Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2629
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:46:21 -
[271] - Quote
Dornier Pfeil wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Given the recent revelations, it's fairly clear that both ganking and wars need drastic buffs if CCP is to ever hope to improve player retention. How exactly would you buff ganking? Against a helpless target it is already completely safe to do. Only Concord injects the risk, post-gank.
The only helpless target is the willfully helpless one. As to ganking buffs, we could go back to the old days of Concord not being un-killable, stop faction police bugging -5s, reverse the change from years back where Concord started responding faster, etc.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12476
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:48:35 -
[272] - Quote
Dornier Pfeil wrote: How exactly would you buff ganking?
There are lots of potential ways.
Slowing Concord response speed is one. Making them tankable again is another. Yet another would be to keep them the same, but have them not show up unless called by a player on grid who doesn't have a criminal timer(they have to call the cops, as it were. That one would work great for 0.6 and 0.5 space).
There are more beyond that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:50:40 -
[273] - Quote
If you really want to nerf hisec income, then ultimately you need to start and end with the market hubs. Move them out of hisec and nerf complete.
Dropping incomes from mining, manufacturing etc will only increase the time factor, and ultimately fail. People in hisec will just spend more time to do what they already do. Removing Lvl4 missions will just push people to do Lvl3 missions instead. Some may choose to go to losec/null for higher rewards/vs/time, but I do not believe that much will change for the majority of hisec dwellers.
I will await the new structures that were announced. Things should get alot more interesting... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12476
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:53:47 -
[274] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Removing Lvl4 missions will just push people to do Lvl3 missions instead.
Neat.
But in the meantime, the people who do choose a more risky path will be commensurately rewarded for doing so, as opposed to now where they are not.
That is important, whether the truly risk averse change or not, the people who are willing to accept risk should be better off.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:56:18 -
[275] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: All I expect is for you to use all the tools at your disposal. Adapt, thrive.
But of course, it doesn't apply to your side. Since Ezwal seems to come running whenever I call you a hypocrite, I'll just say instead that your obvious self interest does you no good in this argument, when you're claiming that rules should only apply to one side.
Just because you don't like or approve of their actions that doesn't make them invalid. Your refusal to use all the additional tools at your disposal when one fails to do as you expect before demanding change is a poor show. If a tactic isn't working, get a better one.
I see you've ignored the 7 day hiatus on new corps anchoring - but then it does call into question the validity of decs being dodged without cost.
Given your acrid tone and general vitriol when people dare to challenge you, are you honestly surprised it gets cleaned up? |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:01:02 -
[276] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Removing Lvl4 missions will just push people to do Lvl3 missions instead.
Neat. But in the meantime, the people who do choose a more risky path will be commensurately rewarded for doing so, as opposed to now where they are not. That is important, whether the truly risk averse change or not, the people who are willing to accept risk should be better off.
And that is how most things already work, btw. We could do better with a POS, for example. Or with our own POCOs for PI. Or mining in max-yield barges... the tools are already there. And with accordingly higher risks.
As long as we have easy access to market hubs, nothing will change significantly. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12476
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:02:26 -
[277] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Just because you don't like or approve of their actions that doesn't make them invalid.
Nope, what makes them invalid is how they abuse the corp creation mechanics to bypass an intended mechanic with no risk to themselves. Instead of using the intended mechanic to dissolve wardecs, the surrender feature.
Textbook exploit.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1055
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:03:40 -
[278] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: All I expect is for you to use all the tools at your disposal. Adapt, thrive.
But of course, it doesn't apply to your side. I thought your complaint was exactly because hisec corps are using all tools available to adapt and thrive?
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Since Ezwal seems to come running whenever I call you a hypocrite, I'll just say instead that your obvious self interest does you no good in this argument, when you're claiming that rules should only apply to one side.
Everything you propose is for your benefit and no benefit to the hisec PvE players who can more easily be forced into combat or dock up choices. How is that not your self interest being served? Especially when you reject any idea where 'your kind' would have to have a permanent wardeccable presence in space too? And don't spin the -10 crap again as everyone knows that's minimal risk as you only undock that char to gank once a target is located. It isn't even logged in until immediately before undocking either to minimize any chance of being caught leaving station.
Perhaps any corp wanting to wardec another should have to have a similar level of resources anchored in space to at least provide a target to hit for the defenders and allies. Then the attackers couldn't just sit in NPC stations until it suits them whilst the PvE types still need their resources in the open to be effective. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12477
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:08:15 -
[279] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I thought your complaint was exactly because hisec corps are using all tools available to adapt and thrive?
Once again, you deliberately misconstrue the argument.
The complaint is that they have one tool that literally abrogates the need for any others, and said tool is an exploit as well.
Quote: Everything you propose is for your benefit and no benefit to the hisec PvE players who can more easily be forced into combat or dock up choices.
All of my suggestions are to the benefit of PvP, and the detriment of PvE, yes.
Quote: How is that not your self interest being served?
That'd be the part where what I want is provably better for player retention, and what they want is provably harming player retention.
Or do you admit that you don't care that you're actively hurting the health of the game, so long as it benefits you?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:09:54 -
[280] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: Just because you don't like or approve of their actions that doesn't make them invalid.
Nope, what makes them invalid is how they abuse the corp creation mechanics to bypass an intended mechanic with no risk to themselves. Instead of using the intended mechanic to dissolve wardecs, the surrender feature. Textbook exploit.
Except CCP disagree, so stop lying/acting like you're the authority on exploits and stay on topic.
Maybe start addressing the fact tearing down assets and dissolving a corp is not consequence free. It may be CASUALTY free, but damned sure isn't consequence free, as you claim. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12477
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:11:22 -
[281] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Except CCP disagree, so stop lying/acting like you're the authority on exploits and stay on topic.
And yet again, this is exactly what the ISBotters said before the hammer dropped. Don't worry, they'll get to you too.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:17:10 -
[282] - Quote
If they change stance so be it, at this point though you're being deliberately misleading. Compounding this is you utterly ignoring anything that calls your viewpoint or 'facts', so called, into question.
One can only conclude that you have no reasonable point beyond name calling, mistruths and general vitriol for anyone daring to play in the sandbox 'wrong' in your eyes.
There is little point in engaging further unless you have something factual to discuss around the topic at hand. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12483
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:20:52 -
[283] - Quote
afkalt wrote: There is little point in engaging further unless you have something factual to discuss around the topic at hand.
We have been, you just haven't noticed. The only one ranting and flailing around is you, and has been the whole time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1058
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:26:41 -
[284] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I thought your complaint was exactly because hisec corps are using all tools available to adapt and thrive?
Once again, you deliberately misconstrue the argument. The complaint is that they have one tool that literally abrogates the need for any others, and said tool is an exploit as well. Quote: Everything you propose is for your benefit and no benefit to the hisec PvE players who can more easily be forced into combat or dock up choices.
All of my suggestions are to the benefit of PvP, and the detriment of PvE, yes. Quote: How is that not your self interest being served?
That'd be the part where what I want is provably better for player retention, and what they want is provably harming player retention. Or do you admit that you don't care that you're actively hurting the health of the game, so long as it benefits you?
As at this time that one tool you mention is not an exploit no matter what you say. Therefore it is fair game. A wardeccer can always check corp histories to see if they will just roll. Still got a problem with them? Go gank them then. All the tools required are already there. I misconstrued nothing and simply gave facts as at this time.
PvP vs PvE...you do remeber that CCP have stated that they'd love everything to be player built? That's a trucklod of PvE right there. Making it continually less viable would be a super llan in that case...oh wait it would be stupid.
You are referrinv to a statistic still that has no granularity to clarify what it even means. Until that point the stat is nothing more than interesting. A purely self serving attitude as you have openly admitted is more poisonous than an unclarified non-specific stat. |
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:29:46 -
[285] - Quote
Ni'adee Stormcould wrote:Lot of people complain about wardecs, risk aversion, how cheap it is and how easy to hop away and so on. Then some comments that go to nullsec.. its safer for these who are being called as "carebears". Nullsec have only room for those who are willing to pay few billion to rent a system.. or those who join to existing corproations there. But either way that same thing could be asked from these people who love to dec. why you don't go to nullsec? there is fights and targets and no need to pay :P
That being said here is just some of my viewpoints how things could be upgraded in hisec wardecs:
1) the problem: people can just leave corp when it doesn't please them without consequences.
1A) you can't leave corporation during wardec. Applies both on attacer and defender (of course this is prone to never ending wars).
1B) you can leave corporation during wardec but you can't join on new one or create new one within 1 week from moment you leave.
1C) one who want to leave corp that is in war have to pay certain sum of isk for the right to flee
These might be some sort of solution for corp hopping.
2) the problem: Defender and war luck. Defender who is actually gaining upper hand on war have very few options to handle the situation. Attacker can just stop paying for war and the war comes to an end and then needs defender to declear war. If defender calls war "mutual", attacker can just retract war.
2A) If war is deemed as mutual and attacker decides to retract war: defender have 24h time to pay wardec cost and if pays war will continue now without break defender as attacker. Otherwise war ends as usually.
2B) now we have issue as defender may have some called in allies. As war is decleared mutual and attacker withdraws war: the defender and his allies each get the option to pay now wardec cost to keep war going them as attackers. Each of them now becomes as separate attacker with their own fee to pay. (defender allies could be automatically allies for all wars)
What we achieve now is the thing that war can be started when you like but its end isn't neccessarily certain to happen when you want.
No solution is so perfect that would suit both parties but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things. Meh, corp avoidance is annoying on both sides of the coin, I would say the attacker gets some ISK back based on a percentage of people who leave during the war...
Flipping the tables is something I'd love to see, even though the defender getting the upperhand is rare, it's fun to see them flip back, also can wardecs get renamed? These aren't wars these are a joke, leave empire, you'll see what an war looks like, if you want to help with logistics you will really see...
Blobbing Explained
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12483
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:29:49 -
[286] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: As at this time that one tool you mention is not an exploit no matter what you say.
It actually was classified as one originally. But a flood of tears from carebears who can't be asked to play the game correctly changed that.
I'm arguing to have it changed back.
If your side can try and convince CCP to change things in your favor, then mine can do so with equal validity. Moreso, in fact, given the recent revelations about player retention.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Madd Adda
59
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:34:30 -
[287] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: As at this time that one tool you mention is not an exploit no matter what you say.
It actually was classified as one originally. But a flood of tears from carebears who can't be asked to play the game correctly changed that. I'm arguing to have it changed back. If your side can try and convince CCP to change things in your favor, then mine can do so with equal validity. Moreso, in fact, given the recent revelations about player retention.
i emphasis that not only to show that it's no longer an exploit but to also ask where is your proof that it was an exploit?
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12485
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:37:31 -
[288] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote: i emphasis that not only to show that it's no longer an exploit but to also ask where is your proof that it was an exploit?
Read through the dev blog. There are also a few posts on the old forums regarding that, in particular when the GMs changed the ruling.
Like I said, I want that changed back, since it's turned out to be so abusive and widespread. I'd prefer changing the game mechanics to incentivize against it though, rather than just banning anyone doing it, since that seems pretty chickenshit to me.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1021
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:40:24 -
[289] - Quote
So people rolling corps and tearing down POS needing to suffer a 7 day hit to their POS use, we're saying this isn't an impact to them? Hell the very ballache of setting up a POS is punishment enough!
We also need to stop saying 'PvE player', if an individual is affecting you by their in game activities then by the very definition it is PvP. There are many ways to deal with this over and above wardec, as there has to be - trading is the ultimate PvP (in terms of what can be lost), yet not a shot is fired. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12485
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:43:16 -
[290] - Quote
afkalt wrote:*white noise*
Called it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Madd Adda
59
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:49:52 -
[291] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Madd Adda wrote: i emphasis that not only to show that it's no longer an exploit but to also ask where is your proof that it was an exploit?
