These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed change to Wardecs..
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-08-31 11:42:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Why? Attacking something in Eve is about attacking something. You are trying to take someones stuff or some resource. They should be forced to defended it, or lose it, just like sov. You are not playing a game of consensual capture the flag, or whatever else you are imagining. You are fighting a war.


So let's turn it around. I WANT to attack the wardeccing corp, yet I cannot. They can freely attack us via our structures and I can inflict exactly no pain on them because they have none of these things, they have no skin in the game.

This is literally the same complaint people level at defenders who run and hide. Why is it ok to expect them to fight and not attackers?


Black Pedro wrote:

The reason 85%+ of wars end with no kills is precisely because most defenders have nothing on the line. They can evade the war at little cost. That will be changing with the new structures which will not be so easily taken down in event of a wardec. I expect that alone will increase the number of productive wars, but honestly most are still going to result in no kills as long as players can evade the war with no long term cost.


You cannot make that assertion. We have plenty on the line, for example, yet no-one fights or dies to wardeccers. Of the things we have out there to shoot, there is (of course) no need for a wardec to shoot it, yet no wardeccers come shoot the towers. You cannot attempt to lay that blame squarely at the defenders feet.

Our stage towers are well known, RFing them or trying to GUARANTEES a fight, without exception. Yet.....no flashy oranges come to say hi. This is not our problem yet we, the "defenders" are at fault for there being no fights? I think not.

Black Pedro wrote:
Sure, there is nothing wrong with asking the wardeccers to have a structure to facilitate the war, as long as the war itself is not tied to it. Perhaps wars could be capped at some reasonably small number (5?), but in order to go beyond that a corporation would have to deploy a slightly expensive "war command tower". This would allow mercenaries to continue to operate who run multiple wardecs, but then they would have to commit to defending a structure to do so. I think the ally mechanic would need to be revisited then though, as it is currently the aggressor has no idea who they are going to be fighting in 48h and this would be a strong deterrent to declare wars if a valuable structure is on the line to potentially anyone in Eve.

But the attackers should not be burdened with artificial costs or restrictions in a PvP game. The burden always has to be on the players generating an income or harvesting a resource. If you want players to have safety, then give it to them, don't force attackers to jump through made-up hoops in hopes it provides safety. Wars don't make money - they cost money and thus cannot be too onerous to declare or no one will make them and the game will stagnate. Conflict and destruction are good for the war economy of Eve and for generating content and thus the ability to attack must be accessible and mechanics that discourage players from taking the risk of declaring wars avoided.


Attackers should have meaningful risk is all I said. Currently they use EXACTLY the same mechanics the defenders are vilified for in order to not expose themselves to any real risk and yet people say with a straight face that this is right and proper.

Toss up some structures, get some stake in the game beyond "oh crap, dock up guys, there's an armada of T3s ouside, they can't touch us or anything we own in here".

As you say, eve is about conflict, about blowing things up...how about we start encouraging BOTH sides to have such things.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2015-08-31 11:44:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Tbh I think that the best thing that can be done to help new folks is to make sure they know their options instead of making sure more obvious ones fit some prejudices about how things should work. To explain myself, people should understand that getting into a hisec corp is a tool to use hisec structures and shared storage rather than the only way to be a part of community; they should understand that CONCORD can be used against them as well as working for their benefit rather than just making hisec safer to fly in (terms and conditions apply); etc.

I'd say that pointing out options for new players can get the job done without messing with mech in unnecessary ways.

Social corps idea, while being mocked for many things, can achieve needs of some people to formally belong to a distinctive group. Those who don't need benefits of regular corp can IMO be spared of downsides of it - I mean, they already can stay in NPC corp and maintain chat channel. But that can be a pointer to new players towards communities. Imagine new guy and how he reacts to these things compared to each other: "Hey, we are group that does this and that, we go by name and have logo. Join us if you are interested" and "well, stay in nobody's pseudocorp, log into chat channel. EVE is a game about chat channels anyway".
I'm bad at speeches, but hopefully you're getting my point.

Then there is recruiting. Currently EVE community adopted a lot of ways - in-game tool, 3rd party boards, labelled containers. Maybe with the upcoming info centres we will be able to place better in-game ads than those containers.

Such things are mostly just cosmetic features, but I think that even they can do more for new players than to tweak mechanics and suffer tons of associated problems.

My personal experience is that EVE NPE isn't necessarily terrible and rough. You gotta know right people and places though. I consider myself lucky that I knew about EVE-Uni (for others this can be any newb-friendly entity of today) long before I've installed the game.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#43 - 2015-08-31 11:47:40 UTC
afkalt wrote:

The attackers should have some skin in the game, some risk. Currently there is no such requirement, should an attacker wardec the wrong corp, there is no meaningful harm one can inflict to them. They can dock up and hide, they have no structures to burn, nothing.


And the exact same thing can be said about the defender.

"A higher barrier for thee but not for me", typical carebear bullshit.



Quote:

I don't want decs constrainted


Yes, you do, you have made that obvious numerous times in the past.


Quote:

Do you think 85%+ of wars having no kills is healthy? Do you no think we be looking to add an incentive for BOTH sides to fight?


One side already wants to fight. The other side has an infallible, un-counterable way to avoid ever having to fight at all.

Until that changes, until dec dodging is either removed, bannable, or a mechanism put in place to punish it harshly, you do not get to talk about making wars any weaker than they already are.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#44 - 2015-08-31 11:52:59 UTC
afkalt wrote:

So let's turn it around. I WANT to attack the wardeccing corp, yet I cannot. They can freely attack us via our structures and I can inflict exactly no pain on them because they have none of these things, they have no skin in the game.


*rolleyes*

Their ships are assets too, dummy, and many war corps typically fly expensive ships at that. If they are attacking your structures, actually try defending those structures, and killing them to inflict loss on them.

Seriously, like with most complaints involving wars, your problems pretty much go away if you quit bitching, knock off the persecution complex/defeatist attitude, and actually try playing the freaking game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#45 - 2015-08-31 12:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
afkalt wrote:
So let's turn it around. I WANT to attack the wardeccing corp, yet I cannot. They can freely attack us via our structures and I can inflict exactly no pain on them because they have none of these things, they have no skin in the game.

This is literally the same complaint people level at defenders who run and hide. Why is it ok to expect them to fight and not attackers?

It's exactly the same as sov. You have assets that are making you an income so you have to defend them. Sov holders don't get to be immune from attack from non-sov holders, they have to defend their stuff from anyone that shows up. The wardeccing corporation may or may not have such assets. If they do, you can attack them, if they don't, they aren't making any income anyway. If you really want to hurt them, discover who is paying or funding them and wardec or attack that entity.

Again, the burden of defense is on the entity making the income or generating resources in the sandbox, not the attacker who is not creating, only destroying assets in the greater Eve economy.

Quote:

You cannot make that assertion. We have plenty on the line, for example, yet no-one fights or dies to wardeccers. Of the things we have out there to shoot, there is (of course) no need for a wardec to shoot it, yet no wardeccers come shoot the towers. You cannot attempt to lay that blame squarely at the defenders feet.
Point taken. Not all of that 85% are defenders turtling or rolling corp, but includes some wardecs that were declared by aggressors who never intended, or are unable, to inflict any kills.

Quote:
Attackers should have meaningful risk is all I said. Currently they use EXACTLY the same mechanics the defenders are vilified for in order to not expose themselves to any real risk and yet people say with a straight face that this is right and proper.

Toss up some structures, get some stake in the game beyond "oh crap, dock up guys, there's an armada of T3s ouside, they can't touch us or anything we own in here".

As you say, eve is about conflict, about blowing things up...how about we start encouraging BOTH sides to have such things.
I don't vilify defenders for evading a wardec. The game mechanics make it the best choice in many situations. In any case, even in a perfect system players should always have the choice to leave a war by dropping to the NPC corp and getting on with their life. My issue with it currently is that they can dodge a war with no consequence - they can literally can just hop from one corp to another getting all the benefits of the corp with none of the responsibility of defending them. This stifles conflict and destroys the risk vs. reward design of the game.

You should never be forced to undock into a superior force. But you also are not entitled to benefit from something that you are not willing or unable to defend. If you want wardeccers to risk something, then give them some structure that benefits them in some way so that they will risk them. I would be surprised if such things are not in the medium-term structure pipeline.

But really, both sides do not need to have equal risk. Clearly one is willing to go to war and that is all it takes. Making it more costly so that no one is willing to take the risk to declare war is not a recipe for more conflict - it is a recipe for killing conflict and all the things that rely on it, like the player-driven economy, in this game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2015-08-31 13:15:45 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I don't vilify defenders for evading a wardec. The game mechanics make it the best choice in many situations.


Indeed, and I meant it in the general terms as opposed to your personally. It is a commonly held viewpoint, as the posts not two above demonstrate.


Black Pedro wrote:
In any case, even in a perfect system players should always have the choice to leave a war by dropping to the NPC corp and getting on with their life. My issue with it currently is that they can dodge a war with no consequence - they can literally can just hop from one corp to another getting all the benefits of the corp with none of the responsibility of defending them. This stifles conflict and destroys the risk vs. reward design of the game.

You should never be forced to undock into a superior force. But you also are not entitled to benefit from something that you are not willing or unable to defend. If you want wardeccers to risk something, then give them some structure that benefits them in some way so that they will risk them. I would be surprised if such things are not in the medium-term structure pipeline.


Yes, the new structures should handle that neatly with the rig cost. Well I assume so, we've never tore down POSes for anything but migration so I'm not an expert, but based on the current intents by CCP that is the play.

Black Pedro wrote:
But really, both sides do not need to have equal risk. Clearly one is willing to go to war and that is all it takes. Making it more costly so that no one is willing to take the risk to declare war is not a recipe for more conflict - it is a recipe for killing conflict and all the things that rely on it, like the player-driven economy, in this game.


Yes, it doesn't need to cost more, but I think that there should be a meaningful way to take the fight to the aggressors. I do not buy the ship argument as they are far too easy to not risk via neutral eyes and so forth. A structure is good thing, it cant be hidden and it is a stake in the fight - something to fight for.

Bottom line is I don't care about the cost make it free for all I care, the current isk cost is hardly a barrier, I would simply like something they cannot hide. We can't hide our POS etc, nor can we tear them down...well perhaps nor WILL we tear them down is maybe more accurate.

The new structures neatly handle (if they work as advertised) people rolling corps, but I think a little time towards something which the other side of a war can roll up and blow up shuold they be able to would be a healthy thing. After all, you're declaring war - you should be expect to be approximately able to handle the fight.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the terms "aggressor" and "defender" it pulls too many emotive types (not you) into the debate foaming at the mouth. I feel the phrase "militarily superior" force should be able to inflict hurt on the "weaker side" is perhaps a more accurate reflection of my wishes.
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2015-08-31 13:40:11 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
Trenmir Bedala wrote:
You want to start a war offensively? have the chromosomal fortitude to fire the first shots and yes, risk being Concorded for it!
You want to get rid of another Corps POCO's and POS in Highsec.. do the same thing!


Or you can just declare a war, as you do now. If the player does not like getting war decced, then they can stay in an NPC corp, or not put up poco's and POSes, or live somewhere away from where major war dec corps operate.

High sec is not supposed to be 100% safe. Offensive war decs are part of EVE.

however, you have groups like marmite that wardecc a couple hundred corps.... which is pretty broken. you should commit to a war, not just sit in jita in a tornado.
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2015-08-31 13:51:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
afkalt wrote:
The attackers should have some skin in the game, some risk. Currently there is no such requirement, should an attacker wardec the wrong corp, there is no meaningful harm one can inflict to them. They can dock up and hide, they have no structures to burn, nothing.

Why would it be a bad thing to create something for the attackers to lose? Why should their greatest risk be "damn, we kicked over the hornets nest, best dock up"

We used to fight the russians a fair bit and you know what happened? After they saved their POS they would RF every single POS you and your friends had in the area, just to send a message. That's the part which is missing from high sec war decs, you do not have that option and I believe you should.

I don't want decs constrainted, I simply would like the opportunity to go kick over the attackers sandcastles. Except there is currently no requirement, nor incentive for them to have one in the first place.

Do you think 85%+ of wars having no kills is healthy? Do you no think we be looking to add an incentive for BOTH sides to fight?

What would be the downside of something like ensuring the aggressor had to have a structure of some sort which should you desire you can destroy?
Why? Attacking something in Eve is about attacking something. You are trying to take someone's stuff or some resource. They should be forced to defend it, or lose it, just like sov. You are not playing a game of consensual capture the flag, or whatever else you are imagining. You are fighting a war.

The reason 85%+ of wars end with no kills is precisely because most defenders have nothing on the line. They can evade the war at little cost. That will be changing with the new structures which will not be so easily taken down in event of a wardec. I expect that alone will increase the number of productive wars, but honestly most are still going to result in no kills as long as players can evade the war with no long term cost.

the reason is that 85% of wardeccs are done by groups such as marmite and CODE. against alt corps and such. heck, my altcorp was wardecced by code. about an hour after creation, and the sure didn't get any kills off it. that alt in that corp does absolutely nothing, other than sitting in jita.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2015-08-31 13:54:08 UTC
Grognard Commissar wrote:
however, you have groups like marmite that wardecc a couple hundred corps.... which is pretty broken. you should commit to a war, not just sit in jita in a tornado.

If that's all you're doing, chances you are just wasting money. I suppose this does somehow balances this thing out.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Raphendyr Nardieu
Avanto
Hole Control
#50 - 2015-08-31 14:21:18 UTC
To facilitate the chat, I'll add my thoughts.

For what I think wardecs are needed (or used):


  1. To allow POS and POCO removal (shooting others POSes).
  2. Area control, like shooting competitors miners or making hauling corps hauling harder (market hubs)
  3. Helping in WH wars over WH systems with hisec connection (you can continue shooting them on hisec side)


Please provide other reasons, so I can add them to the list

So to be able to do the first for example, I would need the enemy to shoot me first, so I could start attacking their POS. Thus given proposal doesn't work (though, we can continue iterating the problem in this thread).

Ideas that could balance the wars (some of them are crappy, but might help to create new ideas).


  • Possibility to mark your corp/alliance as faction corp. This would prevent you from wars, but also from stuctures (POSes and POCOs)
  • System/Region/Constellation wide wars. This would be cheaper than universe wide war. Works for points 1 and 2.
  • As proposed, stacking penalty to war costs. Maybe amount and time based. Wardecing same corp again in short period of time, would cost more than in longer periods. Also, having a lot of wars would make it cost more to create new ones.
  • Win condition to the war. E.g. similar system of capturing nodes as in sov, that would allow defender to end the war sooner if they win it. Winner could get part of the war investment as a reward.
  • Add neutral helpers (reppers) to the war for period of a time (e.g. 15 minutes). There also could be a button to add you to the war, so you could help the side being attacked.
  • Fix docking games (would also help other station related stuff). I have no idea about any actions here or what is fixed state, but I'm sure that something could be done here.



Basically, make resolving the difference of opinion easier and support he need for wardec better. For example, system wide war could be started in 1 hour notice and would last only 1 day. Would work nicely for ice belt mining (wardec others and shoot them).
Black Pedro
Mine.
#51 - 2015-08-31 15:57:08 UTC
Raphendyr Nardieu wrote:


  • Possibility to mark your corp/alliance as faction corp. This would prevent you from wars, but also from stuctures (POSes and POCOs)
  • System/Region/Constellation wide wars. This would be cheaper than universe wide war. Works for points 1 and 2.
  • As proposed, stacking penalty to war costs. Maybe amount and time based. Wardecing same corp again in short period of time, would cost more than in longer periods. Also, having a lot of wars would make it cost more to create new ones.
  • Win condition to the war. E.g. similar system of capturing nodes as in sov, that would allow defender to end the war sooner if they win it. Winner could get part of the war investment as a reward.
  • Add neutral helpers (reppers) to the war for period of a time (e.g. 15 minutes). There also could be a button to add you to the war, so you could help the side being attacked.
  • Fix docking games (would also help other station related stuff). I have no idea about any actions here or what is fixed state, but I'm sure that something could be done here.



  • