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) |
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 12:36:56 -
[301] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
Hmmm... points made:
Ganking will raise prices at the markets, while industry will lower them.
Wardecs are an isk sink, which will also raise prices at the market.
Use of neutral alts is fine for everyone.
Dodging wardecs is bad (I assume you mean by dissolving corps?)
Playing around with the loot fairy can be good
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12500
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 13:04:48 -
[302] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Ganking will raise prices at the markets, while industry will lower them.
And, as mentioned, this is good for the competition. If there are two industrialists in a system, one gets ganked and one does not, the one who does not is benefiting greatly.
Quote: Wardecs are an isk sink, which will also raise prices at the market.
Yep, and isk sinks also help keep the price of plex low by lowering inflation.
Isk sinks are good for the game, as they help keep the purchasing power of income high, rather than spiral lower and lower as the currency becomes inflated. This is especially important for retention, since new player income from lower level missions and such does not rise with inflation, meaning that the higher the price of a plex goes, the less purchasing power newbies have.
Ganking, wars, and any other form of asset destruction is the wheel that turns the economy of New Eden.
Quote: Use of neutral alts is fine for everyone.
Yes, and intended gameplay at that. Otherwise we wouldn't have entire ship classes dedicated to fitting probe launchers, they'd just be standard on every ship.
Quote: Dodging wardecs is bad (I assume you mean by dissolving corps?)
Exploiting the corp creation mechanics is bad, and dissolving corps should have a cooldown timer, higher cost, or some other barrier to entry to prevent this, or barring that have a significant mechanical consequence attached to it.
"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
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 13:17:40 -
[303] - Quote
It does have material consequence, there are serious limitations on both pos to new corps and how many you can get up per day.
Losing a POS access for 7 days is entirely non trivial, its a huge hit to industrial corps. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
226
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 14:02:14 -
[304] - 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. If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12503
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 14:15:44 -
[305] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?
I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance)
Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.
"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
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 22:49:12 -
[306] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Donnachadh wrote: If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?
I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance) Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully.
Don't stop there, make the belt rats tougher too. Even the ewar belt rats are barely an annoyance for a couple of t1 combat drones. And have the rats show up at gates and stations too! Try mining during an incursion, that would be the limit of hisec rats. Aside from the Drifters/Seekers ofc
On the far end of rebalance you could have mission beacons pop in ship scanners (like the cosmic anomalies do). You wouldn't have to nerf any mission income, due to the increased risks. This may or may not play into the proposed structures that were announced.
I really only do missions for standings, LP and salvage. Lvl4s are far and away the best for that. I do recognize mission runners needing the income source from bounties to sustain their gameplay however. Sandbox for everyone... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12517
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 22:57:08 -
[307] - Quote
They honestly should be on gates, I have to agree. Code should not be the only thing keeping you from autopiloting afk.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 00:32:43 -
[308] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Donnachadh wrote: If you were a serious mission runner or had a clue what you were talking about you would not have posted this because you would know that it is false. The highest ISK per hour in missions does not come from level 4's it comes from blitzing level 3's in a proper ship / fit. So that begs the question are you going to demand that level 3 missions be moved to low sec as well?
I'm actually aware of that, thanks to having a few conversations with Stoicfaux and baltec1. (and I have been a mission runner before, the Paladin is my boat of choice since the Marauder rebalance) Ideally, PvE content in the game would be rebalanced not just in regards to distribution of missions, but also the obscene sustainability of mission agents being able to give you endless missions. But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully. Don't stop there, make the belt rats tougher too. Even the ewar belt rats are barely an annoyance for a couple of t1 combat drones. And have the rats show up at gates and stations too! Try mining during an incursion, that would be the limit of hisec rats. Aside from the Drifters/Seekers ofc On the far end of rebalance you could have mission beacons pop in ship scanners (like the cosmic anomalies do). You wouldn't have to nerf any mission income, due to the increased risks. This may or may not play into the proposed structures that were announced. I really only do missions for standings, LP and salvage. Lvl4s are far and away the best for that. I do recognize mission runners needing the income source from bounties to sustain their gameplay however. Sandbox for everyone...
Lets not stop there, lets have npc'c also attack null-sec on a whim and unbalance the alliances there. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12519
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 00:53:48 -
[309] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote: Lets not stop there, lets have npc'c also attack null-sec on a whim and unbalance the alliances there.
Drifters.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
229
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 14:10:10 -
[310] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:But more important than that would be a full PvE content rebalance, to make rats more like fighting other players and less like a swarm of insects to exterminate. The burner rats and the Drifters are a step in that direction already, thankfully. Not that I disagree with this but.
Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?
Is it even technically possible for a game AI to be as free "thinking" and as unpredictable on ships used and how they are fit as a payer would be? If not why even bother since it robs the game of a chance for player interactions?
Why should those who enjoy missions have their game play limited by reducing the number of missions they have an opportunity to run? |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1027
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 15:20:48 -
[311] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?
Wouldn't worry. They're "fitting puzzles" only, literally couldn't be less like PvP. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12527
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 15:51:25 -
[312] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?
Mostly so they can't be free farmed with sentry drones by people who are afk.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
The Pink Unicorn
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 16:06:50 -
[313] - Quote
I would actually like for a few things for war-decs
1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level - Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills - Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves
2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups - I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.
3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer - This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abusable, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12527
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 16:12:33 -
[314] - Quote
The Pink Unicorn wrote:I would actually like for a few things for war-decs
1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level - Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills - Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves
2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups - I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.
3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer - This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abusable, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk.
No to all.
Wars need to be stronger, not much, much weaker.
"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
1028
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 07:45:04 -
[315] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Donnachadh wrote: Why should those who have no desire to PvP be forced to fight NPC that are more like players?
Mostly so they can't be free farmed with sentry drones by people who are afk.
You know this changed in 2012 to not work, right? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1063
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 09:09:30 -
[316] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The Pink Unicorn wrote:I would actually like for a few things for war-decs
1) Corp Management Skill - Allows More Active War-decs (Aggressor) per skill level - Have Tiered Like Corp Management Skills - Reason: Limiting war-dec quantities will make for better target selection instead of just war-deccing everything that moves
2) Can Only Declare War on Larger or Same Sized Groups - I would prefer this over making small corps non-declarable. The main thing I find wrong with the system now is that the biggest group can just declare war on solo and smaller corps at will and it ends up just being a don't log in for X Weeks thing. Please Note, I am not saying make a 15 man corp not able to declare against a 10 man corp. I am saying 100+ man corps shouldn't be able to declare war against 10 man corps as they just wont have any chance in most cases. Possibly tie it into the scale that wardec fees use (member counts). This way it keeps the numbers somewhat on the same level and will reward activity for both parties.
3. New Corps Have a 30 Day Non-Declarable Timer - This would allow groups to get on there feet before being eligible. I am however on the fence with this as I cannot think of a reasonable counter to abuse with it. However, if it can be made not abusable, this could be a nice answer to new corps getting slaughtered before they walk. No to all. Wars need to be stronger, not much, much weaker.
Setting our disagreements on various things aside I believe the same but in a different way. I would prefer wars to be made viable rather than something to be avoided. I see no problem with an inferior combat force avoiding war with a superior one as engaging would be pointless,especially if the players do not enjoy PvP. This would be the same as forcing your CODE friends to mine for a week at a time.
I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage. If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out. Likewise if the aggressor doesn't do their homework and dec's a corp who will evaporate then more fool them, they could have done their research to avoid this.
War has to be incentivized, not forced on people otherwise the percentage who might fight back under more even circumstances will never do so. If a major wardec group targets a small corp currently then they will avoid the war at all costs as they do not stand a chance. Corps need a chance in the war to then decide whether they should fight back.
I honestly don't think the changes you ask for would change anything other than the ways in which thise who don't want war manage to avoid it. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1029
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 10:04:50 -
[317] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out.
This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all.
A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1064
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 12:30:01 -
[318] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out. This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all. A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS.
I meant I'm fine with that as the current punishment but wouldn't be averse to wardecs following the CEO since they shouldn't be allowed to simply join another corp and use their POS without consequence. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12534
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 12:44:51 -
[319] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage.
This is EVE. The only fair fight you are guaranteed is the Alliance Tournament. Everywhere else, fights are only fair if both sides screwed up.
The only way to make every fight even, is to take away the chance for uneven fights. That means handcuffing player freedom, that means the functional removal of non consensual PvP.
I say no.
"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
1029
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 13:08:38 -
[320] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:afkalt wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:If the defender then accepts the loss of earnings for a week or changes corp and is disallowed from POS use for that week then they lose out. This already happens if they roll the corp - I bring it up because I'm not sure if you were saying that as that is how it operates now, or an idea for the future is all. A new corp has a week delay before they can build a POS. I meant I'm fine with that as the current punishment but wouldn't be averse to wardecs following the CEO since they shouldn't be allowed to simply join another corp and use their POS without consequence.
Fair enough, although I hazard that is an extreme edge case, having another set up and running corp to jump to.
One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.
Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.
/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least.
I think wars are a poor way to deal damage to industrial corps, there are better and more effective ways to combat these guys - particularly if they get predictable (why blow up the tower when I can blow up the hauler carrying it via a neutral catalyst?). |
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
549
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:26:36 -
[321] - Quote
afkalt wrote:One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.
Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.
/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least. It has no effect on the miners or mission runners. Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases.
If corps get changed to provide real benefits though the N+1 shell corporation method could become a problem. I don't think it's just creative use of game mechanics. You'd be receiving all the benefits of being in a corporation without the risk. It's like getting L5s in highsec because of some trick you did with corp mechanics.
Solutions: - Place a delay on using structures and their benefits when a player joins a corp. - All structures become like POCOs. You can't tear them down and you can't transfer them during war. Leave for a shell corp and you lose hundreds of millions or billions each time your previous corp's structures are destroyed. - Structures only gain persistent bonuses through activity accumulation. The ME or mining cycle modifier on your shell corp's structures are 0 until members of the shell corp use them for some time.
I'd like to see all three introduced in fact. Not just to combat shell corporations but to make your corporation something you've built and something worth fighting for. The bonuses just have to be significant to make it worth defending.
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: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. This is off topic but I'll bite. You can't remove market hubs from hisec without restricting a very basic level of freedom when it comes to trading. What you can do is increase market fees so it's more worth the risk of buying/selling out in lowsec and nullsec.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1064
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:49:19 -
[322] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I would prefer some mechanism that levels out wars, that gives a roughly even fight and therefore incentive to engage.
This is EVE. The only fair fight you are guaranteed is the Alliance Tournament. Everywhere else, fights are only fair if both sides screwed up. The only way to make every fight even, is to take away the chance for uneven fights. That means handcuffing player freedom, that means the functional removal of non consensual PvP. I say no.
I would agree except that if you want to encourage people to engage in war through incentives. One such incentive is that they would actually stand a chance. Otherwise those corps that would simply be stomped on will just find other ways to avoid wars. People can be just as inventive in this as in finding new ways to bring pain to others clones.
Anything else is simply trying to force combat onto others. They should always have the chance to simply avoid combat but this should cost them productivity to as it already does. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1064
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:54:38 -
[323] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:afkalt wrote:One could argue that setting up N+1 shell corporations, in advance of decs complete with unused towers [presumably as the members are in the genesis corp and setting towers up takes time and has limits] is a pretty significant up front and one time [assuming they all roll] investment that maybe should offer some manner of reward. Preemptive bolt hole corps is an interesting way to go about it. Creative use of game mechanics almost, since each corp can only fold once [per week and retower] the dominoes are easy to push over for a determined attacker nonetheless.
Key thing here for me is one cannot do this reactively, it has to be pre-planned and set up.
/shrug. I suspect the vast majority of rolling corps just wait out the week tbh and... I'm ok with that. A weeks loss of income from POS stuff is...non trivial to say the least. It has no effect on the miners or mission runners. Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases. If corps get changed to provide real benefits though the N+1 shell corporation method could become a problem. I don't think it's just creative use of game mechanics. You'd be receiving all the benefits of being in a corporation without the risk. It's like getting L5s in highsec because of some trick you did with corp mechanics. Solutions: - Place a delay on using structures and their benefits when a player joins a corp. - All structures become like POCOs. You can't tear them down and you can't transfer them during war. Leave for a shell corp and you lose hundreds of millions or billions each time your previous corp's structures are destroyed. - Structures only gain persistent bonuses through activity accumulation. The ME or mining cycle modifier on your shell corp's structures are 0 until members of the shell corp use them for some time. I'd like to see all three introduced in fact. Not just to combat shell corporations but to make your corporation something you've built and something worth fighting for. The bonuses just have to be significant to make it worth defending. Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: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. This is off topic but I'll bite. You can't remove market hubs from hisec without restricting a very basic level of freedom when it comes to trading. What you can do is increase market fees so it's more worth the risk of buying/selling out in lowsec and nullsec.
I guess we'll wait ans see how the new structures work here but perhaps there should be an option to anchor permanently for an increase in whatever bonuses the station gives. This would allow small corps to protect initial asets through tearing down and hiding them but would also encourage the formation of larger combat capable corps due to the increased benefits. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1039
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 07:44:05 -
[324] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases
Hang on, people are saying in this very thread they're making loads of isk, having dramatic effects on the economy...which is it? I'm not an indy so I don't know.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:If corps get changed to provide real benefits though the N+1 shell corporation method could become a problem. I don't think it's just creative use of game mechanics. You'd be receiving all the benefits of being in a corporation without the risk. It's like getting L5s in highsec because of some trick you did with corp mechanics.
Iiiish. If they do pre-emptively make shells up front and tower up that is an up front cost, those are assets gathering dust "just in case" whilst burning fuel (it is assumed that the main corp can facilitate all members otherwise what is the point), those corps are also vulnerable to wardecs, potentially before the "primary" is attacked thus ruining the protection. It can be burned through by simply rolling the dec further up the tree.
I feel like people putting in isk, time and effort to create a one time ablative layer should reap those rewards, however even as I type this I know in myself no-one will ever do it, not unless there are huge (and I mean HUGE) changes to industry and POS mechanics. And this would be for a one time only option. Risk mitigation to be sure, but not invulnerability. Mind you, so would be a freighter runner paying a few guardian pilots to follow him about, ain't no-one gonna be able to gank in any realistic scenario that so equally "risk free". Plus the attacker can just roll the dec along, certainly costs a bit more but then if people have set up this level of (frankly pointless) paranoia then more power to them.
Today it's a case of pay some isk, shut down ops for at least a week - pretty decent bargain (I'd not be adverse to people getting a pro-rata refund if a decced corp folds in the first week, that seems entirely fair.). Sure, stuff doesn't blow up but as we all know that is not the be all and end all of PvP. Folk moan about it, but I don't think it's broken nearly as badly as a lot of other things out there needing fixed. I suspect if more people (not aimed at yourself) could embrace that explosions are not the final word in PvP it would be more apparent. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
554
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 22:42:25 -
[325] - Quote
afkalt wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:Station industry is barely less profitable because of fuel costs and the thoughtless rebalance to slots and job costs. That's why most corps just wait out the week in an NPC corp or using an NPC alt. There isn't much to lose in most cases Hang on, people are saying in this very thread they're making loads of isk, having dramatic effects on the economy...which is it? I'm not an indy so I don't know. It's a comparison between industry income in stations versus industry income in starbases. I've crunched the numbers though and I'm wrong. There are certain items where starbases are totally worth it. If you can stop someone who knows what they're doing from using their starbase you've cost them dearly.
afkalt wrote:Iiiish. If they do pre-emptively make shells up front and tower up that is an up front cost, those are assets gathering dust "just in case" whilst burning fuel (it is assumed that the main corp can facilitate all members otherwise what is the point), those corps are also vulnerable to wardecs, potentially before the "primary" is attacked thus ruining the protection. It can be burned through by simply rolling the dec further up the tree. They don't have to be online until the members join the shell corp so it wouldn't cost fuel. Just an upfront cost for each tower. You can already have multiple towers in different systems on the one corp so that's not the problem.
afkalt wrote: Plus the attacker can just roll the dec along, certainly costs a bit more but then if people have set up this level of (frankly pointless) paranoia then more power to them. That's the problem. Why should attackers have to pay multiple times for what is really a single wardec? There is also the problem of intel and time. If the attackers do not know the names of their shell corps a determined group could continue industry in a POS through a string of shell corps for days or longer. Hundreds of millions in wardecs, days or longer pass, only to get blueballed when the defenders eventually tear everything down.
It might seem unlikely that anyone would do this. In EVE as long as it's possible it will usually eventually happen. There are already groups like Astral Sanctuary that have a dozen or more shell corps to evade wardecs. Don't underestimate what players will do to evade wardecs without penalty.
All that aside and more importantly, it would make it impossible to introduce things like wardec cost scaling, wardec points, or any system that attempts to hurdle the amount of wardecs one group can perform. I'd rather see "wardec everything that moves" alliances scaled back then have this trick available.
afkalt wrote:Sure, stuff doesn't blow up but as we all know that is not the be all and end all of PvP. Your competition shouldn't have to spend half a billion ISK and pull out their hair in the process to finally impede your operations.
I don't mind ISK, logistics and effort making it harder to be attacked but it has to be reasonable. Escorting a freighter is reasonable. Putting attackers through that cost and time sink only to blue ball them is not.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12551
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 22:49:48 -
[326] - Quote
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: No, but utilizing the benefits of a corp is supposed to make you attackable through wardec. Players shouldn't have to spend half a billion ISK and pull out their hair in the process to finally impede your operations .
And this is the crux of it.
Some people want, against both the design and intent of the game, to be immune.
They quite simply should not be.
"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
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:28:16 -
[327] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: No, but utilizing the benefits of a corp is supposed to make you attackable through wardec. Players shouldn't have to spend half a billion ISK and pull out their hair in the process to finally impede your operations .
And this is the crux of it. Some people want, against both the design and intent of the game, to be immune. They quite simply should not be.
No matter what you change, someone determined to avoid combat will just dock up and/or logoff. What are you going to do, start ejecting ppl from stations? Logging them in without their creds?
The balance is always in economics, not military.
Edit: The CEO of a corp should not be able to roll it without penalties. No way should you be able to just re-roll a corp without a week delay, or else make the war immediately transfer with them to whatever corp they land in. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1039
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:49:56 -
[328] - Quote
@McChicken Combo HalfMayo. Too much to quote.
It's a well reasoned discussion however in my book because these are one time burns (the towers go down and the corp folds) it is not without penalty - they just pay it up front (towers aren't free).
If people are perpared to spend hundreds upon hundreds of millions putting up exposed and vestigial towers (72m a pop for a naked small in jita) "just in case", should that level of preparation not pay dividends?
>>>>Players shouldn't have to spend half a billion ISK and pull out their hair in the process to finally impede your operations .
>>>>I don't mind ISK, logistics and effort making it harder to be attacked but it has to be reasonable
The counterpoint is: Why should an exceptional well organised, pre-orchestrated, layered defence be rendered worthless with a mere 50 million isk?
I would wholeheartedly agree if war was the only way to bring PvP, however it is not and as such I feel that should people be going to supreme effort to insulate themselves from a SINGLE PvP vector deserve reward for their efforts (or perhaps the attackers deserve to fail for not doing their research/picking a poor attack vector either way the result is the same). After all, all that prep and isk counts for exactly nothing against a suicide gank.
You see it comes down to the "point" of the war - if you want to disrupt an industrial corp for economic reasons for example a competitor, then a series of war decs is chump change. However, if you're looking to farm easy kills, maybe it's not the best tool for that job. There can be no doubt this "free immunity" involves significant upheaval, asset relocation, time and lost isk potential hauling and onlining new mods on each tower, delays or flat out cancelled projects...these things are non trivial, they very much prove a disruption - and that is before a single shot is fired.
I get that some people just want to shoot ducks and that's fine, knock yourself out - but let's not pretend it is under the guise of "there's nothing else I can of to harm an indy corp", because there are other avenues. If people chose not to pursue these avenues then such is their choice. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12554
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 00:13:33 -
[329] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: No matter what you change, someone determined to avoid combat will just dock up and/or logoff. What are you going to do, start ejecting ppl from stations? Logging them in without their creds?
Do you even know what you're arguing against, or just wildly conjecturing?
Quote: The balance is always in economics, not military.
And, if you look at the thread, that is exactly what I am suggesting.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12554
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 00:17:50 -
[330] - Quote
afkalt wrote: The counterpoint is: Why should an exceptional well organised, pre-orchestrated, layered defence be rendered worthless with a mere 50 million isk?
Because that is not a "defense", that's still just playing with the corp creation mechanics.
Which, as has already been established, is what needs to be gotten rid of in the first place.
Quote:and as such I feel that should people be going to supreme effort to insulate themselves from a SINGLE PvP vector deserve reward for their efforts
Those people belong in an NPC corp, taking NPC corp penalties.
Player corps, and the rewards of them, are for those willing to deal with wars. Not for cringing cowards. Any mechanic that lets people completely avoid wars while still being in a player corp should be removed outright or highly punished.
"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 |