Read through the dev blog. There are also a few posts on the old forums regarding that, in particular when the GMs changed the ruling. Like I said, I want that changed back, since it's turned out to be so abusive and widespread. I'd prefer changing the game mechanics to incentivize against it though, rather than just banning anyone doing it, since that seems pretty chickenshit to me.
you expect me to read through every dev blog? are you insane? all i hear from you is "abuse" "exploit" " widespread" "against intended gameplay" yet you don't consider that CCP is try to cater to more than the gankers and pirates. You say we who live in high sec NPC corp are a detriment to EVE, but even if there were someway to get them out of the NPC and wardec'd, all that would happen is that they would remain docked or make another character/account and continue as is. Bottom line, nothing you do will force players to fight in terms of a combat oriented ship fighting another combat oriented ship.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12485
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:57:44 -
[292] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote: you expect me to read through every dev blog?
Why not? I do, or try to at the very least. They still keep all of them in the archive, I believe.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1209
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:57:46 -
[293] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Just watch, next one of them will try to tell me that the very existence of alts justifies their dec dodge exploit. Is that the same dec dodge that they cry about when James 315 (praise Him!) uses when his one-man corp gets an angrydec? Missed this one. Thank you though. It is hilarious that James 315 has to run and hide!
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1209
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 19:01:25 -
[294] - Quote
By the way, anyone notice how Kaarous like to attack others but goes crying to the ISDs anytime someone says something nasty about him?
Seems the first to squeal gets protected and Kaarous is awfully worried about his appearance on a forum! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4304
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 20:03:44 -
[295] - Quote
Some players need thicker skin...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1059
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 20:13:52 -
[296] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Some players need thicker skin...
Thicker things are often considered better... |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4267
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:00:08 -
[297] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2631
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:20:44 -
[298] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Just watch, next one of them will try to tell me that the very existence of alts justifies their dec dodge exploit. Is that the same dec dodge that they cry about when James 315 (praise Him!) uses when his one-man corp gets an angrydec? Missed this one. Thank you though. It is hilarious that James 315 has to run and hide!
The Saviour of Highsec runs from no-one, but he does live in the same New Eden as the rest of us - in this specific instance, one of the whinebears' making.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
819
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 10:28:52 -
[299] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Scanning isn't hostile, I said it should be 'suspicious' much like if someone walks up to your house and checks out your security. Scanning is an intended mechanic to (among other thing) allow gankers to identify and target overloaded/overfit ships. CCP literally added a module (the passive targeting module) whose sole purpose to is enable criminals to identify targets stealthily. Why would they go now and make it useless by identifying people scanning potential targets with a suspect flag? All that will do is encourage scouts to use disposable ships, or worse, gankers to randomly target and pop ships hoping for a drop. That is terrible gameplay as it removes a major part of the ganker-hauler dynamic which serves as an incentive for players to not overload their ships.
Your idea does absolutely nothing to make the game better, more dynamic or engaging. It just provides more safety to highsec haulers further incentivizing AFK gameplay while hurting other users of scanning modules by exposing them to attack.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Freely shootable for all of 40 seconds before CONCORD vaporizes you anyway. It is little to no risk as you do not need to fly in space beyond to the gank and cannot be wardec'd as what would be the point? You don't need to undock as a ganker except for 40 seconds to go and die somewhere. The use of neut alts allows the ganker's -10 alt to completely negate the downsides of being -10. FacPo? They won't turn up before the gank is done. White Knights? I've flown around many areas with known miner gankers and never yet seen any. I have lost many ships while an outlaw to opportunist or white knights (the gates around Uedama are a hot spot). But really what do you expect? The penalties are so harsh that an outlaw cannot do anything but warp from a station to a target. Even if gankers wandered into the belt a tried to give you a fight, the faction police will have them in a pod in short time.
