These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
 

Upgrade wardecs with deployables, to create actual wars

Author
#21 - 2017-03-27 17:18:46 UTC
Actual wars need actual things to be fought over, not another beacon in the middle of space.

There's only three major things that have value in High Sec - the station hubs for trade, engineering complexes, and incursions. You can use all three of those without being in a player corp, so all participation in wars is basically voluntary. When they raise the stakes for participating in those activities, then it would be fair to raise the stakes for the deccers themselves.

Though the real problem is deeper than that. If they want to make EvE shine, they need reasons for low and NPC null to exist, and thus support more than a very few tired large-scale organizations simply playing musical sov for the past few years. High Sec is just the answer for many because the only other answer is sov-nullsec.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

CODE.
#22 - 2017-03-27 18:37:30 UTC
maybe it would help if you also add something interesting for the attacker and not just try to add an easy way for the defender to end the war.
Solyaris Chtonium
#23 - 2017-03-28 03:19:22 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
maybe it would help if you also add something interesting for the attacker and not just try to add an easy way for the defender to end the war.



Because high sec space have no structure for you to bash to begin with.
#24 - 2017-03-28 06:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
unidenify wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
maybe it would help if you also add something interesting for the attacker and not just try to add an easy way for the defender to end the war.



Because high sec space have no structure for you to bash to begin with.

Highsec structures currently either can be taken down with 100% certainty evading any attack, or if of the new Upwell type, drop next to nothing, sometimes less than the cost to declare war long enough to explode them. The new ones are an improvement sure, but as to reason to shoot them, they are quite lacking and in themselves are tedious to shoot. The only things that that provide anything at all limited to actually fight over are POCOs, the market hubs in fortizars, and perhaps shared industry indexes for engineering complexes. POCOs get fought over on occasion, and the market hub causes citadels to die at least in Perimeter (although the two-weeks of invulnerability they enjoy seems to make it futile to try to control the market there undermining the market hub as a conflict driver) but largely there is no game reason to shoot them.

As Vic said, until you give corporations things of value to fight over, wars will just be used to take from those weaker than you and settle personal scores, uses that many players are quick to label "griefing". Real wars would need actual objectives to fight over and those are lacking especially from highsec, but from the game in general.

As Ima said, what is needed is to give something interesting to the defender that they want to have but also have to defend from the attacker. A real objective to fight over that both sides want. The most obvious would be some sort of structure or structure module that provides an exclusive, and thus desirable bonus to certain highsec activities (or access to a highsec activity) that players can really fight over. Alternatively, you could make shooting them directly rewarding somehow (AKA loot drops) and perhaps a little less tedious. However, making the attacker defend a useless beacon just to maintain the ability to interact with another group is only going to stifle conflict, not stimulate it.

CCP seems to be fine with taking a hands-off approach to letting us come up with reasons to shoot each other. If they aren't going to provide mechanical conflict drivers, then much of the violence that results is going to be random, opportunistic, and fall on the smaller and weaker guy who can't defend themselves, well much more violence never happens at all as players just build things and never have a game reason to use them to shoot other players. I think the game could be much more healthy if there were clear objectives to fight over and real reasons for wars to take place.

But alas until then wars are working as intended. If someone declares war on you can evade them or just opt-out by changing corp if you don't want to fight. They are purely consensual so at worst they represent a small nuisance of paperwork you have to deal with. Just like everywhere else in the game if you don't want to fight, no one is forcing you to undock, but in highsec wars you have the additional option of making the war end by dropping corp. That's just how Eve works.
Rote Kapelle
#25 - 2017-03-28 14:38:15 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
Have CONCORD sell a few deployables, of various levels of ISK investment and toughness. The base model would be 50m, probably, with the rest of the ISK cost coming from the actual activation.

Then, they are anchored somewhere (nothing special, 5m or 1m or whatever). Once anchored, they can be used to start a war (24h timer, obviously) or end it. Similar total costs as current system, except players should probably be able to pay even more for tougher deployables. ISK cost to run instead of fuel, since as far as ingame lore, you're just interfacing with CONCORD systems to flag ship-vs-ship engagements as not to be responded to.


  • The defending corp/alliance is not notified of the deployable location, but it is visible when entering a system.

  • The structure must be located in empire space.

  • If the defending corp/alliance or friends find and destroy the deployable, the war ends.

  • If the deployable is un-anchored, the war ends.

  • If the ISK runs out, the war ends, and the deployable can re re-used, but deccing again or deccing another will of course cost more ISK.


Details: Vulnerability timers? Weapons on the deployable? Reinforcement timers? Deployed near (but not on top of) player structures? Where can the structures be located? Should it have to be located in hisec to carry the war into losec and hisec? Losec anchoring for losec only? Any point in requiring the wardeccing person to actually be at the deployable? Probably not.


My thought is this: Wars are frequently not really very war-like. Lots of people use it just to get free targets, without any real risk, and then they just camp trade hubs. The attackers get to choose pretty much everything, target, timing, whether to engage or not.

This system would create a defense point for the attackers, and they would need to protect it during vulnerable times, and/or respond to the structure going into reinforced. A defender would then have a CHANCE of responding to a war in a proactive manner, or hiring mercenaries to track down, join defenders, and destroy the deployable.

It would help create fights.

Bonus: if you successfully un-anchor and scoop, you get the deployable back.

Bonus: people can have fun hunting around for these, and selling the locations.


I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

Cheers,
Toxic Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2017-03-29 18:40:10 UTC
I think you all are looking at this the wrong way. Instead we need to add structures that if left ignored can cause the attacker or defender to gain a advantage....It will give an incitive for both attackers an defenders to put time an effort in finding them an destroying them/buying and defending them.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

Caldari State
#27 - 2017-03-29 22:41:15 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
Toxic Yaken wrote:
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
Have CONCORD sell a few deployables, of various levels of ISK investment and toughness. The base model would be 50m, probably, with the rest of the ISK cost coming from the actual activation.

Then, they are anchored somewhere (nothing special, 5m or 1m or whatever). Once anchored, they can be used to start a war (24h timer, obviously) or end it. Similar total costs as current system, except players should probably be able to pay even more for tougher deployables. ISK cost to run instead of fuel, since as far as ingame lore, you're just interfacing with CONCORD systems to flag ship-vs-ship engagements as not to be responded to.


  • The defending corp/alliance is not notified of the deployable location, but it is visible when entering a system.

  • The structure must be located in empire space.

  • If the defending corp/alliance or friends find and destroy the deployable, the war ends.

  • If the deployable is un-anchored, the war ends.

  • If the ISK runs out, the war ends, and the deployable can re re-used, but deccing again or deccing another will of course cost more ISK.


Details: Vulnerability timers? Weapons on the deployable? Reinforcement timers? Deployed near (but not on top of) player structures? Where can the structures be located? Should it have to be located in hisec to carry the war into losec and hisec? Losec anchoring for losec only? Any point in requiring the wardeccing person to actually be at the deployable? Probably not.


My thought is this: Wars are frequently not really very war-like. Lots of people use it just to get free targets, without any real risk, and then they just camp trade hubs. The attackers get to choose pretty much everything, target, timing, whether to engage or not.

This system would create a defense point for the attackers, and they would need to protect it during vulnerable times, and/or respond to the structure going into reinforced. A defender would then have a CHANCE of responding to a war in a proactive manner, or hiring mercenaries to track down, join defenders, and destroy the deployable.

It would help create fights.

Bonus: if you successfully un-anchor and scoop, you get the deployable back.

Bonus: people can have fun hunting around for these, and selling the locations.


I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

Cheers,
Toxic Pirate


  • Hisec is mechanical safety. Wardecs are already a means of bypassing that. This is a way ot bypassing the bypass.
  • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?
  • Wardeccers have two basic choices: obscurity or strength. They can either have a director plop a wardec structure out in the boonies, or in the middle of all their defenders. If it's out in the boonies, the defenders have to either scout every system, or get REALLY lucky. If it's nearby, they can defend it.


The structure itself should definitely have either a vulnerability timer or a reinforcement mechanic, or even both, plus the standard 24-hour cooldown period.

This means that for attacking a large corporation, you can't just dock up when they do show up to fight.

EVE being EVE, I expect that within a week, someone would be maintaining a curated list of every wardec structure in eve and who it's against, and quite probably an ISK cost for that information. :P
#28 - 2017-03-29 23:01:03 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
  • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?

  • It isn't easy to attack a large and capable defender. Doing so tends to result in ship losses and little gain. What is easy is attacking a large and incompetent defender, the kind of corp that has lots of individual PvE players floating around obliviously on their own separate farming goals but little organization or ability to fight back. And that should continue to be easy because incompetence should be punished.
    Caldari State
    #29 - 2017-03-29 23:06:54 UTC
    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
  • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?

  • It isn't easy to attack a large and capable defender. Doing so tends to result in ship losses and little gain. What is easy is attacking a large and incompetent defender, the kind of corp that has lots of individual PvE players floating around obliviously on their own separate farming goals but little organization or ability to fight back. And that should continue to be easy because incompetence should be punished.


    So drop the wardec structure in some out-of-the-way lowsec system where they'll never find it, and continue as usual. Unless someone else decides to kill it for no reason (no drops, lots of HP to chew through).

    Or drop it in their home system, defend it, and laugh at them when they try and attack it, and you wreck them.


    What this does pretty directly attack, is people who wardec someone, and dock up whenever they actually show up to fight. Then when the fleet gets bored and wanders off, and the Netflix episode ends, the "brave attacker" resumes bravely camping the trade hub to get easy kills.
    #30 - 2017-03-29 23:43:43 UTC
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    So drop the wardec structure in some out-of-the-way lowsec system where they'll never find it, and continue as usual. Unless someone else decides to kill it for no reason (no drops, lots of HP to chew through).


    At which point one of two things happens:

    1) Someone sets up a list of all the war dec structures, and the "security through obscurity" plan fails.

    or

    2) The structure remains genuinely hidden, in which case your new mechanic adds nothing to the existing system and there's no point in including it.

    Quote:
    What this does pretty directly attack, is people who wardec someone, and dock up whenever they actually show up to fight. Then when the fleet gets bored and wanders off, and the Netflix episode ends, the "brave attacker" resumes bravely camping the trade hub to get easy kills.


    IOW, it allows bad corps/alliances to have an objective, instead of punishing them for being bad. If you're giving up easy kills in trade hubs then the problem is not the war dec mechanics, it's that you suck at EVE.
    Rote Kapelle
    #31 - 2017-03-30 01:18:36 UTC
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    Toxic Yaken wrote:

    I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



    Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

    What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

    How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

    Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

    Cheers,
    Toxic Pirate


    • Hisec is mechanical safety. Wardecs are already a means of bypassing that. This is a way ot bypassing the bypass.
    • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?
    • Wardeccers have two basic choices: obscurity or strength. They can either have a director plop a wardec structure out in the boonies, or in the middle of all their defenders. If it's out in the boonies, the defenders have to either scout every system, or get REALLY lucky. If it's nearby, they can defend it.


    The structure itself should definitely have either a vulnerability timer or a reinforcement mechanic, or even both, plus the standard 24-hour cooldown period.

    This means that for attacking a large corporation, you can't just dock up when they do show up to fight.

    EVE being EVE, I expect that within a week, someone would be maintaining a curated list of every wardec structure in eve and who it's against, and quite probably an ISK cost for that information. :P


    I was hoping for more direct responses to my questions to think critically about the proposed idea and what potential changes it could have on the game besides the positive ones trying to be portrayed.

    Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

    Caldari State
    #32 - 2017-03-30 17:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
    So drop the wardec structure in some out-of-the-way lowsec system where they'll never find it, and continue as usual. Unless someone else decides to kill it for no reason (no drops, lots of HP to chew through).


    At which point one of two things happens:

    1) Someone sets up a list of all the war dec structures, and the "security through obscurity" plan fails.

    or

    2) The structure remains genuinely hidden, in which case your new mechanic adds nothing to the existing system and there's no point in including it.

    Quote:
    What this does pretty directly attack, is people who wardec someone, and dock up whenever they actually show up to fight. Then when the fleet gets bored and wanders off, and the Netflix episode ends, the "brave attacker" resumes bravely camping the trade hub to get easy kills.


    IOW, it allows bad corps/alliances to have an objective, instead of punishing them for being bad. If you're giving up easy kills in trade hubs then the problem is not the war dec mechanics, it's that you suck at EVE.

    If you don't like the people who list the (player-found) wardec structures, then wardec THEM instead? Or track the people who access the war-thingey? Have each war-thingey store access logs, so wardeccers know who could have accessed the info? Sure, they'll do it behind the safety of alts, but that's a separate problem, one pretty inherent in EVE.

    It provides an option. The option to track down a structure and interact with it, and the people interacting with you. Since when is having options a bad thing? It could possibly be a bad thing for people who like to declare wars, but only if they don't actually want to fight the people they just declared war on. And let's be honest, most of them don't, and just dec for easy targets with minimal personal risk.

    My argument is that people who can only "PVP" if they pick easy targets in hisec might be more "bad" than their preferred targets. This would provide content, as the structure would use the reinforcement/vulnerability timers to provoke a fight during wardeccer prime time.

    I think your problem with that, is that the wardeccers might not win easily? Or be able to just dock up if they start to lose?



    @Toxic Yaken: I only have access to my point of view here. I'm sorry that you apparently can't "think critically" about an idea and state your own conclusions.

    I do think it would cut down on some wardecs. But I think that the surviving wardecs would have more fighting. Fighting during wardeccer prime time, even, as the structures come out of reinforcement or become vulnerable. But less trade hub camping of people who are chosen for their perceived inability to fight back. Mercs could be contracted with a clear goal in mind.
    Minmatar Republic
    #33 - 2017-04-02 18:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Maria Dragoon
    Oh, I actually wanted to build upon my post! Ha ha, I forgot about this thread till someone liked my post.

    So a strong way to get someone to fight over something is that if something gives them an advantage over something, an that only one faction/corp/alliance can hold onto it, so I was thinking along the lines that if we add in structures that would give things like decrease cost for faction tax, and decrease cost on industry for the owning corp of that system. Basically what I am saying is make high sec much like null sec, only it would be null war light, you of course can't take over the stations, but I'm sure CCP can add in a thing where the corp/alliance with the biggest influence on that system will get discounts on their utilities and other such things, an of course I personally suggest the fastest way to gain influence of that system is to place structures that generate influence.

    Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

    "A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

    Caldari State
    #34 - 2017-04-06 08:12:25 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
    Maria Dragoon wrote:
    Oh, I actually wanted to build upon my post! Ha ha, I forgot about this thread till someone liked my post.

    So a strong way to get someone to fight over something is that if something gives them an advantage over something, an that only one faction/corp/alliance can hold onto it, so I was thinking along the lines that if we add in structures that would give things like decrease cost for faction tax, and decrease cost on industry for the owning corp of that system. Basically what I am saying is make high sec much like null sec, only it would be null war light, you of course can't take over the stations, but I'm sure CCP can add in a thing where the corp/alliance with the biggest influence on that system will get discounts on their utilities and other such things, an of course I personally suggest the fastest way to gain influence of that system is to place structures that generate influence.

    That would be a completely separate idea thread, please.

    This one is about adding a kill-switch to wars that requires attackers to actually fight (at a time of their choosing via reinforcement or vulnerability) the war.

    Instead of attackers who dec people, gank, and then dock up at the first sign of actual resistance.

    Arguments I've seen so far:

    • People who get ganked are bad, and deserve it.
    • People can dodge war by dropping corp.


    I think the first is a fallacy. MANY people are bad, people lose billions to terrible decisions, and sure, individual players do some boneheaded things. Suicide ganking fits this niche fine.

    The second is a good way to drop population, if the more casual (and easier target) players get forced away from their social group, and stop logging in. Yes, ragequits feel good, but less monthly fees being paid is bad for the devs, which is bad for the game.

    But far more people look for corps who don't focus on PVP, and dec them for easy kills. This is defended by the "they're bad and deserve it" line, and rationalized by saying they can hire mercs or disband. But if the defenders do pull together and get a fleet that actually threatens the attacking corp, those ships are obviously just going to hide in station or play docking games.

    Attackers have nothing at stake besides the sunk cost of the dec. Defenders have the threat of superior OOC attacker intelligence, plus attackers tend to PVP-specialize, plus PVE ISK-making is disrupted, as those OOC scouts will be looking for any mining or mission stuff.

    If wardecs were people looking for real fights, this wouldn't be a problem. But let's be honest, most wardecs are people who just want to camp trade hubs and be able to attack without CONCORD interference. The attackers can retract anytime from instantly to indefinitely, as long as they pay some ISK.

    What this idea would provide, is the ability for defenders to decisively respond. Hire some mercs to come in, pop the wardec thing, and done.

    This also provides a fight for the attackers. You paid good money for a fight, right? Well, show up during the vuln window or at the end of the reinforce timer for your fight. If you just wanted to clear a moon or POCO, you can drop it on a director alt in the boonies, and the process should take long enough to accomplish your goal.

    But if you just want to sit in trade hubs all day, trawling for easy targets? ...You can still do that. But the defenders would have an option that they've never had before. It's not even a great option, it's to literally search every hisec (and losec?) system in EVE for a single deployable, and attack it during attacker prime-time.

    If the attackers can't handle that, I'd argue that they are the ones who are bad, and should feel bad. P
    Caldari State
    #35 - 2017-04-12 06:39:07 UTC
    Now that I think about it, the wardec structures should definitely be vague, until a player actually warps to it and pulls the data from it. No flags or anything, any player can warp to it and pull the data.

    But.

    1. Every structure logs each player who accesses it, and the corp who deployed it can see that data.
    2. The player must not be in an NPC corp to pull data.
    3. (MAYBE) Only Omega accounts can pull that data?


    Combine with https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=516287, my "data raid" idea, and it could make things interesting.

    Of course, people would make alpha accounts for just this purpose, to hide behind. Or an alt account not connected to them. And if they never transfer funds to it, data raids would be pointless. It's not perfect.

    This way, if someone is doing it on a main, and they annoy a wardeccing corp sufficiently, the corp can do something about it- dec the person pulling all their wardec locations.

    Wouldn't help much against someone who uses alts to do it, and hides in 1-man corps, though. Hiding behind alts ruins a lot of potentially interesting EVE mechanics, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that CCP would be willing to do about it. Oh well.
    Gallente Federation
    #36 - 2017-04-21 15:16:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    mkint wrote:
    Except strategic objectives essentially don't exist in declared wars right now.


    No. What you mean is that strategic objectives don't exist as a game mechanic. Strategic objectives are defined by the players involved. I decide what my objectives are in declaring the war, and at what point I will allow the war to end and move on to something else. Maybe that's a certain value in ships killed, maybe it's the target corp disbanding, maybe it's simply a certain period of time to shut down their PvE. The proposed system replaces these player-defined objectives with arena-style PvP where everyone shows up at the designated time and fights over an arbitrary point in space.

    Quote:
    Whereas right now the incentive for the defenders is to log off and trade in their EVE subs for a netflix sub.


    No, that's the incentive for bad players. Good players, the kind that deserve to exist in EVE, have much better counters: hiring mercenaries, moving to lowsec/0.0 where the war is irrelevant, etc. New mechanics should not coddle the bad players and let them escape the consequences of being bad.


    Except the current wardec strategic objective is "Kill everyone, who is alone, if they are not dock up." "Bonus points for getting them to leave EVE"

    Apart from the .001 percent of the time it isn't.
    Gallente Federation
    #37 - 2017-04-21 15:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
    Merin Ryskin wrote:
    grgjegb gergerg wrote:
  • This goes nothing to defeat suicide ganking, just trade-hub campers who declare war just to get easy targets. A larger and more capable defender, IS a larger and more capable defended. Why SHOULD it be easy to attack a large and capable defender?

  • It isn't easy to attack a large and capable defender. Doing so tends to result in ship losses and little gain. What is easy is attacking a large and incompetent defender, the kind of corp that has lots of individual PvE players floating around obliviously on their own separate farming goals but little organization or ability to fight back. And that should continue to be easy because incompetence should be punished.
    Roll


    Actually you are suggesting that incompetence should continue to be rewarded.

    Knowing that when one is facing some defenders, that you need to dock up is not something that makes anyone "elite".

    The current wardec system simply means an unending opportunity to pick off individuals, and the perfect ability to avoid anything that looks vaguely like a fight.

    There is a simple equation currently, More new players means fuller killboards for you.

    You appear to believe and claim loudly, that those players who leave are in some way defective. They arent.

    I understand you do not want to be prised off that nipple, but it is in no ones interest other than your own you are permitted to continue to suck on it.

    We know that you claim that others suck at EVE, we also know that you Suck Eve dry. Of course you claim the problem is everyone else, because they are "bad at EVE" not you and yours, you are simply encouraging People to be "better" because you care so much about them.Roll

    No one believes you.

    Bullshit gets old eventually and stinks the place out, it is simply unmissable.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #38 - 2017-04-21 15:39:47 UTC
    Toxic Yaken wrote:


    I know that this subject has been addressed in this thread (and a few others) so I'm just going to pose some questions for OP and anyone else interested in answering...



    Why should a defender living in Highsec be given means to mechanically ensure their member's safety when every other region of space is forced to rely on player created safety?

    What are the risks of giving larger and more capable defenders a means of ending wars and effectively removing the threat of one of the two pillars of Highsec PVP (Ganking and Wars)?

    How would wardeccers respond to needing to potentially defend structures, what effects would there be on the overall wardeccing/mercenary community?

    Does CCP provide enough education to newer players to understand corporations and wars, or are wardeccers simply too oppressive to ever overcome?

    Cheers,
    Toxic Pirate


    First one is kinda simple. It's still more interaction and in game activity to have the defending side shot a structure to close the war than have them bail out of the corp or stay docked for a week. It's not a perfect option but it had to what might happen. Again, it is definitely not perfect.

    2nd question, ganking is effectively unaffected since you do not need a wardec to gank someone. As for wars being force closed by larger corps, you can always either not declare war on them if you think you have no chance of winning. You can also setup traps or find allies.

    3rd, I truthfully have no idea how wardeccers would react to this. Defending structure is a bit boring but at the same time, if your enemy want to close the war, they have to show up there. Actual wardeccers are ebtter placed to give their opinion on how they think their business would do with such new mechanics.

    4th, CCP clearly does nto provide much about it relying on the player base to educate newcomers. While this is not a bad system in itself, it's widely open to bad teaching from people who are bad at this game or flat out don't understand it enough to teach correctly. The new guy will follow whoever teach him even if the teacher is wrong because he can't tell that the teaching is wrong from day 1. Corps that keep recruiting new player and teaching them to bail away from wars sure as hell don't teach how to fight a war but at the same time, ditching a corp probably is the most efficient way to deal with it since corps in HS are for the vast majority just a tag and a tax reduction.
    Wrecking Machine.
    #39 - 2017-04-21 17:26:24 UTC
    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Defending structure is a bit boring but at the same time, if your enemy want to close the war, they have to show up there. Actual wardeccers are ebtter placed to give their opinion on how they think their business would do with such new mechanics.


    It'd change nothing - most PvE players would still drop corp rather than risk grinding structure timers and getting dropped on (which would happen), and wardeccers would just ignore the structure altogether unless someone actually had the gall to rf it. The problem is that (from personal observation and conversations) the players who drop corp to avoid wardecs do not want the fight. They just want the safety and easy money. Simply adding a structure to let people end wars prematurely wouldn't end anything. Also, structure grinds where the defender can field even a moderately capable and not hopelessly outnumbered fleet are very, very bloody for attackers.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #40 - 2017-04-21 22:09:17 UTC
    mkint wrote:
    EVE shouldn't be easy. Not for the defenders, but also not for the attackers.


    Jumping in a bit late, admittedly, but on this point I have to disagree. Something in EVE is only as easy as the other players make it. If the other side makes the war "easy" it is that side's problem. This is the same flawed thinking when people complain about the rewards to suicide ganking freighters. Yes, there are large rewards, but that is not a game design issue at all because those large rewards exist because players created those large rewards. Who put all that cargo value into the cargo hold? A player...in fact the player who is flying the freighter.

    "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

    3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
    Forum Jump