| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
502
   |
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
I will be giving districts we claim away for free in my local.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Leither Yiltron
Molon Labe.
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:04:00 -
[32] - Quote
The particular solution that's suggested in the OP won't work, because then teams could just spam clone packs at themselves, no show, and pick up the extra clones/rewards/etc. in addition to keeping their districts eternally untouchable (locking).
I've been saying this for awhile, including in feedback before the changes to PC dropped in the first place: There needs to be a system that deems a team to have lost if that team doesn't have a minimum number of players (somewhere between 4-10) on their team as the match starts. The match just instantly ends, declaring the team that showed up the victor. If both teams don't show, the defender wins.
The above needs to happen, but it won't necessarily stop the no-shows. It'll just take the sting out of them. One idea that has been kicked around is reintroducing some kind of nominal ISK fee for launching the attack in the first place. Somewhere between 1m-6m ISK. That amount really shouldn't be difficult for a corp to collect (as compared to the old 20-80m for a single pack at various points), but it should be enough to make them think "dropping this pack and no showing is wasteful".
Have a pony
|
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
I think it is hilarious too. No, you can't come up with creative ways to fight us that don't fit into our paradigm of fighting!! No fair, you should be forced to fight us on our terms so we can feel good about ourselves rather than imploding due to boredom until we just give up and you can take our District when we no-show because you've successfully trained us to not pay attention!! I Love this thread.
I would rather fight my way to defeat than no-show my way to victory. We are not disputing the tactic we are disputing the no-risk factor, he very foundations of PC wre built on Risk vs. Reward so why should we allow a system that does not follow that. What bothers me the most is that your wrong their is no long drawn out meta the smaller corps just can't beat the larger corps in PC, Pubs, or Fac war so the only way to fight is to not fight if the at least had an end game you could credit them with that but their is no end game, no conquest, just an abuse of the system people are exploiting the system but not for monetary game but to destroy PC in itself. |
Leither Yiltron
Molon Labe.
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Kain Spero wrote:
If a corp completely no shows the CP wallet should be frozen for a period of X days (no CP in and no ability to spend CP) or a CP penalty to the wallet equivalent to the CP cost of the attack launched or a set amount that gives pause to leaving a battle completely empty.
Why...? Because they made you field sixteen people in the hopes that they'd show? I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the argument will be 'stacked timers' but If you can't field 16 people to defend the district in a real attack than you don't deserve the district anyway.
This is some of the laziest reasoning I've seen anywhere in the community, and I'm kinda surprised to see it from you Aeon.
Mechanics which discourage the creation of content or fights and punish people who organize and DO show up to play the actual game are completely undesirable. PC takes people's time. Time organizing battles, managing districts, preparing for fights, and then playing them out. Everyone could spend that time doing a whole number of other things, both in game and out of it, if they're not going to get any content. Sitting around on the starmap or in a war barge waiting for a team that never appears isn't content.
It's incredible that people sit around forum-warrior'ing and then deign to judge that groups of 16+ people deserve to have their time completely wasted extremely frequently, and that this is an okay situation to foster within the game mechanics. I haven't sat around providing feedback about PC for years so that we can lazily dismiss clear flaws in the design which will push Molden Heath to become even more (somehow?) of a ghost town.
At the end of the day, people play this game to fight FPS battles. Encouraging an environment where that doesn't happen within the game mechanics is a fantastic way to further deflate the player base.
Have a pony
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
502
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
I think it is hilarious too. No, you can't come up with creative ways to fight us that don't fit into our paradigm of fighting!! No fair, you should be forced to fight us on our terms so we can feel good about ourselves rather than imploding due to boredom until we just give up and you can take our District when we no-show because you've successfully trained us to not pay attention!! I Love this thread. I would rather fight my way to defeat than no-show my way to victory. We are not disputing the tactic we are disputing the no-risk factor, he very foundations of PC wre built on Risk vs. Reward so why should we allow a system that does not follow that. What bothers me the most is that your wrong their is no long drawn out meta the smaller corps just can't beat the larger corps in PC, Pubs, or Fac war so the only way to fight is to not fight if the at least had an end game you could credit them with that but their is no end game, no conquest, just an abuse of the system people are exploiting the system but not for monetary game but to destroy PC in itself.
