Shame you’re against people making a buck then supplying war dec devices all over new eden and having another use for fuel. We’ll just have to agree that you think ISK is king and should remain king so it can continue to do things without risk.
I don’t see how those with less ISKs can afford more intel tools / war dec devices than those with more ISKs. Seems to be just another on of those plans, which are going to pop the moment they make contact with the reality of EVE.
The tool itself is a flat cost item that you can aquire from a Concord agent or a reseller because it’ll be a deployable object. Deployable objects can be sold to anyone on the open market and already exist within eve online.
If you get one of these objects, properly defend it, and keep it fueled by making your own fuel it’ll be cheaper than buying fuel from someone else all the time. Nobody says you can’t make plans and intelligent decisions. That’s your fault for not seeing options.
Changes to core mechanics tend to have amusing results when they encounter the player base.
It could go very very sideways. No Plan Survives First Contact With Customers.
The original is “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.” - Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
2 Likes
I welcome you to also try to flaw this. Debate on how you abuse and how you improve this is useful in making a correct object that would work for everybody.
2 Likes
While I’m not happy with the idea of stuff that just pops out of a CONCORD dispenser am I not going to criticize it, just for the sake of making a different point: if it’s going to cost ISKs then it will always be a benefit to have more ISKs than the enemy. ISK is a fundamental mechanic in the game and is as fundamental as mining and firing guns.
When you don’t have any ISKs, then go mine and sell ore, but you cannot be sound of mind when you suggest that we now introduce something, which can be used to evade the cost of war.
I’m not going to pick flaws in anything, my thoughts are already present.
I’m just pointing out that throughout the history of Eve changes to core mechanics have often produced unintended and detrimental results.
CCP can’t patch their playerbase, which may or may not contain n̷u̷t̷s̷ some of the most devious minds in gaming.
4 Likes
Where am I agreeing with anything?
You say I don’t understand that wars have zero consequences (which they do) to which I say I do understand because I both dec and get decced.
I don’t know what sort of drugs you take, but you might want to stop taking them…
It isn’t evading the cost of war. It’s changing it from “I have ISK” to “I deployed the object” and costs can be lower if you fuel it yourself or higher if you buy fuel from someone scalping you because the enemy camps the gates to where you deployed it looking to kill you and know your device is somewhere in that area. Finding that device would require someone who’s good at scanning. Knowing it’s your device in that specific war would require some method that gains intelligence from devices. Already exists in game as a mechanic.
It doesn’t evade costs at all, merely makes you work at reducing costs or accept that you need to pay someone else’s fuel prices to continue. Your choice. More capitalism. More options.
Agreed. Which is why testing would be first before live server deployment. Which is also why if you would like to abuse it rather than improve it it’s better to not talk.
Choose your side. I still welcome debate on it.
1 Like
lol…
History tells us that CCP would release it in a just about functional state and ignore most of the feedback from the test server.
2 Likes
One could only hope that CCP actually gives a dam about making war actual war where both sides have to take risks because right now we have no risk and I can sit until
Does the item have to come from CONCORD or can it be produced, too? Seems just fair to include mining, trade and industry into this, too. If it can be produced then having the right structure for manufacturing can find another use and it all fits in. And destroying an enemies’ manufacturing sites could have an effect on their ability to deploy such devices, too.
And what about shooting it? Can it be shot and what does it mean for the war? Will it be a loss of intel or does it mean the direct end of the war declaration?
1 Like
CCP would have to weigh the option to make a BPO vs just have Concord supply them. I will not demand one way or the other. Either way it’s still a device gotten from Concord. Granted I could see a heavy industrial group producing their own for market use.
Shooting it would do damage and alert your corp that someone is attacking it. It is involved in a war. Maybe the person who’s shooting it’s war, maybe not theirs, decoy tactics are 100% legit and nothing is stopping you from deploying more than 1. Blowing it up is immediate loss of it’s intel ability as you need to go to it to get the intel. War timer continues until time expires. If another object is deployed (and still fueled) war continues. Intel switch from A to B happens at war end cycle time where it takes over. If someone is intelligent and figures out all your devices involved in their war and blows them up right before war timer ends and you have nothing left to continue the war well that’s just damed good tactics.
Sorry, but no additional timer. That’s just bad.
I’m fine with anchoring a device for gathering intel if all it does is to replace an actual pilot and its jobs is the equivalent of telling others what’s going on in local and what is on d-scan. In the end does it let a small group balance out a lack of players (who provide intel) against a larger group, but for a cost.
But the moment you tie a timer to it for extending war declarations will players only set up a new one and possibly even spam these devices all over New Eden, which means you’ll have to put a limit onto how many one can deploy and that’s no good. You’ll only be patching this idea backwards like you’re herding cats again, where it begins to suck, because it tries to do two fundamentally different things in one.
An intel gathering device is something you want to place where you expect the enemy to be, while a device for controlling the length of a war declaration is something that you want to place where you expect the enemy not to be. The combination of it is going to suck. So it cannot be set up in WH space for controlling high-sec wars, yet some would like to use it there, too, for gathering intel. Others will place them at opposing ends of high-sec just to force an enemy to ridiculously long travels and in empty space where it might need to be scanned down first. The meta game will try to make this as boring and tedious as possible, guaranteed.
Just leave the war decs the way they are. They’ll run out or you’ll have to pay CONCORD some more. Any device you introduce to touch this means another level of meta gaming around war decs, and people are already confused as to when a war ends. It doesn’t need to get more complicated.
Everyone is so over sensitive these days…
It’s the same timer that exists when you currently declare war. It doesn’t increase because the device is lost or decrease because object is gone. At end of timer if a war device for that war doesn’t exist war ends. It is entirely on the attacker to deploy the object and keep it fueled and defended or backups.
In nul space this device would gather intel the same way a player could and be about anything that enters that isn’t blue while high sec would just declare intel on war targets.
eg: War targets are in system X. This is all you get in high sec, if they’re offline this won’t count them but the message will tell you when they’re online and what system.
Low/null wouldn’t be allowed for this device. It’s for war in high sec.
I’m sure there could be a deployable created to parrot information though for nul/low about what enters that it sees in view. That would require different coding and probably it’s own alert channel output for a corp/alliance to be created. Risked object for intel works until object is poofed which in itself is a bit of intel gathering.
Unfortunately this would probably mean they are about to explode the device because they can probably see it too. So yes, it would balance lack of players to do intel work with a slightly less efficient intel device. It would also be a target for attackers to hunt out and destroy making content for their (relative) safety alerts.
I would really love to see how someone who spams these devices all over new eden keeps them all fueled. But logicstics and such is the fault of the player not CCP. While someone could spam the devices all over they would have a limit on how many wars they can have going. Not how many devices they deploy. Granted I would suggest we tie the amount you can anchor to your anchoring skill.
And thus a mechanic exists for this already.
There is no confusion about when a war ends. It ends when the attacker decides to end it. They can pay the costs to keep it going or not by choice of if they fuel the objects in question, just let them die, or if the enemy keeps working at it long enough that they can’t undock then it’s decided they don’t want to risk continuation of the war. You deploy the object, set it’s target, it anchors and stays there until lack of fuel makes it implode or it’s blown up. Nothing is stopping the attacker from making only one or multiple backups. Fuel is used to continue the war. So long as ONE device exists with fuel the attackers continue their war. If they want the war to end they can just empty the fuel out of the devices. They are also free to blow them up if they want to free up space to declare another war against another target so long as they haven’t hit their maximum war decs.
2 Likes
No, and I’ve already explained how it’s bad. The very least you should think about is how it would work when it was two distinct devices, use it to understand how each will be used in warfare, and not to go straight to creating a mashup of something, which you haven’t thought through and which is a fantasy device where you think the more feature it has the better it must be.
Start with two distinct devices. Then you’ll see that you really only want one and that you can toss away the timer idea, because we already have it in the game.
Vanilla icecream is great, burgers are great, but putting vanilla icecream on a burger… that’s just what kids want, and that’s what you’re trying to do here I’m afraid.
No you keep explaining how you think the status quo is bad and then converting that status quo is the adjustment. Then you leave saying let it remain as it currently is when discussing the transfer from isk to object. It’s an echo chamber effect.
I already did and described exactly what would happen with these devices. You then rejected these devices effects which replace ISK as the ability to continue war without an actual counter to the argument. Repeating it isn’t refuting it. Constantly changing your set target to slightly further away is goalpost movement.
There we go putting a strawman up again.
The comparison of desert to dinner/lunch is not about what they kids want for dinner. In addition people put ice cream on a burger in their stomachs every time they eat desert. Your argument relies upon putting both these items in your mouth at the same second rather than reasonably see that instead of a burger we’re putting steak on the plate. Another strawman argument where the facts don’t matter to you and you just throw wild comparisons out to invoke emotional responses rather than discuss the topic at hand.
In short:
1 Like
No, I’m saying you’re trying to create a mashup of two different things, which is bad, because it flaws both of them, and that one of them isn’t needed in the first place.
1 Like
Then how about we discard the flaws in full and just remove war? People can still PVP even without it.
1 Like