You cited a statement from me and mistepresented the context. I was reacting to that. I don’t care and did not read what you and Dom where talking about.
Maybe in the future don’t try to missrepresent other peoples posts. And calm down a bit, I’m already concerned with your blood pressure again.
Not at all, I was pointing out to you that outside of hisec that there was strategic value and if my suggestion is applied there will be a strategic value in hisec too. Your lap dog reacted rather stupidly and you doubled down on his reaction. It is detailed above. just putting you and your lap dog right.
This can be easily solved by linking wars to Small structures.
The structure would not have to cost billions, and it would provide something the defender can look at if you refuse to engage him except at his most vulnerable.
Citadels, he decided Fortizars, it could be an Astrahus, which is not expensive.
An Astrahus is not expensive but it is inconvenient.
You’d need structures with less demanding timers/reinforcements etc…
But Eve is not supposed to be easy unless you are a hisec freighter ganker of course. Sorry could not resist that little dig at them, but I think it is fine as it is, most people put their citadels in their prime period and hopefully once better targeting and less blanket war decking occurs their time zones will mesh a bit more.
Like anything it can be adjusted, perhaps having to have the citadel more open due to the agent?
Tying wardec mechanics to structures is a bad idea. Wardecs could need new ways of working, but replacing one stale situation with another stale situation will not help.
In this proposal I see only the interest of people who dislike wardecs being served. The Forums actually offer the possibility to think about ways to make things more interesting for everyone. It’s kind of silly to instead not look above ones own plate when thinking about mechanical changes, as if propaganda on the Forums would ever influence CCP.
I think we agree that making a mechanic inconvenient for the sake of it being inconvenient is not… wise and is the surest way to make people not play your game.
The primary counter-argument to tying wardecs to structures is that “shooting structures is aids”, and to an extent they are right, dealing with structures in high-sec is significantly harder than in other areas of space.
Plus tying it to a Medium structure limits the kind of people who can access the mechanic. A small structure is the way to go.
Explain why it is a bad idea?
Not at all, it just adds potential player driven consequences with a strategic objective, why should hisec not have strategic objectives to fight over like other areas of space? Explain why this would make it worse.
I don’t understand how you missed the simple fact that Fozzie said he would tie structures into war decs. So CCP has already said that.
But it works both ways, when the citadels were made easier to blow up a lot of people gave up on them…
Actually in nullsec they are a lot tougher, but anyway it is a strategic objective, it is not supposed to be a picnic in the park. If defended they are supposed to be tough.
It is only a billion ISK and you have 4 war decs under my proposal without this. Not an issue, unless you are space poor.
I thought this was pretty obvious… It forces players who want to PvP to also set up a structure. It ignores those players who want to PvP without having a structure.
All the idea does is to introduce a new limitation, but not more freedom and only further erodes the culture in EVE.
They can PvP, they have under my proposal 4 war decs without a structure.
Eve is supposed to have consequences, please explain to me what consequences hisec war deckers currently have? They might lose a bling ship is the only one the war deckers could tell me in the discord, see if you can do better?
Two main reasons:
Holding structures in Highsec has almost never any real strategic value. The only notable exceptions are Citadels near Tradehubs which are used for either production or as a market hub. Of course you can have “strategic objectives”, if you have a strategy which is part of a roadmap, but you’d need a very special breed of Highseccers to operate like this and they certainly wouldn’t need a mechanic setting those objectives for them. Also they probably wouldn’t live in Highsec of all places, if they are a bright and tight enough group to approach the game like this.
I understood him in a way that he is thinking about that as one option. Anyway, I don’t see the point of the discussion being how we may interprete Fozzies word, but rather people bring up different ideas and discussing them amongst peers. Now, if we do that, why don’t we try and think about different perspectives on the matter, developing ideas that make it more interesting for everyone and not just spurt out things we personally would like the most for some reason.
I mean yeah, I get that some people want the game to be exactly serving their personal playstyle over everything else, but we all know that this wouldn’t be EVE anymore.
Regarding structures and wardecs that means: maybe structures could be included in new wardec mechanics, but they certainly shouldn’t be the one and only option/focus/approach.
Taking down a structure in highsec almost never has real strategic impact. In most cases people can just drop another structure right away, with nothing any attacker can do about it.
You want to look at low- and null-sec warfare. Where do you see consequence when there PvP isn’t tied to anything?
What it really says is that a war declaration alone doesn’t do anything. It has no consequence. It is as the word says only a declaration of war, but not war itself. What has consequence is the fight between spaceships.
Well yeah, one of the main problems right now is that defenders have nothing to gain, and deccers have to camp trade routes, because everyone can efficiently evade fights in highsec. Defenders and attackers alike. This is something that needs to change, but my proposal about introducing an escrow is way better, because it does not limit the playstyle options to encourage people into combat.
Well look at nullsec, we have structures that mean something, we have IHUB’s that mean something, even the TCU is planting a flag and there is conflict. They are content generators.
So what?
Again so what?
So what?
People don’t want, don’t like, don’t want to engage, what sort of argument is that?
More people in hisec will do it, that is for certain.
Does not change anything at all in terms of the war dec apart from adding a point of vulnerability that needs to be defended against people with the will to go for it.
I can’t see any limit, that is a buzzword, nothing there at all to limit anything.
And I am adding strategic value, most notably the CONCORD agent will give location and activity information with a personal visit.
I am not talking about them, I am proposing a Citadel with a CONCORD agent that allows more than 4 war decs and if destroyed then all but 4 war decs drop.
Does not make any sense.
War deckers are often quite bright and good players, have you met Kannibal Kane for example.
Well I suggested a concord agent in a citadel which allows more than 4 war decs, it is designed to allow people to have 4 wars without any issue, but if you want to blanket war dec then you have a vulnerability.
The only negative possibility is that we end up with one super large hisec war decker, actually we already have that in PIRAT.
You are waffling, it means sprouting words just because you can, you have not said anything concrete in your reply.
Again you are waffling, and being insulting and what does this even mean?
Waffling again, I can’t see where you could come to that conclusion.
There are some, take the Fort that the Devils used to have. But I am adding a strategic impact.
It will take a few days for the agent to arrive, and they lose all the war decs apart from the last 4.
I think you really put in a lot of words and added nothing.
You tell me if you are making a point? But this is the reason why I am suggesting it for hisec.
Quite correct, but what I am adding is a point of contention to create possible content. Whether it happens or not is down to the players.
Oh dear you really do not get it, the defenders lose their freedom of movement in hisec, their freedom to operate without fear of attack, that is the cost for the defender and for some players it is an utter bore because no one ever comes after them.
The reason that they can evade fights is why I am putting this in, it is pretty evident.
And you have not detailed a single consequence for war deckers have you.
I looked at your escrow account idea and did not see that it would change anything at all, in fact all you did is make the current situation worse and produce even more blanket war decs with that. You do know that most large hisec war deckers are actually running protection rackets don’t you?
Blimey…
Sadly gentleman the good lady is calling me to shut eye, so I will continue this on the morrow, thanks for at least trying to discuss, sorry if I come across as a bit tetchy, but there was not a lot of real substance in your replies. Sorry.
I’m saying it’s not enough just to say that EVE has consequence, because not everything has consequence. What you add is a limitation, not content. Content are the players, the spaceships and the structures. You only add a limit to what can be done with the content.
To then let the player decide what to do with the new limitation is the same as saying you didn’t think this through, but rather want to see what happens next.
EVE has always been about the freedom it offers compared to the many other games out there. It’s what EVE is known for and this needs to be preserved at the very least. Ideally do you want to expand on it.
…
So again, why is not content if it is tied to structures, that you have just defined as content?
Because limits are limits and content is content.
To make an extreme example, when you limit the access to content then how can it still be content when you cannot access it and therefore it no longer exists? Therefore can one not declare just everything and anything to be content, because then content becomes meaningless, and emptiness or nothingness would be content, too. Instead, content comes from not having content and then adding content to it.
Adding a limitation to what one can do with content doesn’t add content. It takes away content. You cannot have addition without subtraction, because subtraction is only the addition of a negative.
Makes sense or is this too complicated for you?