Now you have to ask yourselves.
Is he going to show up, or not?
We will be launching very real attacks. But only we know when.
You know, kind of like a surprise. You guys like surprises yes?
We just make more cp than we need. HTFU
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
502
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
You could always save some stress and just buy my attacks.
Or bribe us not too.
Either one.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
502
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Kain Spero wrote:
If a corp completely no shows the CP wallet should be frozen for a period of X days (no CP in and no ability to spend CP) or a CP penalty to the wallet equivalent to the CP cost of the attack launched or a set amount that gives pause to leaving a battle completely empty.
Why...? Because they made you field sixteen people in the hopes that they'd show? I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the argument will be 'stacked timers' but If you can't field 16 people to defend the district in a real attack than you don't deserve the district anyway. This is some of the laziest reasoning I've seen anywhere in the community, and I'm kinda surprised to see it from you Aeon. Mechanics which discourage the creation of content or fights and punish people who organize and DO show up to play the actual game are completely undesirable. PC takes people's time. Time organizing battles, managing districts, preparing for fights, and then playing them out. Everyone could spend that time doing a whole number of other things, both in game and out of it, if they're not going to get any content. Sitting around on the starmap or in a war barge waiting for a team that never appears isn't content. It's incredible that people sit around forum-warrior'ing and then deign to judge that groups of 16+ people deserve to have their time completely wasted extremely frequently, and that this is an okay situation to foster within the game mechanics. I haven't sat around providing feedback about PC for years so that we can lazily dismiss clear flaws in the design which will push Molden Heath to become even more (somehow?) of a ghost town. At the end of the day, people play this game to fight FPS battles. Encouraging an environment where that doesn't happen within the game mechanics is a fantastic way to further deflate the player base.
Next target identified.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
lol you talk about people with districts having to do things but the No-showing corp has to do nothing the hypocrosy is real.
I mean if the community really thinks that no shows should be legit tactics I guess we just go all the way and eliminate the ability to reup on attacks with more than 100 clones. Make the defenders and attackers on equal footing about who is going to play dodge 514. 
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
Leither Yiltron wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Kain Spero wrote:
If a corp completely no shows the CP wallet should be frozen for a period of X days (no CP in and no ability to spend CP) or a CP penalty to the wallet equivalent to the CP cost of the attack launched or a set amount that gives pause to leaving a battle completely empty.
Why...? Because they made you field sixteen people in the hopes that they'd show? I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the argument will be 'stacked timers' but If you can't field 16 people to defend the district in a real attack than you don't deserve the district anyway. This is some of the laziest reasoning I've seen anywhere in the community, and I'm kinda surprised to see it from you Aeon. Mechanics which discourage the creation of content or fights and punish people who organize and DO show up to play the actual game are completely undesirable. PC takes people's time. Time organizing battles, managing districts, preparing for fights, and then playing them out. Everyone could spend that time doing a whole number of other things, both in game and out of it, if they're not going to get any content. Sitting around on the starmap or in a war barge waiting for a team that never appears isn't content. It's incredible that people sit around forum-warrior'ing and then deign to judge that groups of 16+ people deserve to have their time completely wasted extremely frequently, and that this is an okay situation to foster within the game mechanics. I haven't sat around providing feedback about PC for years so that we can lazily dismiss clear flaws in the design which will push Molden Heath to become even more (somehow?) of a ghost town. At the end of the day, people play this game to fight FPS battles. Encouraging an environment where that doesn't happen within the game mechanics is a fantastic way to further deflate the player base.
I'm not of the volition of telling people what they should do with their CP or how they should go about fighting their wars. Clone Packs were much more expensive before and it was a completely legitimate and valid tactic to buy one, throw it at an enemy, and then stack a different timer to make them either choose between fighting one or the other or forcing them to field enough for both.
