New Wardec mechanics - can't wait!

[Makavi_Madeveda]

Wars, massive wars, small wars, profitable wars, disastrous wars ALL happened BEFORE war decs were even a gleam in a devs drunken eye.

Everyone talking about risk vs. no risk, while War Decs removed a HUGE risk themselves just by existing.

[MinerArt]

@Makavi_Madeveda

Everyone talking about risk vs. no risk, while War Decs removed a HUGE risk themselves just by existing.

And I’d happily put that risk back and even give a benefit for that risk. There doesn’t need to be 2 items to do one thing but people want that.

[MinerArt]

@Dantelion_Shinoni

And on that he is perfectly right, those are two functionalities that ask for two very different things, and thus should be made into two different objects.

Just an FYI. Still one object. Deploy the start of the war device where you don’t expect the enemies to be. Deploy a second one in their front yard to gather intel also. Two locations supplied by one device type. NOTHING is stopping you from doing this beyond your lack of ingenuity and intellect. Same exact deflect and dodge and change strawman argument just rehashed.

[Whitehound]

@MinerArt

Just an FYI. Still one object. Deploy the start of the war device where you don’t expect the enemies to be. Deploy a second one in their front yard to gather intel also. Two locations supplied by one device type. NOTHING is stopping you from doing this beyond your lack of ingenuity and intellect. Same exact deflect and dodge and change strawman argument just rehashed.

So what happens when the first one is destroyed and a second one is still up?

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

So what happens when the first one is destroyed and a second one is still up?

Funny how you forget things.

@MinerArt

Object gets destroyed? No more intel for the attacker. Lack of ability to deploy a redundant unit or a replacement before the timer ends results in the end of the war due to lack of war declaration object. That’s the attackers choice to deploy more or let it end.

A blows up. B still exists. Nothing stopping you from deploying C, D, or E. F would require another characters anchor slots and so on and so on.

[Whitehound]

@MinerArt

Funny how you forget things.

Do you know what a game of Whack-A-Mole is?

https://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kitty-whack-a-mole1.gif(image larger than 4 MB)

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

Do you know what a game of Whack-A-Mole is?

Do you know what repeating the same argument after it’s been refuted is?

[Whitehound]

@MinerArt

Do you know what repeating the same argument after it’s been refuted is?

You are turning corporate warfare in high-sec into a game of Whack-A-Mole.

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

You are turning corporate warfare in high-sec into a game of Whack-A-Mole.

It already is whack a mole. Enemy ships appear in system. You dock. They leave you undock and continue your business. Repeat until either side gets bored. Neither side has any reason to fight a situation they will lose so neither side will fight anything they can easily avoid.

Now you get an object to shoot and a reason to fight and you’d like to complain about the status quo.

[Whitehound]

@MinerArt

It already is whack a mole.

No. It’s just what you want to turn it into.

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

No. It’s just what you want to turn it into.

You do realize you already said that. I saw it coming. It’s a strawman argument substituting the status quo into a change. You’d like anything to stop the discussion so you’ll openly repeat what is already refuted and consider it the answer to your dilemma about how to stop any discussion on changing what is easily abused.

Thanks for the confirmation you refuse to reason.

It’s so amazing how much you’ll fight against putting an object in place of just throwing isk at a problem and hoping it’ll go away.

[Dantelion_Shinoni]

He is not fighting against putting the object. He is fighting against the same object doing two things that are contradictory, which is a valid concern and not a troll.

I think you are arguing that Intel should come with the price of exposing the war structure, and he argues that that risk can be decoupled to another type of structure, which tbh I partially agree with.

Again, he is not arguing against using a structure, he is arguing against using the same structure for two contradictory things.

Just expose why you think coupling Intel and win condition should be coupled together.

[MinerArt]

@Dantelion_Shinoni

He is not fighting against putting the object. He is fighting against the same object doing two things that are contradictory, which is a valid concern and not a troll.

No. He’s opening declaring that anything that gets placed in space will change the dock when you will lose and undock when you will win situation that already exists (or corp drop or play an alt or switch to an alt corp or any of the insane current methods that avoid war) as what a change will be.

@Dantelion_Shinoni

I think you are arguing that Intel should come with the price of exposing the war structure, and he argues that that risk can be decoupled to another type of structure, which tbh I partially agree with.

Why would you need two objects that do the exact same thing? Device gathers war info. It’s effect is to start war. Concord respects this device as a declaration of war. It’s one item.

@Dantelion_Shinoni

Again, he is not arguing against using a structure, he is arguing against using the same structure for two contradictory things.

