My original idea however was to force battles and make people defend their structures and to make people attack them. The reward is a great tool to incentivise this!
You want to force battles with:
- groups that arenât affected by siphons since they were already negligent
- active groups that arenât affected by siphons since they were already responsible
You clearly have never seen a station fall because the station value was not worth defending. Add the loot to the value and that is a different story all together which will force a fight.
Have you been to null??
So⌠if a station is not worth defending⌠how does a siphon help bring down a station that is already being neglected???
The station that is brought down is not neglected but a financial calculation takes place.
Station Value against value of losing ships to defend it.
If you increase the station value then fleets will form to defend it.
The point is to get a fight and for there to be reward. Now do you understand?
The same way people suddenly decided to fuel their structures after the dev blog was released.
The defenders will have to make the meaningful choice. Fuel it under fire. Defend it. Lose it. Or asset safety it out at cost.
Leave that entirely aside for now. I just want to scoot around in my beat up old rupture, stealing peopleâs fuel. New piracy content, yay!
You donât need a siphon to embargo a station. Just go do it. Form a blockade and close off the system. Why does a new mechanic need to be created that would accelerate the fuel depletion process (which is, in fact, the original thread contents)?
1 Like
Letâs not take things out of context. You were the one who initially presented the context âthe station value was not worth defendingâ - now if this was true BEFORE the introduction of a siphon, this is not going to change afterward.
Now if you want to argue âsiphons make it more expensive to maintain stations and owners might decide to abandon them as a resultâ, your argument becomes a bit stronger, but not by much, and Iâll tell you why:
Common sense dictates that if you cannot properly defend your structure, you have no business fielding it - this is particularly true in LS/NS when caps can come in and no wardecs are required and where siphons would be permitted. If the structure owner canât destroy a siphon, then that means one of two things:
- theyâre too weak to destroy it, meaning that you wouldnât have needed that much manpower or muscle to take on the structure to begin with even if the siphon wasnât used at all
- you have a stalemate where, as Daichi said, structure owners have to decide whether or not it is worth keeping defending while under siege not only by attackers but also by the siphon. Letâs be realistic, however: a siphon is almost never going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not the structure is going to be given up or continue to be defended. Fuel isnât terribly expensive or hard to import for a group that is strong enough to stalemate against attackers - at worst the siphon is an inconvenience, but not anything that tips the scales strategically or financially.
Iâve already made clear that any group that can field a large defense fleet can keep it fueled, and any group that was already going to neglect it anyone isnât going to be affected by siphon, so the middle ground is comprised of easy-to-topple groups that donât have large defense fleets and can barely take on the siphon, and stalemate groups that are indifferent to the siphons. In both extreme ends and in the middle ground you have a situation where the siphon is of no benefit.
(This is one of the few times I am curious about and care for the opinion of null superblocs, bitter vets, high-ranking leadership, nullblock CSM members, etc. since I highly doubt even theyâd support this idea)
Good grief I give up.
All I want is there to be more risk reward for taking down stations. A mechanism that forces people to defend their stations and a mechanism that rewards with loot to incentivise station bashing by using the abandoned mechanic. It is as simple as that.
People on here clearly do not shoot things.
The problem lies in creating an even more fragmented approach to asset safety. If other players can determine whether or not a structure is eligible for asset safety simply by deploying a siphon, you render the entire system pointless. Players need to be able to make informed decisions about where they choose to store their goods, and the more complicated Asset Safety becomes the less inclined they will be to use anything other than NPC stations.
CCP revoked asset safety for Forsaken Fortress-qualified Abandoned Structures to get people to clean up space spam. It was an incentive to remove structures that nobody bothered to attack - because there is no strategic value in their destruction otherwise. That is not true in most cases of structure bashing, where players are attempting to control space and deny structure resources to non-allies (especially by denying access to the protective umbrella of tethers). Why do they need more rewards?
1 Like
Did you try a good old siege?
Kill the fuel freighters.
Place a cyno inhibitor, bubble the gates, and wait for the station to run out of fuel.
3 Likes
You keep asking the same question.
