well:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656729#post4656729

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656788#post4656788

SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#140 - 2014-05-30 20:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it. In the case of POS mechanics, that is unable.




Uh... EVERYTHING that has ever been changed in the game has ALWAYS, prior that change, been in a state where it hadn't yet been changed. Minds change, the meta changes, new data and observations are made. The entire landscape changes constantly.

If, "CCP is obviously fine with this things because that's the way it is right now," had any validity as an argument, literally nothing would or could ever change. We'd still have nano, because CCP would have obviously been fine with nano, because we had nano. We'd still have remote AOE doomsdays, which CCP was obviously fine with, because at the time we had remote AOE doomsdays.


Again, quit begging the question.

You keep trying to call out fallacies, and then you keep asserting something to the effect of, "It is, therefore it ever shall be!"

That's obviously not the case, given that virtually nothing in the game is the way it always has been.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/