One structure. Gathers intel on your target in high sec. Used for war. Can be placed anywhere in high sec. Not useful in low sec/null. For that you’d want an entirely different item. But we’re not talking about null sec security devices you deploy. We’re on the topic of High Sec War.

In addition:

@MinerArt

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 already agreed that a version for null should exist. So we’re not splitting high sec into this one does war and that one does intel because they ONLY do intel and are necessary to have up and running to keep a war going.

@Dantelion_Shinoni

Just expose why you think coupling Intel and win condition should be coupled together.

You want to fight? Then make a reason to fight. No reason to fight? Status quo. Nothing to shoot because enemy refuses to fight? Status quo. Attacker has been docked in Jita 4-4 since December 2001? Status quo. Object that gives your enemy info? Reason to fight. Not status quo.

Addium: In addition this also gives the attacker a reason to fight rather than to sit docked for all eternity. They want to keep their war going they have to fight for it. Defend their war device or deploy more of them and keep them fueled up to keep the war going. No more piles of money to keep piles of war decs going.

Additional info: Say we want to abuse the ability to declare war with Alpha Clones and scrap corporations and declare war on EVERY ALLIANCE THAT EXISTS IN EVE ONLINE. We would need 1672 corporations each declaring 5 wars against different alliances with a minimum of 8,360 fueled devices per week up and running.

Oh wait, I can go better:

Since there are more corporations in the game: We would need 158,559 corporations each deploying mostly 5 wars against different targets costing a whopping 792,791 devices and fuel per week.

[Whitehound]

@Dantelion_Shinoni

He is not fighting against putting the object.

What I’m fighting here for is:

In a game of Whack-A-Mole are the objects stationary and it gets dull pretty fast. EVE is primarily a spaceship game and chasing after ships is a part of it. Anyone who has a problem with it and needs stationary objects before they can enjoy EVE might want to find a different game, one which doesn’t take place in three-dimensional space. I don’t know why one would compare the current game to Whack-A-Mole unless perhaps one is very tired of EVE in general. Then a break from the game is possibly the best idea.

It then doesn’t need new winning objectives, because that’s what we already have the militia for. If it needs a bit more action then one can also go into null-sec and take part in the sov warfare.

We then also have blanket wardecs, tied to a simple timing mechanism, and so far have the suggestions only tried to destroy it and not attempted to keep it alive and to expand on it. And no, tying the timers to objects is not constructive, when the nature of a game is destruction.

In short, the suggestions so far only try to erode the PvP in high-sec, and when something interesting is actually being suggested like intel gathering devices, does it get mashed up like kids do when they play with their food at the dinner table.

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

And no, tying the timers to objects is not constructive, when the nature of a game is destruction.

As said before timer continues when object is destroyed. You just decided it must die when the object dies. You’re free to deploy another or have a backup as you wish. Nothing is stopping you from continuing the war. Pay for it. Items instead of ISK. That is the change. I’ll even buff attackers by giving their targets a flat debuff where they are declared war against so corp droppers are still stuck in the war for at least a week. I’ll even buff attackers by giving them intel so they can hunt spaceships. I’ll even go so far as to add market value to devices and fuel to expand game inclusion into it and even construction if CCP thinks it’d be a good idea. I will GO SO FAR to give you both a reason to fight and your targets a reason to fight as to allow mercenaries the option to be hired to locate your war devices or players in the target corporation doing the work themselves.

I expand the entire thing to include anyone who wants to. Then you reject it anyways because it’s not isk.

[Whitehound]

@MinerArt

As said before timer continues when object is destroyed.

So then it’s no longer tied to war declarations. Good.

[MinerArt]

@Whitehound

So then it’s no longer tied to war declarations. Good.

[Dom_Arkaral]

Can you stop with the memes?

Especially when you posted it about 5 times already

[MinerArt]

@Dom_Arkaral

Can you stop with the memes?

Especially when you posted it about 5 times already

It’d be easy to stop with the calling out of logical fallacies if they stopped being reintroduced.

[Whitehound]

So what is it? is it tied to the timer or is it not?

I don’t want it to be tied to anything but keep the existing mechanic. The current wardecs are simple and easy, although it still confuses players once in a while, but it is overall very good to handle.

Players then aren’t afraid of war declarations, but they’re afraid of losing their ships. They’re also afraid of having to fight many opponents at once.

Adding intel gathering devices, which allow players to survey a few systems around them for war targets would then allow those with fears to undock as long as they feel safe to do so while they’re under a war declaration.

Seems to be a pretty good idea to me and would improve the current game and allow players to undock more often.

@Dom_Arkaral Ignore the pictures, please. Think of them as pictures from his family album and that it’s his grandad. If we complain about the pictures will it only get an ISD in here who will have to clean them up. Let’s just get on with it.