It's just as valid a tactic as having a single A-team constantly being fielded for one battle after the other because of the frankly ridiculous concept that you can only ever attack their territory within a small window of the day and frankly I don't see anything wrong with it. The tactical use of a bait and switch is completely fine in the realm of warfare.
But maybe if the reasonings were better presented than "I don't want to be bored after preparing for an hour and a half" or "I don't like uncertainty" I'd be much more willing to play ball but at the moment that's all that is being presented.
Aeon Amadi for CPM 2
Design A SKIN 2
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
503
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:13:00 -
[40] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
lol you talk about people with districts having to do things but the No-showing corp has to do nothing the hypocrosy is real. I mean if the community really thinks that no shows should be legit tactics I guess we just go all the way and eliminate the ability to reup on attacks with more than 100 clones. Make the defenders and attackers on equal footing about who is going to play dodge 514.
Are you blind? The no show IS a legit tactic. Maybe some scrubs will never actually show. But for a small corp that really wants to fight, its perfect.
Break morale, wear down the enemies spirits, guerrilla warfare.
I will do some fake attacks, yes. Its up to you, the landholder, to guess when the real one comes.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
|
|
nelo kazuma
Ecce Initio RLC.
RUST415
328
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:28:00 -
[41] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Sequal's Back wrote:That's really annoying I agree..
But you know, I think it's only if the team who attacks that no show that the defenders should get their clones. Some corporations sometimes get attacked 3-4 times in 30min and they can't defend all battles. They might lose a district that way so it's already an important loss. Too easy to abuse, unfortunately. What I can see happening is someone making an alt corp, inviting some new bros in and then using the resulting CP earnings to fund the free Clone Packs (provided they don't have districts) and then using those clone packs to attack the defending turf belonging to the main corporation. At which point, providing a no show, the clones would transfer and the defending corp just got a DK paycheck. Alternatively, if it can only transfer clones to the district if it isn't at clone capacity, it'd just be used as a regeneration + locking mechanism for the district itself. Just got out of a really hard battle with low clones on the district? Attack it with your alt corp's clone pack and lock it up, aid in the regeneration. And if you're being attacked 3-4 times in the span of 30m and can't defend all battles, you probably need to re-evaluate your timers or how much turf you have =P That sort of situation is one of the reasons PC 2.0 was put in place: Holding only what you can feasibly defend.
Agree with aeon on this one you shouldnt have more than u can defend
FOR THE STATE ^(-_-) Cal Loyalist For Life
|
Alaika Arbosa
No Context
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:31:00 -
[42] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
I think it is hilarious too. No, you can't come up with creative ways to fight us that don't fit into our paradigm of fighting!! No fair, you should be forced to fight us on our terms so we can feel good about ourselves rather than imploding due to boredom until we just give up and you can take our District when we no-show because you've successfully trained us to not pay attention!! I Love this thread. I would rather fight my way to defeat than no-show my way to victory. We are not disputing the tactic we are disputing the no-risk factor, he very foundations of PC wre built on Risk vs. Reward so why should we allow a system that does not follow that. What bothers me the most is that your wrong their is no long drawn out meta the smaller corps just can't beat the larger corps in PC, Pubs, or Fac war so the only way to fight is to not fight if the at least had an end game you could credit them with that but their is no end game, no conquest, just an abuse of the system people are exploiting the system but not for monetary game but to destroy PC in itself.
/facepalm
Just because you say that they have no end game doesn't mean that they have no end game. It means that you want to paint them as mission grinders who simply want to waste your time and have no long term strategic goals (i.e no long drawn out meta) which will be accomplished by training you to ignore their attacks.
How do you know that they don't have a long drawn out meta? Are you really the alt of some small corp scrub who really has no real PC plans?
You're also wrong about there being no risk for the no-show attackers. What if the District is attacked and seized by some other corp? They've effectively lost their opportunity to weaponize boredom against you since you've lost the District before they've had the chance to take it from you with their real attack. Now they'd need to go through the whole process again with the second corp; again risking that they will lose the opportunity to another corp.
It is the long gamble, not my fault you're unable to see that.
I <3 introducing reddots to ragdoll physics!
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
67
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:33:00 -
[43] - 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
|
hails8n
DEATH BY DESTRUCTION
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Karras Hearn wrote: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
Yeah, but this is an Fps. Imagine playing Bf4 of something and just having no show battles back to back. No content/nothing, itd end the game due to boredom.
"Make America Great Again"
Donald Trump 2016
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Since some of you believe this is working as intended I will tell you why it is flawed since the first step to solving a problem is identifying it. The whole idea of PC is huge risk huge reward, so why is their a no risk huge reward aspect put into the game.
No showing requires:
no isk
no players
no planning
no financial reprecussions
and since the no-showing corp has no districts their is no risk of retaliation
Reward:
Potential timer stack
Wearing down your opponent
Preventing clones from being moved which prevents
reinforcing weak districts and
launching attacks
if a corp wins a battle but has insufficient clones for an immediate re-up and their district to launch the re-up is tied up w/ a no-show they must either start over letting them regen essentially voiding a battle or lose 30mil by throwing a clone pack at it.
the no-show may prevent the sale of clones at a more tactical time
I think the present Risk vs Reward sums up the issues quite well. The attacker literally has nothing at risk while the stakes for the defender are huge both in tangibles (the district) and intangibles (time).
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:42:00 -
[46] - Quote
hails8n wrote:Karras Hearn wrote: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 Yeah, but this is an Fps. Imagine playing Bf4 of something and just having no show battles back to back. No content/nothing, itd end the game due to boredom.
Not nearly the same. You can always do FW or pub matches which, while screwy at the moment, will at least guarantee you a fight.
PC is different. It is a competitive environment where unorthodox tactics may, at times, thrive and where things will not always go as you expect or how you want them to.
Aeon Amadi for CPM 2
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:45:00 -
[47] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Since some of you believe this is working as intended I will tell you why it is flawed since the first step to solving a problem is identifying it. The whole idea of PC is huge risk huge reward, so why is their a no risk huge reward aspect put into the game.
No showing requires:
no isk
no players
no planning
no financial reprecussions
and since the no-showing corp has no districts their is no risk of retaliation
Reward:
Potential timer stack
Wearing down your opponent
Preventing clones from being moved which prevents
reinforcing weak districts and
launching attacks
if a corp wins a battle but has insufficient clones for an immediate re-up and their district to launch the re-up is tied up w/ a no-show they must either start over letting them regen essentially voiding a battle or lose 30mil by throwing a clone pack at it.
the no-show may prevent the sale of clones at a more tactical time
I think the present Risk vs Reward sums up the issues quite well. The attacker literally has nothing at risk while the stakes for the defender are huge both in tangibles (the district) and intangibles (time).
Which is a valid argument but not a 100% valid justification for the complete removal of the ability to no show an attack. This didn't seem to be an issue when clone packs had a multi-million ISK price tag attached but now that entities can field them purely with activity it suddenly is an annoyance, or irritation to the defending party.
Which is amusing to me because I wonder what the response toward raiding. Attackers throw out CP for a "free" clone pack, hit your district with a raid, and use nothing but BPOs. Where's the risk there? While sort of a strawman argument, I think it's pretty relevant - would you feel the same way about raids? If not, why?
Aeon Amadi for CPM 2
Design A SKIN 2
|
hails8n
DEATH BY DESTRUCTION
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:46:00 -
[48] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
I think it is hilarious too. No, you can't come up with creative ways to fight us that don't fit into our paradigm of fighting!! No fair, you should be forced to fight us on our terms so we can feel good about ourselves rather than imploding due to boredom until we just give up and you can take our District when we no-show because you've successfully trained us to not pay attention!! I Love this thread. I would rather fight my way to defeat than no-show my way to victory. We are not disputing the tactic we are disputing the no-risk factor, he very foundations of PC wre built on Risk vs. Reward so why should we allow a system that does not follow that. What bothers me the most is that your wrong their is no long drawn out meta the smaller corps just can't beat the larger corps in PC, Pubs, or Fac war so the only way to fight is to not fight if the at least had an end game you could credit them with that but their is no end game, no conquest, just an abuse of the system people are exploiting the system but not for monetary game but to destroy PC in itself. /facepalm Just because you say that they have no end game doesn't mean that they have no end game. It means that you want to paint them as mission grinders who simply want to waste your time and have no long term strategic goals (i.e no long drawn out meta) which will be accomplished by training you to ignore their attacks. How do you know that they don't have a long drawn out meta? Are you really the alt of some small corp scrub who really has no real PC plans? You're also wrong about there being no risk for the no-show attackers. What if the District is attacked and seized by some other corp? They've effectively lost their opportunity to weaponize boredom against you since you've lost the District before they've had the chance to take it from you with their real attack. Now they'd need to go through the whole process again with the second corp; again risking that they will lose the opportunity to another corp. It is the long gamble, not my fault you're unable to see that.
If there's no determined amount of times you can no show, corps can do it forever. It can be a tactic, but corps dont really have to follow up with a real attack if they don't want to. I'm against the idea completely, because this is an fps, if theres nothing to shoot at, what's the point? I mean theres no pve in those matches.
"Make America Great Again"
Donald Trump 2016
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
Aeon, I'm not against the ability to no show. I'm against it having no cost or consequence.
And this isn't an issue of more land than can be defended. This issue is cropping up for those with low district counts and high district counts alike. The point of CP attacks was to create low barriers to entry for organizations wanting to own land for themselves.
It's intended to be used by organizations wanting to show up, fight, and break into planetary conquest. Not for throw away matches that create server cost for no good reason.
hails8n wrote:
If there's no determined amount of times you can no show, corps can do it forever. It can be a tactic, but corps dont really have to follow up with a real attack if they don't want to. I'm against the idea completely, because this is an fps, if theres nothing to shoot at, what's the point? I mean theres no pve in those matches.
This really sums it up well.
Really though it's not hard to put people into a match for even throw away attacks. Set up a single player with a platoon and have them pull people in from wherever. Jadek had numerous raids against NF and they actually have folks show up even if it isn't a full team. What I'm getting at is that a feint is fine but sending not even one person into a match after launching an attack should have consequences.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
hails8n
DEATH BY DESTRUCTION
401
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:52:00 -
[50] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:hails8n wrote:Karras Hearn wrote: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 Yeah, but this is an Fps. Imagine playing Bf4 of something and just having no show battles back to back. No content/nothing, itd end the game due to boredom. Not nearly the same. You can always do FW or pub matches which, while screwy at the moment, will at least guarantee you a fight. PC is different. It is a competitive environment where unorthodox tactics may, at times, thrive and where things will not always go as you expect or how you want them to.
I understand there are modes that can guarantee you a battle. Like Kain said, Risk vs. Reward, a corp with no districts can no show attack forever with no reprucussions. They don't even have to utilize that tactic you keep bringing up, which I've never actually seen being done. If a corps going to no show attack us once, I guarantee you, 1. They probably dont have a single district, and 2. You will never see them commiting to a real attack ever.
"Make America Great Again"
Donald Trump 2016
|
|
|
Alaika Arbosa
No Context
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:53:00 -
[51] - Quote
hails8n wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
I think it is hilarious too. No, you can't come up with creative ways to fight us that don't fit into our paradigm of fighting!! No fair, you should be forced to fight us on our terms so we can feel good about ourselves rather than imploding due to boredom until we just give up and you can take our District when we no-show because you've successfully trained us to not pay attention!! I Love this thread. I would rather fight my way to defeat than no-show my way to victory. We are not disputing the tactic we are disputing the no-risk factor, he very foundations of PC wre built on Risk vs. Reward so why should we allow a system that does not follow that. What bothers me the most is that your wrong their is no long drawn out meta the smaller corps just can't beat the larger corps in PC, Pubs, or Fac war so the only way to fight is to not fight if the at least had an end game you could credit them with that but their is no end game, no conquest, just an abuse of the system people are exploiting the system but not for monetary game but to destroy PC in itself. /facepalm Just because you say that they have no end game doesn't mean that they have no end game. It means that you want to paint them as mission grinders who simply want to waste your time and have no long term strategic goals (i.e no long drawn out meta) which will be accomplished by training you to ignore their attacks. How do you know that they don't have a long drawn out meta? Are you really the alt of some small corp scrub who really has no real PC plans? You're also wrong about there being no risk for the no-show attackers. What if the District is attacked and seized by some other corp? They've effectively lost their opportunity to weaponize boredom against you since you've lost the District before they've had the chance to take it from you with their real attack. Now they'd need to go through the whole process again with the second corp; again risking that they will lose the opportunity to another corp. It is the long gamble, not my fault you're unable to see that. If there's no determined amount of times you can no show, corps can do it forever. It can be a tactic, but corps dont really have to follow up with a real attack if they don't want to. I'm against the idea completely, because this is an fps, if theres nothing to shoot at, what's the point? I mean theres no pve in those matches.
This was already addressed earlier in the thread.
It was a valid tactic when clone packs had multi-million ISK price tags but now that clone packs can be acquired through activity, it is somehow a terrible idea with no place in an FPS.
lol
Now, there-- there is hypocrisy.
I <3 introducing reddots to ragdoll physics!
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
505
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
WTB more buckets, 50k each.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:59:00 -
[53] - Quote
Again, Alakia, no shows have always been seen as a bad thing in Planetary Conquest. I specifically pushed for the re-up mechanic to address it from the attacker's side. Now we are seeing it become an issue on the defender side, so it's time to address it.
Again, if you were willing to no show a match after throwing 30-80m ISK down the drain then that's a consequence and a sacrifice that's made by the attacker. Free CP attacks are important for getting people into PC, but again there should be consequences for that no show especially for corps "generating so much CP they don't know what to do with it" as some have stated.
Planetary Conquest has always been about fine balancing the risk vs rewards and in this instance it's out of balance.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
202
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Aeon, I'm not against the ability to no show. I'm against it having no cost or consequence.
It has an opportunity cost along with the CP cost.
Kain Spero wrote:
And this isn't an issue of more land than can be defended. This issue is cropping up for those with low district counts and high district counts alike.
Where are the low district count CEOs complaining? Special forum or do they only complain to you?
Kain Spero wrote:
The point of CP attacks was to create low barriers to entry for organizations wanting to own land for themselves.
It's intended to be used by organizations wanting to show up, fight, and break into planetary conquest. Not for throw away matches that create server cost for no good reason.
Boring out a group is a perfectly good reason.
Kain Spero wrote:
Really though it's not hard to put people into a match for even throw away attacks. Set up a single player with a platoon and have them pull people in from wherever. Jadek had numerous raids against NF and they actually have folks show up even if it isn't a full team. What I'm getting at is that a feint is fine but sending not even one person into a match after launching an attack should have consequences.
Why put people in to give you something to do? If the point of the attack is weaponized boredom, putting a squad in defeats the purpose.
It is telling that the people who are against these types of tactics have all expressed a desire to remove or restrict these tactics, but not a single one of them has suggested the far simpler method of increasing CP cost.
General Butt Naked - Biomassed
The Attorney General - Biomassed when unbanned
Only 9 more alts to go.
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:17:00 -
[55] - 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
|
DEATH THE KlD
Imperfect - Bastards
281
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:18:00 -
[56] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:hails8n wrote:Karras Hearn wrote: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 Yeah, but this is an Fps. Imagine playing Bf4 of something and just having no show battles back to back. No content/nothing, itd end the game due to boredom. Not nearly the same. You can always do FW or pub matches which, while screwy at the moment, will at least guarantee you a fight. PC is different. It is a competitive environment where unorthodox tactics may, at times, thrive and where things will not always go as you expect or how you want them to.
I don't consider a 6v14 a fight...which is the current state of pubs |
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
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
The 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.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Karras Hearn
352 Industries
72
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:42:00 -
[58] - 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
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 23:08:00 -
[59] - Quote
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.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 00:10:00 -
[60] - 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.
Maybe. A begrudging maybe.
Depends on what sort of numbers you're thinking of.
Aeon Amadi for CPM 2
Design A SKIN 2
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |