|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
67
   |
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
So many people in this thread seem to be forgetting that this is new Eden we are fighting in. This is a place where anything goes (within the bounds of game mechanics). Can you imagine the riots there would be if CCP decided to apply the same logic being presented in this thread to EVE Sov wafare? All of High Sec would burn and the summer of rage back in 2011 would seem like a minor disagreement compared to what would happen.
Forcing an opponent to chose which timer to defend has been a valid tactic since the beginning of time. And in EVE we have a better name for the tactic of denying fights: Blueballing.
Welcome to warefare in the harshest cluster of stars known to man. Welcome to New Eden. Buckle in and Harden the **** Up
Purveyor of the finest Officer weapons in the Cluster.
Chief Security Officer, 352 Industries
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
There shouldn't be a punishment for a valid tactic. Increase the cost of launching an attack, but don't punish anyone for no showing, thats not how new eden works
Purveyor of the finest Officer weapons in the Cluster.
Chief Security Officer, 352 Industries
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
72
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Karras Hearn wrote:There shouldn't be a punishment for a valid tactic. Increase the cost of launching an attack, but don't punish anyone for no showing, thats not how new eden works Then if its a valid tactic should we go back to the days where a district holder could no show for two days and then show up for the third day? There is a reason that this specific behavior has been addressed in the past that you seem to have trouble connecting with or realizing. Hell, one of the major reason that PC was set up in the first place was because Corp battles were turning into dodge 514 where someone would see an opponent they feel that couldn't complete with and would just no show that match. The design intent has been and will always be to get player to fight against each other as this is an FPS and to balance out instances where fighting doesn't actually occur (elimination of district locking and passive ISK) has been balanced out where possible. That's the other side of the coin here as well with corporations selling off corps full of CP. We could easily see this all turn into mass district locking to cover districts from attack while landholders grow clones and then sell after the no shows.
I know all about the past and what used to happen. If you hold a district, you have to fight to keep it, the old way wasn't accurately reflecting that so it got changed.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for no-showing, I'm saying that those consequences should be in the form of the cost of attacking not by punishing them after the fact. Because punishing after the fact won't stop it from happening and those who are determined to do it will find ways around it. Punishing after the fact will also unfairly punish those who are being paid to no show by rivals of the defending corp, which is also a valid tactic (I don't know if it is actually happening, but it could and is a valid tactic)
You yourself have been around New Eden long enough to know how resourceful the playerbase is. Where there is a will to do something, we will find a way to do it within the mechanics of the game. Teamkilling is technically not possible in public contract matches, but if you really want to do it all you have to do is load up a vehicle with friendles and drive it into a wall or over the redline and its a valid tactic.
You may not like it, but thats the way things are. Yes the cost should be increased but there is no point in punishing people for using valid tactics because it will be a never ending game of cat and mouse - as steps are put in place to stop/prevent something, someone will still find a way to do it without getting banned then the cycle repeats and that then gets stomped and a new method is found.
So I say again, Harden the **** Up
Purveyor of the finest Officer weapons in the Cluster.
Chief Security Officer, 352 Industries
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
73
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 00:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Karras Hearn wrote:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for no-showing, I'm saying that those consequences should be in the form of the cost of attacking not by punishing them after the fact. Because punishing after the fact won't stop it from happening and those who are determined to do it will find ways around it. Punishing after the fact will also unfairly punish those who are being paid to no show by rivals of the defending corp, which is also a valid tactic (I don't know if it is actually happening, but it could and is a valid tactic)
I'm glad we agree here. The problem with an increased cost for CP attacks is that it could negatively impact the barrier to entry for corps trying to get into PC. Sure an ISK cost could be added to attacks even when you don't hold land, but I think that unfairly hits players trying to enter into PC. The specific act of no showing should be targeted to prevent impacting the barrier to entry. Thus a CP cost for no showing etc. At the bare minimum whether a defender or attack no shows there needs be a mechanic in place where the match auto completes giving victory to the team that bothered to put bodies in the match. Again, it's terribly easy to put people into a match (heck you can even start a pub squad) and avoid no show penalties while keeping the ability to feint and various other forms of emergent game play.
Auto completing the match again is taking away form the tactic, bore them to death. If the Match auto completes they then get to go and play FW or pub matches or join another attack/defense. If the auto complete also prevented those who showed from joining another match for an hour, then i might be able to agree with it, but otherwise its just providing the defender with rewards just for showing up and doing nothing. If they want the rewards that go with holding districts then they should have to commit to that battle for the duration, whether their opponent shows up or not otherwise it just lowers their risk, by removing the risk that they commit to a battle only to find it was a bait and switch or an attempt at breaking morale.
I cannot foresee any mechanic that provides sufficient stick without harming valid tactics in the process. I also don't think the rewards for showing up when your opponent doesn't are sufficient, would there be as much complaining about no shows if the team that did show was getting better rewards? I don't think I've seen anyone complain about the defenders no showing because in that case the attackers have just won the district and the rewards are better for the attacker than if the defender shows and the attacker doesn't.
Purveyor of the finest Officer weapons in the Cluster.
Chief Security Officer, 352 Industries
|
|
|
| |
|