Its not that they just donât shoot things. They donât realise eve is a PvP game, and donât believe eve is a sandbox.
The fact that you have to stoop to this level of dishonesty speaks volumes.
How is calling fragmented asset safety problematic dishonest? If asset safety can be rendered null just by placing a deployable, with no ahead-of-time warnings to the individual players with assets in structure (the way the âlow power approaching abandoned stateâ functions) you have broken the Asset Safety system by removing choice from the players who own those assets.
Edit to add:
Seriously, either there needs to be consistent Asset Safety mechanics, or they need to be gotten rid of entirely. Players manipulating asset safety statuses to create loot pinata opportunities shouldnât be possible. That flies in the face of the entire declared intent of asset safety in the first place. So either push the âget rid of asset safetyâ agenda as a single entity, or live with it as-is, but nibbling at the edges of it to chip away protections just leaves everyone with a broken system.
2 Likes
As soon as at least one cov ops slips through - whole blockade is pointless/useless. You cant inhibit covops cyno that will bring more covops ships and blockade runners with fuel into the system via a blops bridge.
1 Like
You didnât say problematic. You said:
Which is being a drama queen.
Why is there no warning?
As far as Iâm aware, all the mechanics for low power and abandonment would be the same. So a little icon still appears next to your assets in the window and a structure still has to be unfuelled for 7 days before itâs abandoned.
I think it has been repeatedly requested by the OP for counter suggestions for ironing out the details. So if you want a warning, what warning do you want?
Why?
Another way of saying âfragmented mechanicsâ is variety. There are a variety of ways to travel in eve. A variety of ways to attack an enemy. There can be a variety of ways to attack a structure. And we already have a âfragmentedâ system for asset safety: the system doesnât work in wormholes.
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
Itâs like saying concord should either instantly appear or not at all. But instead sec status âfragmentsâ the concord mechanics.
The irony in them asking people if they have tried this or that:
They havenât tried anything themselvesâŚ
Do you think laying siege to cities IRL was easy?
Of course it takes a big group, what do you want, Solo Siege?
This idea fails hard.
2 Likes
Context is a thing. Snipping quotes and then calling them dishonest or overly dramatic makes your claim inherently dishonest. Quote the whole thing and explain how it is dishonest, or leave it be.
I said:
The problem lies in creating an even more fragmented approach to asset safety. If other players can determine whether or not a structure is eligible for asset safety simply by deploying a siphon, you render the entire system pointless.
The OP specifically said they want placement of the siphon should disable asset safety - which is a completely separate effect from the siphon accelerating the structure into an abandoned state. Placing a deployable next to a station should not ever render that station incapable of asset safety, because there is not a game mechanism to prevent structure deployment anywhere (at a player-controlled level - obviously there are hard limitations on proximity and required anchors for some deployables). This places too much power in the hands of players, and has no countervailing risks for the person deploying the siphon.
I admit, i thought you were talking about the fuel syphon when you said that. Not about a syphon that cancels asset safety on deployment. My bad. I donât support that particular version.
But now i know that, does that mean you donât object to a fuel syphon?
Anyone who wants to see the whole thing can click the upward arrow.
Itâs dishonest because even a syphon as extreme as blocking asset safety does not render the whole system pointless. It can still be fought over and asset safety restored. Similar sentiment when it comes to the âmore fragmented asset safety system is inherently badâ or the attempt to say âasset safety needs to be either all or nothingâ.
It isnât and it doesnât. They are simply not honest arguments against the concept of the idea.
Like this. You seem to have forgotten that you can just shoot the damn thing.
One of the wonderful things about threatening peoples assets in a significant way, which is the point of this idea, is that they suddenly find the balls to defend their stuff. And it seems people are waking up to this fact.
Shooting the structure is not preventing deployment. Unless you set some kind of spool-up mechanic, during which it doesnât have am effect but warnings go out to players that the structure containing their stuff is about to be stripped of asset safety, you have no opportunity to prevent sudden loss of asset safety on the structure. Thatâs overpowered given the scale of potential loss vs the pilot risk in deploying a structure, and invalidates the promise of asset safety as a protection against war losses.