These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec Defender Abilities

Author
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#21 - 2016-11-29 16:02:18 UTC
Tom Gerard wrote:
Currently the logical solution is to corp-swap, this bloats corp history and doesn't provide gameplay for anyone.


Just leave HS for a week. Problem solved.
Kara Hawke
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2016-11-29 17:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Hawke
Sorry but the ideas here are literally game breaking. High sec wardeccs need to be addressed however.

We've been in a war for five weeks by someone who we believe has a ton of different different accounts. He'll show up randomly and kill someone then sit in station afk for 12 hours. We've lost quite a few ships to his surprise attacks and everyone is afraid of doing anything. The dec lapsed this last weekend and people started doing things again - only to have him start a new one Sunday night. Last night there were 2 people on and I was one to them. People in my corp are quickly losing interest in the game.

I love Eve and I don't want It to turn into WoW with everything nerfed and dumbed down... but without some sort of protections in place, the game just becomes a waste of time for most pve'ers. Also bare in the mind the people quitting are the ones making your ships and modules.
Darth Terona
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#23 - 2016-11-29 17:39:33 UTC
At the minimum this should be looked at in the same light of AFK cloakers.

what?

also no. Ejecting people from station while they may be afk would result in lots of support tickets.

Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#24 - 2016-11-29 17:39:54 UTC
Kara Hawke wrote:
Sorry but the ideas here are literally game breaking. High sec wardeccs need to be addressed however.

We've been in a war for five weeks by someone who we believe has a ton of different different accounts. He'll show up randomly and kill someone then sit in station afk for 12 hours. We've lost quite a few ships to his surprise attacks and everyone is afraid of doing anything. The dec lapsed this last weekend and people started doing things again - only to have him start a new one Sunday night. Last night there were 2 people on and I was one to them. People in my corp are quickly losing interest in the game.

I love Eve and I don't want It to turn into WoW with everything nerfed and dumbed down... but without some sort of protections in place, the game just becomes a waste of time for most pve'ers. Also bare in the mind the people quitting are the ones making your ships and modules.


With the alpha clones you can get to station and create a Corp within 10 minutes, this does bloat Corp history but having dozens of personal tax free corps to bounce between is currently the best ISK efficient solution.

Wardecs are CCP's way of reminding us,there are other developers with products on Steam.

Now with 100% less Troll.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#25 - 2016-11-29 17:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tom Gerard wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
stuff


Currently the logical solution is to corp-swap, this bloats corp history and doesn't provide gameplay for anyone.

So what?

No one is forced to drop corp. it's a choice a defender has. There are also other choices that are just as logical and don't involve dropping corp.

Any good CEO can provide other options for his/her members. If they can't, then they probably aren't worth following, especially in highsec.
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
#26 - 2016-11-29 17:42:41 UTC
How about:
Make wars revolve around the new structures. You can only be part of a war, attacker or defender, if you have deployed a citadel or an engineering complex.

Now, if one side decides to not show up, at least the other gets to kill a structure.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#27 - 2016-11-29 17:46:33 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
How about:
Make wars revolve around the new structures. You can only be part of a war, attacker or defender, if you have deployed a citadel or an engineering complex.

Now, if one side decides to not show up, at least the other gets to kill a structure.

This comes right back to aiming to hit the big wardec groups and in the process, almost eliminating smaller groups from being able to use Wardecs.

It would just encourage large wardec groups to become larger. This just compounds the current situation.
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#28 - 2016-11-29 17:52:25 UTC
Luciolla wrote:
a war dec on an industrial corp shuts down all mining and most mission running


Newbros, if your corp is shut down by a wardec, you are in a corp with bad leadership. Get out and look for a better corp.

Luciolla wrote:
I think it could be interesting to have some sort of Casus Belli system or "just Cause" for a war to take place.


You're in a PvP-centric MMO. There's your just cause for war.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.

SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#29 - 2016-11-29 17:52:53 UTC
Oh, Tom Gerard is back?

I knew this alpha thing was a bad idea. What?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#30 - 2016-11-29 17:53:31 UTC
Why don'y you identify the POCO owning corps of the war dec entities and war dec them, if enough people do that and shoot their POCO's they will not be able to cover them all. Evil

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#31 - 2016-11-29 17:58:23 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Why don'y you identify the POCO owning corps of the war dec entities and war dec them, if enough people do that and shoot their POCO's they will not be able to cover them all. Evil

If people wanted to declare war against others, they wouldn't be here complaining about how the mechanics should be shifted in favour of defenders.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#32 - 2016-11-29 18:06:53 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
How about:
Make wars revolve around the new structures. You can only be part of a war, attacker or defender, if you have deployed a citadel or an engineering complex.

Now, if one side decides to not show up, at least the other gets to kill a structure.

This comes right back to aiming to hit the big wardec groups and in the process, almost eliminating smaller groups from being able to use Wardecs.

It would just encourage large wardec groups to become larger. This just compounds the current situation.

Nah. If the current structures are too expensive an ask, then just release some cheaper, dedicated war deployable. Having at least something for the defender to strike back at and inflict economic damage, even if it isn't super expensive, puts some skin in the game for the attacker and possible generate content.

If that's the case though, corporation benefits need to be moved into structures. You shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax haven or share a hanger and be immune to wardecs. Non-structure holding corps should be just like the NPC corps, a lower tier of corp for those looking for a social group whereas the it would be he noble, landholding class that gets the benefits of structure ownership but has to deal with wars.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#33 - 2016-11-29 18:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Black Pedro wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
How about:
Make wars revolve around the new structures. You can only be part of a war, attacker or defender, if you have deployed a citadel or an engineering complex.

Now, if one side decides to not show up, at least the other gets to kill a structure.

This comes right back to aiming to hit the big wardec groups and in the process, almost eliminating smaller groups from being able to use Wardecs.

It would just encourage large wardec groups to become larger. This just compounds the current situation.

Nah. If the current structures are too expensive an ask, then just release some cheaper, dedicated war deployable. Having at least something for the defender to strike back at and inflict economic damage, even if it isn't super expensive, puts some skin in the game for the attacker and possible generate content.

If that's the case though, corporation benefits need to be moved into structures. You shouldn't be able to benefit from a tax haven or share a hanger and be immune to wardecs. Non-structure holding corps should be just like the NPC corps, a lower tier of corp for those looking for a social group whereas the it would be he noble, landholding class that gets the benefits of structure ownership but has to deal with wars.

This is an example I had a few weeks ago in a different that was occurring at the time:

My Alliance has a perfect example of something similar occurring at the moment. One of our guys stupidly got into a **** slinging match in local last week against a 1-character Corp, where the player has only been playing for 3 months. Quite rightly, the other guy gave us the big middle finger and declared war on us. Good on him for doing so. 1-character Corp vs 440 character Alliance. He had never had a pvp kill before, but managed a couple of days ago to kill and pod one of our guys that was mining in his home system (why I don't know). And he's managed to follow up, killing the same guy again (despite our advice about how to manage yourself in a wardec). The kills are here: https://zkillboard.com/character/96548723/

That play would be eliminated, with the current details that have been provided. One guy, genuinely pissed at the stupidity of our Alliance wouldn't be able to do a thing about it in the way he can now.

That's a loss for everyone in my view.

Which comes back to the OP's carrots rather than sticks. I have no issue with structures somehow being tied into wars, but just not as an additional requirement on an attacker. Give some positive effect to the structure (eg. Intel capabilities) and larger groups and small merc groups will be encouraged to use them, while the small/individual players can still use Wardecs.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#34 - 2016-11-29 18:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Which comes back to the OP's carrots rather than sticks. I have no issue with structures somehow being tied into wars, but just not as an additional requirement on an attacker. Give some positive effect to the structure (eg. Intel capabilities) and larger groups and small merc groups will be encouraged to use them, while the small/individual players can still use Wardecs.
Sure, voluntary use of structures would be better, but I see no problem requiring a cheap, in space structure in order to declare wars. Say a 50 or 100M ISK deployable to enable 1 war, (and say a citadel module for larger groups for more or unlimited number of wars). I mean, it already is costing the aggressor 50M ISK even to start a war so asking them to have to defend (or just sacrifice) a cheap structure doesn't seem especially onerous. You could even lower the cost to declare war to offset the cost if you really think it an issue preventing content from starting. Wars would not end though if they were exploded - that indeed would be too unbalancing and favour the big guy. The little guy would just have to deploy another before the war was to be renewed if they wanted to continue.

Giving the defender something, anything, to shoot, even if it is mostly a symbolic target, probably would spark content and give defenders a goal. I agree it can't be crippling to lose or especially expensive, but there should be something the defenders can try to use to force a fight, or can gloat over and use to make a case they won the war if they manage to explode.
DonaldJTrump USAPresident
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2016-11-29 18:57:57 UTC
Nothing is more silly than having some corp wardec you and when you show up to fight them, those cowards won't even undock.

They wanted a fight and now they should have to commit to a fight when they get one.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#36 - 2016-11-29 18:58:28 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Which comes back to the OP's carrots rather than sticks. I have no issue with structures somehow being tied into wars, but just not as an additional requirement on an attacker. Give some positive effect to the structure (eg. Intel capabilities) and larger groups and small merc groups will be encouraged to use them, while the small/individual players can still use Wardecs.
Sure, voluntary use of structures would be better, but I see no problem requiring a cheap, in space structure in order to declare wars. Say a 50 or 100M ISK deployable to enable 1 war, (and say a citadel module for larger groups for more or unlimited number of wars). I mean, it already is costing the aggressor 50M ISK even to start a war so asking them to have to defend (or just sacrifice) a cheap structure doesn't seem especially onerous. You could even lower the cost to declare war to offset the cost if you really think it an issue preventing content from starting. Wars would not end though if they were exploded - that indeed would be too unbalancing and favour the big guy. The little guy would just have to deploy another before the war was to be renewed if they wanted to continue.

Giving the defender something, anything, to shoot, even if it is mostly a symbolic target, probably would spark content and give defenders a goal. I agree it can't be crippling to lose or especially expensive, but there should be something the defenders can try to use to force a fight, or can gloat over and use to make a case they won the war if they manage to explode.

Along those lines, that seems reasonable.
Neuntausend
Rens Nursing Home
#37 - 2016-11-29 19:26:24 UTC
Make a structure through which I can tell whether my war targets are online. Make it cost a couple billions, give it Astrohouse vulnerability and no weapons. There you go.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2016-11-29 19:41:51 UTC
Kara Hawke wrote:
Sorry but the ideas here are literally game breaking. High sec wardeccs need to be addressed however.

We've been in a war for five weeks by someone who we believe has a ton of different different accounts. He'll show up randomly and kill someone then sit in station afk for 12 hours. We've lost quite a few ships to his surprise attacks and everyone is afraid of doing anything. The dec lapsed this last weekend and people started doing things again - only to have him start a new one Sunday night. Last night there were 2 people on and I was one to them. People in my corp are quickly losing interest in the game.

I love Eve and I don't want It to turn into WoW with everything nerfed and dumbed down... but without some sort of protections in place, the game just becomes a waste of time for most pve'ers. Also bare in the mind the people quitting are the ones making your ships and modules.


So you all get killed while out doing stuff solo?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2016-11-29 19:43:32 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Oh, Tom Gerard is back?

I knew this alpha thing was a bad idea. What?


He's not the only one.... Ugh

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2016-11-29 19:48:37 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Which comes back to the OP's carrots rather than sticks. I have no issue with structures somehow being tied into wars, but just not as an additional requirement on an attacker. Give some positive effect to the structure (eg. Intel capabilities) and larger groups and small merc groups will be encouraged to use them, while the small/individual players can still use Wardecs.
Sure, voluntary use of structures would be better, but I see no problem requiring a cheap, in space structure in order to declare wars. Say a 50 or 100M ISK deployable to enable 1 war, (and say a citadel module for larger groups for more or unlimited number of wars). I mean, it already is costing the aggressor 50M ISK even to start a war so asking them to have to defend (or just sacrifice) a cheap structure doesn't seem especially onerous. You could even lower the cost to declare war to offset the cost if you really think it an issue preventing content from starting. Wars would not end though if they were exploded - that indeed would be too unbalancing and favour the big guy. The little guy would just have to deploy another before the war was to be renewed if they wanted to continue.

Giving the defender something, anything, to shoot, even if it is mostly a symbolic target, probably would spark content and give defenders a goal. I agree it can't be crippling to lose or especially expensive, but there should be something the defenders can try to use to force a fight, or can gloat over and use to make a case they won the war if they manage to explode.


Return of the watchlist or something like it?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online