AHAaaaaa… in this scenario the complaint is the weak don’t have the CHOICE… going to a PvP preschool means it’s open season on toddlers.
1 Like
I agree with the side that doesn’t make EVE softer. Easier to play sure but not softer.
Giving stations more DPS is just powercreep.
Giving them a self-destruct option is just a deterrent (and sour grapes).
My middle ground would be to increase the ALPHA damage plus the versatility of weapons (ie more anti-small ship stuff) so that if fitted well, you would have a chance to destroy some of their ships or beat them off (wait that doesn’t sound right).
1 Like
Yes they do.
They can avail themselves of the game mechanics that render them immune to wardecs.
1 Like
Right, no school.
Well, yes. If you put up a station and can’t defend it, you are the weaker party. Remember, they choose to be a target when they put the station up (ie walked into the ring)…The PVP existed long before they came around.
1 Like
…you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the benefits of a station (ie reward) without increase risk. THAT is the core of EVE.
3 Likes
Maybe, I’m not convinced… I’ve seen missile damage from a station using missiles of the correct size do single digits of damage to a below average fit cruiser.
What level of fair would you say needs to happen for a small, medium, and large structure to defend itself…that is pilot controlling the station, no ships in space…cause it certainly is advertised that upwell structures are to be able to defend themselves in the description… and the module tool tips.
1 Like
I am actually looking for a Corp that has big industry projects going on, my main can build everything (except t-3 ships), so finding an organization with goals but can carry on conversations without drama, well let’s say that is a hard order to fill so far.
Apparently drama is the core of eve
1 Like
Defend itself from what?
A dedicated structure bashing fleet of the-best-HS-structure-bashing-ships-in-the-game with plenty of support?
I mean… that’s just not going to happen, you’re going to have to undock.
Truth.
1 Like
That’s what I’m asking… I’m asking what fair would be counted as.
I like that. Just not in a way you will like.
My preference for self-destruct is that it should be total … structure, ship, pilot, cargo, fuel, ammo, mods … the lot.
I gave up ground to @Runa_Yamaguchi by supporting destruction + loot drop. And I am genuinely fine with that. But really, the complete wipe out scenario would better fit my vision of “scorched earth”. It would be my passive option of giving no quarter in a fight.
I mean, that can be your preference. That’s fine. It’s not going to happen but you’re free to wish for it, I guess, if ineffectual fantasizing is what blows your skirt up.
At the “big picture” level, there’s more than a little bit of consensus that, at present, there isn’t nearly enough incentive to attack structures, so anything that further disincentivizes it is pretty much a non-starter.
Out of curiosity (since you’ve piqued it with your words), in regards to your “scorched earth” policy, in regards to structures, if CCP were to add a “destroy station” button, what do you propose happen to any belongings stored in a station (mostly likely scenario is a highsec station) by uninvolved parties.
I’m not going to call them “innocent bystanders”, but those players who may have temporarily stored a ship or various others goods in a station, whose owners are at war, or later find themselves at war and decide to push that “destruct” button. Are you proposing all goods, war decced and uninvolved parties goods go up in pixel smoke? Or just the goods of the war decced? Or something else entirely?
Which leads to at least part of the point the OP is making … that there is not nearly enough mechanics available to resist such aggression.
My slightly ancillary point, within the “bigger picture”, is the current PvP focus is too narrowly targeted on point & shoot followed by point & shoot back.
You may think that wanting ways to balance that is a fantasy; I think that resisting ideas that would let me deny materiel support to the enemy is illogical.
EDIT: illogical in the specific context of a “war in space” type scenario.
That’s a very interesting question. I’m no PvP expert or theory craft’er so I will be vague.
I always try to look at things from a math perspective. If an average Rait’s total value is about 1B and the drop about 200M plus salvage, say another 200M then what is needed to kill it should be in that range as well; 400M to 1B based on the 5000DPS cap and non-bling ships…this is pretty much the case right now too so…
In my ALPHA suggestion, a station would have the option of hot swapping modules to take on different sized of ships. So if you are facing a few BS, you load the anti-BS module and Alpha the crap out of it. a well fit BS could take 1 or maybe two hits but that’s about it. It would have to leave the field to repair or risk going boom. The catch is that the cycle of the station weapons and module swap is long, maybe 45-60 seconds.
So in the end, the station will still go down vs most enemies but it would keep them on their toes more as they could easily get caught out by a savy defender.
But it can’t be just more DPS…as this simply means more attackers for reps or whatever the flavor is at that time.
That sounds like NS to me. Drama is everywhere so the sec level is not an issue.
I don’t know if this is good advice but PM MarqueeDragon and ask for advice as you’re no muppet obviously and he’s generally not a dick so he might have a better suggestion.
Or the forums but then you are at more risk…
You don’t really want to go down the road of what is and isn’t “logical” because at some point it’s going to come up that, actually, it’s pretty illogical that 5 clowns with pointy sticks holed up in a space shanty can even hold out as long as they can right now against an armada of unlimited size and firepower. None of that’s logical, it’s all a function of pure space-magic mechanics like “damage caps” and “reinforcement timers”.
This whole thread is largely just a lot of whining that, while the ruleset was known, and they opted into it, it’s unfair that they’re not allowed to flip over the table. 
Good question. One I hadn’t considered until @Haulie_Berry mentioned asset safety.
If asset safety was scrapped for me during destruction, you would have to scrap it for everyone (as a point of lore). But you still could keep it as a mechanic. One work around for the problem of no safety is the same as @Anson_Muellin mentioned previously - third parties would simply have to use the time during reinforcement cycles to move their stuff.
There are two issues with that. First, third parties don’t currently get notified. I have turned up several times to reinforced structures, just by chance, and had to get stuff out, or found stuff in my asset safety without a clue as to how it got there.
Second, there would have to be controlled timing for self-destruct in order to give third parties time to evacuate. So, I couldn’t self-destruct until final timer say (although, if structure was starting in low power, that would still not give much notice to evacuate.)