That is the life of an outlaw. The NPC mechanics reduce them to quick hit-and-run attacks in disposable ships. The benefit to the "good" people of highsec is that this protects them from most of the damage the outlaws would want to inflict. The downside is that it is difficult for a player to get revenge (although it is trivial to protect oneself if you take precautions). That's the game.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I wasn't actually advocating such change, it was to make a point about the hypocrisy in Kaarous' argument about eating cake. As a code ganker he is doing the exact same thing. He is using NPC corps to negate any risk in his activities. If the indy players must have POS to make real profits thenwhy shouldn't a -10 char in hisec empire space not have to either dodge the law or dock in a POS that will allow them to? Any empire station inviting a -10 in is like a hotel inviting Norman Bates and his 'mother' to stay for a while. If the indy player must be at risk to operate by having Player corps and structures then so should gankers and wardeccers. Gankers accept a huge amount of consequences as their security status dips. It is true that the use of friends (or alts) can mitigate many of them, but this is true for all players in all playstyles. The key point that Kaarous I think is trying to make, is that from a game design perspective is that those making an reward be subject to increased risk. In this case, industrial corporations are receiving an increased benefit than if they had stayed in the NPC corp, but with no additional risk because of the current ability of them to trivially dodge wardecs. Using an alt to mitigate the risks of wardec, say a neutral hauler, is perfectly fine - that is just a reality of the CONCORD mechanics - but having 100% safe POSes in space is not.
From a game design perspective gankers do not benefit from increased income. In fact, they are a purely destructive force for the economy adding no resources to the game. Sure, they need to be balanced so that players can move stuff or mine safely if they choose, but they are there really to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. They provide the incentive for players to fit tank and limit their fittings/cargo. You should be able to avoid them completely (which you pretty much can), but also you can choose to go after increased reward if you expose yourself to them, like mining in a yield-fit hulk for example.
That is why CCP allows ganking: to make fitting and gameplay choices matter. Highsec ganking could be eliminated with just a couple lines of code but of course CCP has not done this as they think ganking is good for the game. But really, this is way off topic as we are suppose to be discussing changes to the wardec mechanics, not ganking.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:In fact that is one caveat I would add to any changes to wardecs (yes I did suggest some ways to try to improve it earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate as much as anything else). Any corp wishing to wardec another corp should only allowed to dock in a POS that they or an ally own (in the future structure system) as noNPC corp would even want a war party on its doorstep.. The defender should be able to hide in NPC stations (losing time), dock in their own POS (in danger in space), or leave the corp. The CEO should not be able to close the corp without some comeback and any wardec should follow them to any other corp they join. This would allow an aggressor to screw with the defenders industry by them running away but would also put the attackers into space where they can be attacked freely. If the defender wishes to counter dec to actively defend and prolong the war then they too would only be able to dock in a POS. Hmm. That is an interesting twist but it probably won't work as the lack of station access would make logistics/reshipping too crippling for the attacker. But perhaps depending on how the new structures work.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12500
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 11:50:02 -
[300] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:The key point that Kaarous I think is trying to make, is that from a game design perspective is that those making an reward be subject to increased risk. In this case, industrial corporations are receiving an increased benefit than if they had stayed in the NPC corp, but with no additional risk because of the current ability of them to trivially dodge wardecs. Using an alt to mitigate the risks of wardec, say a neutral hauler, is perfectly fine - that is just a reality of the CONCORD mechanics - but having 100% safe POSes in space is not.
Bingo. Look at what can be understood when not being deliberately obtuse.
The point is that ganking is a net negative in terms of assets being added to the economy. Whatever reward they may generate is already subject to the risk of the loot fairy, and requires being played around to mitigate that.
Industrial corps currently operate with almost no risk, thanks to the dec dodge exploit, while generating not only personal income, but effecting the economy as well.
No matter what excuse might be conjured up, that is not balanced, and will not be until industrial corps are subject to the risk of wars once more.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |