That was why they seeded them where they seeded them but it was not the main reason they added them. I too was there when they were added lol
an excerpt from the dev blog, i dont have the time to look up the reddit posts where CCP Dopamine and another engaged the players on the subject.
But it was the main reason.
yes… and in that quote they directly point to adding a reward to destroying them lol. That was the problem they were trying to solve there was no reward at the end of the grind.
Something myself and many others pointed out would have been much better solved by removing asset safety. you can keep it in empire if you really want but null should be the same as WH
1 Like
it wasnt, it had to do with the near beginnings of the war of Panfam vs Goons and friends, if im not mistaken the tactic pulled was done in Init territory at the time… Goonswarm flood plain i believe their defensive tactic was called.
Those structures were used as a tactic make it nearly impossible to push back at Panfams vanguard troops in the initial attack waves. CCP made sure to limit that tactic quickly.
The post you put up says it quite clearly
Cores were added to increase the ante as it would increase the incentive and reward for attacking structures.
“Deploying structures haphazardly to bait opponents is often seen by many as a good strategy, because razing them all down can be unsatisfying and laborious.”
Diplomatic CCP corpo speak for : NO no, goons bitched, Brisc even did so on their talk show…so we cant have that…lets introduce something to stop 700 structures being anchored in 1 day during Nullsec wars and screw everyone else that dont like it.
right… because now it wasn’t just burning time you were giving your opponents at minimum .6b with each one they popped. It in no way stopped them from deploying the structures it just stopped it from being a viable tactic to break moral
1.d4 …
600 million isk…for a strucutre…
How much was lost on avg in several of the Major fights during Bietnam???
600 million isk is not even pocket lint for serious Null wars.
Right. but its not about how much is lost its about how much is being gained.
call a dozen or so guys and say hey 60b split amongst you guys if you clear out the 100 structures in this system.
is a lot better for moral then come one guys we need to go blow up another 100 structures
ARe you mad, or just stupid???
The war that lasted over year, that Goons essentially won cause their enemy could not take their Capital system no mater how hard they tried???
Stop while your ahead…cause the cores had nothing to do with HS, or LS…
For nullsec, you had to purchase the cores from HS…
If you wanted to return them for the same price…you had to take them back to HS.
I didn’t say anything about it being targeted at any area of space. I said it was to add a reward to hitting the structures, so it wasn’t just a meaningless grind. only time I brought up an area of space was to point out the effects this mechanic had on them
I had to re-read the part I quoted a couple times, but I get your gist now. I think that could have been worded better, but whatever. The confusion was mine.
Then follows immediately with…
Gotcha.
still not an attack on you
I know from my experience in Wrecking Machine that stations are largely just too easy to destroy and really don’t have enough defensive capability. A single gunner in a station really can’t do much against even a small-ish fleet with logi. I’ve seen clever gunners neut logi and then use the few seconds of chaos to fire at the rest of the fleet. But this is an attrition battle the station usually loses.
So, I’d increase the defensive capabilities of stations. The old POS stations could take hours just to get through the shields, and could be surrounded by turrets. The new stations are severely under-gunned by comparison. And I think even us station bashers would enjoy more of an actual battle…so I’d be all for having deadlier stations.
1 Like
CCPlease… THIS IS FOR YOU… and others to fix mistakes or comment.
There should be NO structure requirements. No CCP anti-pvp, blob always win rules.
The larger the corp, the cheaper it should be to war dec them because they actually do have the ability to defend themselves. Structure fights are trash compared to ship vs ship combat, No one in their right mind likes bashing structures as a requirement.
War cost should be a War Bond. A one-time fee.
War can only end when both CEOs meet together in the same station and declare the same winner or a corp is dissolved leaving all remaining members labeled Deserters.
24 members or less - Not war eligible - Not eligible to own Citadels. Towers are fine.
25-49 members - 1 billion war bond awarded to the winner.
50-74 members - 500m
75-99 members - 250m
100+ members - No war bond
Any corp that reaches 25 members should be automatically war eligible.
Any corp thats been around for 3 months should become war eligible.
Changing your CEO from the founder should make you war eligible.
Corps should not be allowed to own citadels unless they have 25+ members to solve holding corp exploit abuse.
Leaving your corp during war should label you a deserter that cannot leave an NPC corp for 30 days. Deserter tag should be applied to your char portrait.
Deserters should not be eligible to fly T3’s or capital class ships in highsec including the Orca.
War bond should be awarded if 50% of the members become deserters.
Once a War Bond is paid out, a peace period of 30 days should be granted to the defeated corp.
War assists should be granted to both sides with each new corp paying an additional War Bond.
War assist corps should be able to leave the war with forfeiture of the bond and no other penalty.
No activity on the war report for 30 days would return all bonds to its origin and end the war.
Alpha toon abuse is an issue not yet addressed here. Ive done nothing but war and economy since 2009. I know exactly how the current system only supports blobs and multiboxing. I also realize that the majority of players are sheep and want to not fight a losing battle. I cant state enough that I have direct long term experience in all matters of war. CCPlease. Read this and understand that im not just bitching but offering a solution. This system in the works would allow players to enjoy NPC corps, protect small groups and stop major alliances from exploiting holding corps. It will also solve other major issue like the power-pyramid in place now which makes all of us slaves with no competition to ever grow.
1 Like
Actually, no. It’s a number of changes that again totally favor the aggressor, remove their risk of losing a citadel, and permits wardec corps to serially abuse smaller and non-war-interested corps - which are only protected for 90 days max.
This is basically a manifesto that says “let wardec corps do anything they want at no risk and little cost, while adding 1 billion ISK to the payout of every war”.
It has internal contradiction, eg. you say remove structure requirements and also eliminate holding corp problems, but holding corps are only there because of the structure requirements.
And, it doesn’t even solve the big problem, which is abusive wardeccing of non-combat corps causing those members to reduce playing and leave the game. In fact you even heap more penalties on them. Your changes would merely result in an even grimmer set of statistics for CCP to post on how wardecs drive players out of the game.
News flash for ya: not wanting to participate in somebody else’s cheap, cowardly, high-sec ‘easy proftiable victim’ hunt doesn’t make a corp ‘sheep’. It just means they’re not interesting in feeding the trolls.
It even has obvious weaknesses… how does the smaller corp afford multiple 1 billion war bonds to pay to every wardec corp that wants to exploit them? What are the wardec corps risking? Because they certainly won’t declare any wars they aren’t 100% certain of winning anyway. What stops corps from just transferring all members to a new corp every 80 days, maintaining full protection? Why shouldn’t a small corp be able to build a citadel or enter a war?
The problem here appears to be that you actually have little overview of wars from different sides. “Solutions” that only benefit the aggressor and are full of holes anyway aren’t going to solve anything.
Reply to Kezrai…
Small corps arent even eligible plus they can create a new corp when they like. You shoudlnt be able to earn a name without fighting for it either. The risk factors are already heavily leaning toward the aggressor along with all costs. You, and most people have never been in a position of power so the things you say are simply incorrect. For example, high grade clone 6b plus T3 worth 3b and reputation means everything. If i multibox, add 8b for each toon. Thats my risk on top of al the costs. NPC corps also offer complete safety. Any of your other issues were addressed in my original post. Thank for the feedback but lets hear what others have to add… contribute, dont just assume and then leave the game wrecked as it is. PvP and fair competition is what will save Eve. Not boring bashes and safe-spaces.
Here’s another example of what its like to have a war hq. You get attacked by small multiboxers 24 hours a day and have to defend each time making them run away as soon as one ship shows to defend. Then, in the middle of the night a solo ship finally knocks off the shield. 24 hours later a massive blob shows for a timer to press F1 along with paid assists in a one-time event where no pvp actually occurs. No PvP bro. The loss of the HQs means nothing as far as isk is concerned. My ship is worth more than that. Its just too easy and one-sided for blobs. Plus the amount of time invested to defend vs attack an HQ is absolutely one sided to the blobs. Blowing up a building with no fight should be what is… nothing. Currently is a sad excuse to drop a hammer and give blobs the chance to blob.
Things like TTT existed because even nullsec fleet commanders understand that bashing in highsec will cost them members and it trash content that people dont even want, hence the peace agreements.
<<<<<< REPOST of the post Id like criticism and addition to. >>>>>>>>>>
CCPlease… THIS IS FOR YOU… and others to fix mistakes or comment.
There should be NO structure requirements. No CCP anti-pvp, blob always win rules.
The larger the corp, the cheaper it should be to war dec them because they actually do have the ability to defend themselves. Structure fights are trash compared to ship vs ship combat, No one in their right mind likes bashing structures as a requirement.
War cost should be a War Bond. A one-time fee.
War can only end when both CEOs meet together in the same station and declare the same winner or a corp is dissolved leaving all remaining members labeled Deserters.
24 members or less - Not war eligible - Not eligible to own Citadels. Towers are fine.
25-49 members - 1 billion war bond awarded to the winner.
50-74 members - 500m
75-99 members - 250m
100+ members - No war bond
Any corp that reaches 25 members should be automatically war eligible.
Any corp thats been around for 3 months should become war eligible.
Changing your CEO from the founder should make you war eligible.
Corps should not be allowed to own citadels unless they have 25+ members to solve holding corp exploit abuse.
Leaving your corp during war should label you a deserter that cannot leave an NPC corp for 30 days. Deserter tag should be applied to your char portrait.
Deserters should not be eligible to fly T3’s or capital class ships in highsec including the Orca.
War bond should be awarded if 50% of the members become deserters.
Once a War Bond is paid out, a peace period of 30 days should be granted to the defeated corp.
War assists should be granted to both sides with each new corp paying an additional War Bond.
War assist corps should be able to leave the war with forfeiture of the bond and no other penalty.
No activity on the war report for 30 days would return all bonds to its origin and end the war.
Alpha toon abuse is an issue not yet addressed here. Ive done nothing but war and economy since 2009. I know exactly how the current system only supports blobs and multiboxing. I also realize that the majority of players are sheep and want to not fight a losing battle. I cant state enough that I have direct long term experience in all matters of war. CCPlease. Read this and understand that im not just bitching but offering a solution. This system in the works would allow players to enjoy NPC corps, protect small groups and stop major alliances from exploiting holding corps. It will also solve other major issue like the power-pyramid in place now which makes all of us slaves with no competition to ever grow.
Just going to throw this out there… What about removing all the requirements for high-sec (only) and limiting it to corporations under 25 members (max)?
With any new idea, first ask “How could someone break/abuse/exploit this?”. It would be pretty easy here, just create an alliance of corps with 25 members each and wardec to your hearts content.
And it doesn’t address the actual core issue of wardecs, which is that a small number of players abusing the system drives a large number of players out of the game, without adding anything of interest to gameplay.
Edit: Added some clarification for the person who flagged this post, presumably because it contains the word ‘exploit’.
The intent of asking “how could someone exploit this new proposed idea?” is not to encourage exploits in the game, or to tell someone how to exploit something, or to say that I approve of exploits. Which would be impossible anyway since we’re talking about new ideas that don’t exist in the game.
The intent is to reveal how a new idea might be broken or abusable before it is ever implemented. In order to prevent new exploits from being added to the game.
If for some odd reason someone finds a method of preventing exploits in the game to be objectionable or inappropriate, please add your thoughts to the discussion. It’s much more helpful than simply clicking the Flag system because you didn’t understand somebody’s point.