These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

First post
Author
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#41 - 2015-11-01 04:00:04 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

On the aggressors side we have a group of players that for all practical purposes are UFC fighters, trained for and hardened by battle.



Har har har.

No.

The aggressors are more akin to lazy, morbidly obese hunters with humongous guns looking to kill defenseless forest animals who are entirely oblivious to the danger they are in. The moment they are actually in danger, they will dock or neutral logi themselves to a green killboard.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don't oversell em, eh?




Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#42 - 2015-11-01 05:13:07 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

On the aggressors side we have a group of players that for all practical purposes are UFC fighters, trained for and hardened by battle.



Har har har.

No.

The aggressors are more akin to lazy, morbidly obese hunters with humongous guns looking to kill defenseless forest animals who are entirely oblivious to the danger they are in. The moment they are actually in danger, they will dock or neutral logi themselves to a green killboard.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don't oversell em, eh?






You forgot about the blinds, the piles of corn with deer urine sprayed on them, and the cases of PBR. Now that's a good time.

Of course, only the stupidest deer fall for that trick, given just bad humans smell to most animals (it's the soap and deodorant, oddly enough. The artificial smell gives us away for miles), but then that's actually good for the rest of the population since it removes the morons from the gene pool. More female deer left for the smart ones.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-11-01 14:12:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You forgot about the blinds, the piles of corn with deer urine sprayed on them, and the cases of PBR. Now that's a good time.

Of course, only the stupidest deer fall for that trick, given just bad humans smell to most animals (it's the soap and deodorant, oddly enough. The artificial smell gives us away for miles), but then that's actually good for the rest of the population since it removes the morons from the gene pool. More female deer left for the smart ones.



good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.

It's more like going on a Hog shoot in a helicopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UliEiQQyU
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#44 - 2015-11-01 16:16:45 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You forgot about the blinds, the piles of corn with deer urine sprayed on them, and the cases of PBR. Now that's a good time.

Of course, only the stupidest deer fall for that trick, given just bad humans smell to most animals (it's the soap and deodorant, oddly enough. The artificial smell gives us away for miles), but then that's actually good for the rest of the population since it removes the morons from the gene pool. More female deer left for the smart ones.



good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.

It's more like going on a Hog shoot in a helicopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UliEiQQyU

Hey at least they have to try and hit a moving target while they are moving and they have no computer guided weapons to assist them. So when you compare war deccers to these heli hunters you are actually crediting the war deccers with skills they most likely do not have.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#45 - 2015-11-01 17:22:00 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.


It's more effort than mining and missioning ever will be. And that isn't what I was trying to do, by the way, but thanks for bringing up effort, since pretty much nothing in highsec even registers when we're talking about effort.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2015-11-01 17:48:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.


It's more effort than mining and missioning ever will be. And that isn't what I was trying to do, by the way, but thanks for bringing up effort, since pretty much nothing in highsec even registers when we're talking about effort.


It comes with monotony and low rewards.
Most people don't mine or mission because it's too damn boring.

So while it may not take that much effort, you don't get much in return.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#47 - 2015-11-01 19:11:13 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.


It's more effort than mining and missioning ever will be. And that isn't what I was trying to do, by the way, but thanks for bringing up effort, since pretty much nothing in highsec even registers when we're talking about effort.


It comes with monotony and low rewards.
Most people don't mine or mission because it's too damn boring.

So while it may not take that much effort, you don't get much in return.


"most people" don't mine or mission? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Fifty times as many people mine and mission in highsec than declare wars. I could probably even go as high as a hundred.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2015-11-01 19:52:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

good attempt at making it sound like they put effort into the situation, but they don't.


It's more effort than mining and missioning ever will be. And that isn't what I was trying to do, by the way, but thanks for bringing up effort, since pretty much nothing in highsec even registers when we're talking about effort.


It comes with monotony and low rewards.
Most people don't mine or mission because it's too damn boring.

So while it may not take that much effort, you don't get much in return.


"most people" don't mine or mission? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Fifty times as many people mine and mission in highsec than declare wars. I could probably even go as high as a hundred.



Let me correct how I stated that, as it was unintentionally stated incorrectly.
Most of the people who don't mine or mission, avoid it because of the monotony and low rewards.

Now, those that declare wars typically run alts that mine/mission/incursion.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#49 - 2015-11-02 10:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Who's chickenshit or 'elite' is irrelevant. This proposal deliberately does not tell players who they can dec and why. If a 100 man corp wants to dec 10 man noob corp then so be it. The noob corp chose to be open to the war dec mechanic when they started a corp.

If that seems very unfair to you, then support the idea of social corps so players have better and more clearly defined options.



Black Pedro wrote:

The problem isn't that the attacker has something at risk - I actually support that. The problem is that the defender's structures are now immune to attack by any attacker who cannot babysit a WHQ for 7 days.

CCP isn't going to release something like that. That isn't engaging game play: declare war to remove your bitter rival's citadel only to log in the next weekend to find that they and their structures are now immune to you because you were not able to to show up to that 4am reinforce timer. It stifles conflict and provides too much safety. Disputes over structures should be settled by a fight on-grid with that structure, not prevented from happening because someone couldn't defend a WHQ.


POS owners have been babysitting structures for 7 days and longer during decs whilst their aggressors were just as immune. This has apparently been fine for years.

But if it worries you that much, we can propose that reinforcement timers in hi-sec are shorter than 6 days. Just like they will be different in WH's. My proposal that gives defenders and incentive to fight back, outside of station games, is immeasurably better gameplay than what we have now. And will still be better gameplay when people are defending their citadels against wardeccers that have no assets of their own.

Black Pedro wrote:

I can tell you that I would not declare war with my small corp under that situation. Even if I did, I am not capable of being online to defend a structure for 7 days straight making it likely that my opponent would be immune to us by the time the final reinforcement phase of a citadel rolled around. Instead, I would be forced to join one of the large wardec alliances (or hire them) who are capable of defending their WHQ 23.5/7.

This will not hinder the large wardec alliances - it will make them stronger by forcing the smaller entities to consolidate with them and further magnify the discrepancy in the capability of the two sides of a wardec. Sure, once in a blue moon a nullsec entity will come by and smash their WHQ disrupting their operations for a week, but the rest of the time it will just be business as usual for them which will be booming as the smaller guys will all have been put out of business.


Thats the point.

Just like we've been telling people they need to make friends and work hard if they want to own assets, aggressors will have to also make friends and work hard to take down the same assets. Your small corp could always use a small WHQ and indulge in a fewer amount of decs at a lower cost. You dont have to dec people with citadels, you can leave that to the bigger and more serious groups. If the people you have decced roll up and knock your WHQ, you get a few chances for a fight, if you miss them, you just cant dec again for 7 days. This is not a huge punishment for people who do not rely on war decs for content and do not dec that often.

We tell corps and solo players that their playstyle gets no special favours. if they want to be more effective they should join together to make larger groups, 'its a multi-player game after all' and all that.

Im bringing the same concepts to war decs. You dont get any special treatment and if you cant/wont defend what you own, you didnt deserve it anyways.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2015-11-02 11:06:29 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

Thats the point.

Just like we've been telling people they need to make friends and work hard if they want to own assets, aggressors will have to also make friends and work hard to take down the same assets. Your small corp could always use a small WHQ and indulge in a fewer amount of decs at a lower cost. You dont have to dec people with citadels, you can leave that to the bigger and more serious groups. If the people you have decced roll up and knock your WHQ, you get a few chances for a fight, if you miss them, you just cant dec again for 7 days. This is not a huge punishment for people who do not rely on war decs for content and do not dec that often.

We tell corps and solo players that their playstyle gets no special favours. if they want to be more effective they should join together to make larger groups, 'its a multi-player game after all' and all that.

Im bringing the same concepts to war decs. You dont get any special treatment and if you cant/wont defend what you own, you didnt deserve it anyways.


You're missing his point.

He doesn't want to have any risks.

His comment
Quote:
Disputes over structures should be settled by a fight on-grid with that structure, not prevented from happening because someone couldn't defend a WHQ.

contradicts itself.

He said that a dispute over a structure should be settled by a fight on grid, yet he's not willing to have that fight over his WHQ.
It's a structure. Everyone has to be on grid to fight over it, yet it's not good enough.

He doesn't want to fight over his structure, he wants to fight over your structure.
He doesn't want to be forced into combat on your terms, but is more than willing to expect you to accept combat on his terms.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#51 - 2015-11-02 11:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Daichi Yamato wrote:
POS owners have been babysitting structures for 7 days and longer during decs whilst their aggressors were just as immune. This has apparently been fine for years.

Being immune because you don't have any assets or don't log in is one thing. Being immune and benefiting from the use of in-space structures is something completely different.

Fix things by making players vulnerable to other players - including war deccers. I am all on board for that. Allowing players to play this game but isolate themselves from other players? That just breaks the sandbox. You should not be able to thumb your nose at me while you print ISK or do you industry just because you were able to shoot my WHQ while I was offline, or even online for that matter.

Daichi Yamato wrote:

But if it worries you that much, we can propose that reinforcement timers in hi-sec are shorter than 6 days. Just like they will be different in WH's. My proposal that gives defenders and incentive to fight back, outside of station games, is immeasurably better gameplay than what we have now. And will still be better gameplay when people are defending their citadels against wardeccers that have no assets of their own.
What is the point? You either make reinforce times long enough that most of the war take place before the defenders can end it, or you make them so short that the aggressors have to log in continuously to defend a structure. At that point you might as well just force the aggressor and the defender to fight immediately over the structure.

Just make wardeccers want or have to use structures. Then everyone is playing by the same rules and is open to attack. But losing your structure should not isolate your opponent's citadel from your counter-attack. That is just needlessly stops another structure fight and the potential escalation of conflict.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Thats the point.

Just like we've been telling people they need to make friends and work hard if they want to own assets, aggressors will have to also make friends and work hard to take down the same assets. Your small corp could always use a small WHQ and indulge in a fewer amount of decs at a lower cost. You dont have to dec people with citadels, you can leave that to the bigger and more serious groups. If the people you have decced roll up and knock your WHQ, you get a few chances for a fight, if you miss them, you just cant dec again for 7 days. This is not a huge punishment for people who do not rely on war decs for content and do not dec that often.

We tell corps and solo players that their playstyle gets no special favours. if they want to be more effective they should join together to make larger groups, 'its a multi-player game after all' and all that.

Im bringing the same concepts to war decs. You dont get any special treatment and if you cant/wont defend what you own, you didnt deserve it anyways.
Fair enough. I am just pointing out the obvious consequences of your proposal. You are welcome to propose something that will eliminate my ability to attack my neighbours, just as I am free to point out why that is not a good idea.

Your proposal will make pursuing a wardec for solo and small groups untenable. It will promote the consolidation of wardeccing corporations in a few large alliances and thus less wars will take place between non-professional participants. Instead, wars will take place between even more unequally sized forces meaning industrial corporations will either be completely safe, or completely dominated if a mercenary groups takes in an interest in them for any reason. Structures would be much safer and wars would be much less likely to escalate à la "The Butterfly Effect" as conflict in New Eden is intended to do.

I don't think that is an improvement over the current situation. Wars should be possible across all sizes and types of corporations, not limited to those with enough members to indefinitely defend a structure. By all means, make wardeccers have to use structures so there is a target for the defenders to counter-attack against, but giving safety as a reward is not likely to happen. It limits the ability to even attempt an attack and will result in a net loss of conflict in the sandbox.

Feel free to propose whatever you'd like, but I don't think CCP is going to take you up on this.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#52 - 2015-11-02 12:36:32 UTC
You can entosis their Service Modules (maybe including the WHQ if it is a module) without having to destroy the entire citadel. So they wont enjoy all the benefits of their citadel during its reinforce period.

Small corps could effectively dec other small corps with this proposal. But what will become much harder to do is 3 man corps troll-deccing a 200man alliance for easy miner kills. And that is a good thing.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#53 - 2015-11-02 12:53:31 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
This proposal deliberately does not tell players who they can dec and why.


But it de-facto does, by putting the barrier of babysitting a structure in front of them, just to maintain the war.

Hell, this honestly would be unacceptable even if wars were completely free.


Quote:

POS owners have been babysitting structures for 7 days and longer during decs whilst their aggressors were just as immune. This has apparently been fine for years.


It is absolutely 100% fine for it to work that way. The POS owners have their POS to use it for something, presumably industry. They are getting a benefit from the POS in and of itself, not merely having it as a roadblock to the desired mechanic. They didn't have to have it just to engage in an otherwise unrelated mechanic. If they had to have a POS up to mission or run incursions you might have a point.



Quote:

Just like we've been telling people they need to make friends and work hard if they want to own assets, aggressors will have to also make friends and work hard to take down the same assets.


And they'll have to "make friends" against anyone who can spare the time for a ten minute entosis cycle just to wardec literally anyone. Not someone with "the same assets", anyone.



Quote:

Im bringing the same concepts to war decs. You dont get any special treatment and if you cant/wont defend what you own, you didnt deserve it anyways.


They don't own anything of their own volition. You're forcing them to own it just to engage in desired gameplay. Idk if you've ever done this a lot, but babysitting structures is literally the worst interaction in this game.

Forcing it as the roadblock to a desired mechanic is an extremely heavy handed nerf to an already pathetically weak mechanic. I'm still interested in how you plan on buffing wars or nerfing NPC corps to counter for this proposed enormous decrease in highsec risk.

"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.
#54 - 2015-11-02 12:57:08 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

You're missing his point.

He doesn't want to have any risks.


And like you literally always do, you are spouting a strawman you conjured up in your carebear excuse for a brain.

He wants to not be chained to a completely unrelated mechanic, and forced to babysit a structure just to engage in a war. He wants there to not be a huge barrier put up against small and emerging wardec groups that only serves to conglomerate wardec groups even further to offset the costs and opportunity costs involved with a ******* structure.

Why am I bothering? You long ago proved you are completely nonredeemable as a player anyway.

"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.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#55 - 2015-11-02 13:08:58 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Small corps could effectively dec other small corps with this proposal. But what will become much harder to do is 3 man corps troll-deccing a 200man alliance for easy miner kills. And that is a good thing.
Small corps will not be able to dec other small corps with this proposal. While my small corp is logged off for a few days, the other small corp will terminate the war by shooting my structure making them invulnerable to me when I log back in.

Those 3 man corps will just join a 500 man wardeccing alliance and continue to look for easy miner kills. Meanwhile, those small corps actually fighting over a system will find their wars ended prematurely while someone was logged off and themselves staring powerlessly at their opponent next time they login to continue the fight.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#56 - 2015-11-02 13:11:06 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Small corps could effectively dec other small corps with this proposal. But what will become much harder to do is 3 man corps troll-deccing a 200man alliance for easy miner kills. And that is a good thing.
Small corps will not be able to dec other small corps with this proposal. While my small corp is logged off for a few days, the other small corp will terminate the war by shooting my structure making them invulnerable to me when I log back in.

Those 3 man corps will just join a 500 man wardeccing alliance and continue to look for easy miner kills. Meanwhile, those small corps actually fighting over a system will find their wars ended prematurely while someone was logged off and themselves staring powerlessly at their opponent next time they login to continue the fight.


And considering that right now, small wardec groups and one man shows are some of the best content highsec has, I really do not see why we should flush them down the crapper by chaining them to a structure.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-11-02 13:22:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

You're missing his point.

He doesn't want to have any risks.


And like you literally always do, you are spouting a strawman you conjured up in your carebear excuse for a brain.

He wants to not be chained to a completely unrelated mechanic, and forced to babysit a structure just to engage in a war. He wants there to not be a huge barrier put up against small and emerging wardec groups that only serves to conglomerate wardec groups even further to offset the costs and opportunity costs involved with a ******* structure.

Why am I bothering? You long ago proved you are completely nonredeemable as a player anyway.


Why?
Because I think BOTH sides should have to risk something?

Look, I put myself at risk of wardecs by being in a player corp.
When you wardec me, the only risks you take are that I could potentially build a fleet to steam roll you.

However, you negate that risk by docking up and going to play on an alt.

I can't get you to fight me on my terms because you're too afraid.

You're also unwilling to give me ANY mechanics that present this opportunity, or any opportunity to end the war, other than surrender and/or death.


You long ago proved yourself to be hunting for easy kills and will QQ if anyone makes your life a little bit challenging.
So please, stop bothering.
Stop bothering the rest of us, so we can have a debate without your "strawman" arguments.
You claim that my arguments are the strawman, yet mine content.
All you keep saying is "BOOHOO, don't make my life hard."
It's a war, yet you want it to be a turkey shoot.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#58 - 2015-11-02 13:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
If this proposal prevents an aggressor making a dec because they fear the defender will be too strong for them, then that is as good a meaningful decision as we can hope for and it will be working as intended.

im not apathetic to the 'road block' im putting up. But war decs as they are have little to no counter play. This is my suggestion for the way forward and tweaking, balance passes etc can be used to fine tune it.

@Pedro
That will happen to some. It will not happen to all.

And the worst thing that can happen? you dont get to make another dec for 7 days.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#59 - 2015-11-02 13:27:37 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Because I think BOTH sides should have to risk something?


No, because you want to handcuff people's player freedom to structure babysitting, literally the worst, least interesting interaction in this game.

Because you are doing nothing but trying to slap a punitive mechanic on something that you don't like, no matter which fluid and flimsy justification you are using this week.



Quote:

When you wardec me, the only risks you take are that I could potentially build a fleet to steam roll you.

However, you negate that risk by docking up and going to play on an alt.


So then it's exactly equal.

If I get wardecced, the only risk I have is that they have a fleet to kill me. But I negate that by docking up and playing on an alt.

Exactly like everybody else.

The problem is that you don't want it to be equal. You want something that hugely favors the defender, and unreasonably restricts the attacker in terms of time and opportunity cost.


Quote:

You're also unwilling to give me ANY mechanics that present this opportunity, or any opportunity to end the war, other than surrender and/or death.


Well, you have that, and a bunch of other stuff you deliberately neglected to mention. You can just drop to an NPC corp if you don't want to pretend to be a real player anymore.

Or, you could, and I know this is ******* shocking, actually try playing the game, instead of just sitting afk in a Mackinaw and saying "woe is me!"


Quote:

All you keep saying is "BOOHOO, don't make my life hard."


And there's your trademark strawman again.

You don't even know what I've said, you don't bother reading it, you just regurgitate another strawman each and every time.

"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.
#60 - 2015-11-02 13:30:39 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If this proposal prevents an aggressor making a dec because they fear the defender will be too strong for them, then that is as good a meaningful decision as we can hope for and it will be working as intended.


It's not "too strong for them", it's "my twelve man corp can't babysit a freaking structure 24 hours a day."

It's "why should I be totally unable to punch up with hit and run tactics?"

It's "why should my gameplay be chained to an otherwise totally unrelated mechanic when literally no other playstyle in the game is penalized that way?"


Quote:
But war decs as they are have little to no counter play.


They have entirely too much as it is. It is hilariously easy to mitigate wars completely.

It just requires that you not be a total dumbfuck. Or is that too much to ask of highsec?

"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.