How realistic do we have to be in New Eden?
1 Like
I used 5 alts in a single Corp to try take over one of these pocos in a backwater system that saw near 0 traffic… I got it into reinforce, but then blackflag bought 30 people to defend the next timer.
The Problem with that is that Perimeter is a gateway system to Jita, and thereby is already affected by the TIDI lag. Add a Hisec fleet big enough to take down a Keepstar, and you have effectively blockaded Jita.
This already exists with the Dynamic Bounty System. Goto most group’s staging systems (where most groups go for “Content”) and the DBS is at 200%, goto most ratting systems where stuff doesn’t happen much and it’s down around 100-110%.
So avoid that area…there are plenty of other trade hubs. Plenty of other space to play in.
This is a very different concept compared to what I said.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
m
3 Likes
The problem with war decs previously was that they had no skin in the game apart from their ships which they dock at the first sight of trouble from anything that can blow them up, war hq’s changed that. Destiny for example could not war dec people because he would lose his war hq, which indicates that it does work.
The only change to the existing system is that entities should be allowed 3 war decs without a war hq, but I would limit them to 2 weeks max with a month cool down.
As for the TTC drama this is pretty damn good, and I am happy to see this happen. I was told however that medium structures can no longer be placed in nullsec, that is crazy…, is that true?
1 Like
Cool thread.
I enjoyed just about every reply and learned a few things, thank you. Although most of that politicking flies over my head and, since I just made Lowsec my home in a 0.3 system and plan to only use Hisec for the market, I wonder why I should care what happens in Hisec and with what alliance.
Yesterday I docked in IChooseYou structure hoping to find less expensive stuff and I ended up buying from another “retailer” because they were cheaper so if that structure were to be blown up I wouldn’t miss it.
I would hope there could be more fights in Hisec due to the situations described in this thread, where I could be caught up in one but again, I would only be passing through so… not my problem? Yet?
1 Like
anchoring
History lesson:
2 Likes
That whole RMR vid is gold.
1 Like
Cleared several off topic posts.
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
6 Likes
You haven’t really thought out scenario 2.
The first and most obvious consequence of (2) is that ganking would cease to be a thing, because I could simply just declare war on whatever group I wished to gank, and would thus have a free pass to attack ships of that corporation without Concord intervention. No need for Catalysts any more. No need even for a fleet. I just turn up in a Raven and blap Procurers, Mackinaws, Orcas, to my heart’s content.
I can see why you’d like this…as it is totally asymmetrical. A single ship could wreak havoc. And with no war HQ there’d be no way to stop you, or anything to demarcate that the war had ‘ended’. The various security levels of highsec would become meaningless. One would be no more safe in 1.0 than in 0.5.
And so on. I’d actually quite enjoy it all., obviously, as it gives potential huge power to the individual and lots of ensuing carnage. But this asymmetrical carnage almost by definition could not last long, and I can thus see why CCP insist on war HQs. Ultimately even the Red Baron got shot down…but you are proposing a system in which he just carries on endlessly and is undefeatable.
A better version of (2) would have you pay (A) a hefty fee for a limited duration war in which (B) you also put down a hefty deposit against ships destroyed and lose a chunk of that deposit for every ship not destroyed. So for example if the deposit is 10bn ISK then you have to destroy 10bn ISK worth ( in the short duration of the war ) or lose that portion you don’t destroy. You get a pro rata amount of deposit back for every ship destroyed.
Honest question: What’s the point of this?
There is no point to it…other than providing a workable version of Destiny’s ’ no war HQs’ that itself is pointless. Without war HQs you still need something that ‘ends’ the war and that also determines some level of victory.
What makes it workable?
The system without HQs was what we had before structures, so what purpose dose this additional penalty serve?
I would bet it was a little more nuanced than that.
Regardless, it didnt have some sort of penalty for not killing enough.
What is it about your suggestion that makes it “workable”? I just want to know what you mean by that?