|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
LAVALLOIS Nash
466
   |
Posted - 2015.01.26 07:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
I dont think corps should have to hold land in order to do raids. It removes the idea of raids being an entry level way of getting into PC. By making it for land owners only, it just makes it another collusion scheme. Where instead of playing PC, the established corps will just make deals to decide who gets to sit on what land and then "raid" eachother for mini games.
If a space station map existed, i would say that raiding corps should be able to spend a bit of ISK to register for a space station office. So that they too could be raided. (With the idea being if they dont want to get raided/participate in raids, they can cancel their office space).
But because thats not feasible for now, i dont think locking raids to land owning corps is the solution. Its the idea of maintaining and such that is keeping people out of PC. Making it so they still have to go through the land owning hassle just to participate just leaves the same barrier in place. Great for the establishment, not so great for anyone looking to get in.
Not to mention it would ruin the idea of pirate and privateer corps. Corps like that would be built around the central idea of being raiders, and not the idea of being a structured military. By forcing them to have the same vices and requirements as a land owning corp with a command and control organization....it removes the idea of raiding corps existing, and instead raiding just becomes a "wing of service" established corps deploy. (Instead of raider corps and conquest corps, you just have one conglomerate with raiding and conquering teams. Boooooooring! )
|
LAVALLOIS Nash
467
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Yep, but I have gotten a vibe that a lot of PC players want this to be a landholder exclusive toy, a stance I am viciously against on all levels.
In all honesty, I understand some of their concerns, like not wanting to defend against 100 half assed raids from random corps all day long. But I think alot of their want for the land requirement is so that they can use it as leverage to make arbitrary rules as to who is allowed to raid who where when and why.
If someone wants in on raiding, and they have to own land, they can be threatened with the loss of their land and ability to raid by larger crops/alliances who want to enforce their rules. (example: Dont raid our districts while were out pub stomping...or else!). That would ruin the entire dynamic of raiding. Its supposed to be ragtag pirate corps trying to loot a seemingly badly defended area, or privateers making ISK by being paid to be a thorn in someone elses side.
You remove that dynamic, and you end up with "diplomats" and handshakes, and ect. Thats great and all if you have time to build an empire. But not all corps have 7 days a week reliable players for that. Alot of corps can only operate at peak on the weekends. Non landholding raids is the only way alot of people would be able to participate in entry level PC. |
Lavallois Nash
469
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 07:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:
Raiding, like just about any other activity in PC, FW or Pubs, WILL be a negotiable service commodity regardless of it's structure. This is DUST after all, derivative of EVE, where Player Created Content is overwhelmingly Player Created Politics-based. To think otherwise is self-delusion.
I explicitly stated its commodity potential in my privateers line. I have no problem with raids being used in many different ways. What I have a problem with, is giving the monopoly over a game feature to a bunch of corps who, in the past, have shown a willingness to collude and sideline gameplay in the name of the bottom line. I fear that with such a system in place, the idea of raiding is lost. Instead of raider corps, there will just be the exact same corps as today, but with "raiding" and "conquering" teams.
And again, "politics" has its place in empire building and commerce. It has limited place in raiding. By its very nature, a raid is a undeclared act of aggression motivated almost entirely by opportunity. If you guys want to have politics for land holders, and for commerce folks once trading hits, I think that great community building.
However, its too ridiculous to imagine the idea of a pirate corp leader going "Ok lets see, im going to join Example Corps chat, request a meeting...ok, got a meeting with their assigned representative...hello! Us pirates respectfully request permission to raid your installation and take your ****.......whats that? come back Thursday at 7:45pm eastern? Ok! Will comply!".
in my view, raiding diplomacy is more along the lines of "ok, good raid, you got alot of our stuff. Some of it is critical to our corp, can we buy it back at a premium?".....or....."you guys got lucky and raided us while our A team was busy. You can pay us back for the damages or face our wraith".
el OPERATOR wrote:
From my perspective, which by no means is neccessarily the all-encompassing perspective of all PC players, it isn't about wanting Raids to be an "exclusive toy" but rather that there be, exactly as you yourself suggest, some, "retaliatory attack" aspect that is at least roughly the same loss potential as what district holders have. I personally suggested WarBarge or WarBarge Strategem destruction/incapacitation so that Raiders wouldn't have to be landholders, they lose WarBarge assets instead inhibiting further raids for a time. If WarBarge incapacitation isn't on the table then Raiders basically would have to hold land so that a "retaliatory attack" can occur. That, OR raids don't go down on districts but on Corp HQs instead since every corp has one of those.
Im completely fine with their being retaliatory strikes. it makes sense for their to be a risk/consequence for everybody involved. Me i suggested that any corp that wants to participate in raiding should have to rent office space for a few mil ISK a month, and then it would give a time window when they can raid/be raided. That way the only corps that can raid/be raided would be ones that are leasing space or the ones with districts. That way they could still be accountable in some sense. (ex: bad diplomacy = alot of daily raids on your leased space).
Its just, districts have to be earned and maintained. Not everyone has the resources and manpower to do that. Alot of weekend intensive corps could afford to do big raids on the weekend and skeleton crew defends of their HQs on weekdays, but would go broke/ get conquered trying to own and keep a district. Having your HQ hit and some of your stuff stolen a few times, or even losing your lease for a bit, is not as bad as what it costs to take/lose a district in a finite amount of districts. |
Lavallois Nash
470
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 09:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote: some sort of mechanism to whoop a raiders' ass enough that they can't raid for a while. Just like a fat hole in the side of a classical pirate's ship OR lengthy prison time for a contemporary Somali Pirate who's been caught.
Im ok with that. Some corps might risk the chance that there will be a retaliation ,and they might not have enough people online to defend, but thats part of the dynamic. if you initiate a raid on just a "space leasing" raider corp, and they dont show, you get a bunch of their stuff and any corp that suffers a string of losses like that is either going to have to back out or declare bankruptcy.
el OPERATOR wrote:
I...don't see the monopoly element potential here, outside of typical "blueing up" agreements. Which, btw, is what most any alliance is.
Sounds like we're on the same page with Raider HQ's/WarBarges/CorpHQs etc. Just some reasonable element which allows for an opportunity for raid retribution.
The monopoly potential is if the most powerful corps decide that, hey, lets just sit on districts and collect their benefits, and just do raids as PC fights. And use our combined might to confiscate land from anyone who doesn't comply with the arbitrary raiding system. Its very possible. they might even get a system where they grab a bunch of districts, and then rent them out to small corps interested in raid fights, but then cancel the agreement if they raid at an inopportune time or raid a corp, like a "billboard" corp, that the regulars don't want to see raided.
The big corps in Molden Heath...will...put their own interests and bottom lines over those of the game. Thats fine, they are trying to build empires, but that doesn't mean that they should be given leverage over everything. The only leverage these powerful corps should hold is the promise of daily, repeated revenge raids.
You know what im saying? Id rather see raiders controlled through use of force, rather than see them controlled though just politics. I fear Molden Heath coming together to exile and ban a very successful raiding corp from raiding by barring their access to land. Thats what I want to prevent. I want raider corps access to be determined by their war effort. If they are always putting up a good fight, they will carve a spot people will have to respect, if they lose their fights, they will lose their ability to continue their war effort and will have to withdraw.
But yes, overall, we are in complete agreement that raiders should be vulnerable to being raided themselves, otherwise we have a unbalanced system. You should not go out raiding unless you are aware of the potential backlash from the people you just raided. Our difference of opinion mainly centers on the how this should be done. |
|
|
| |
|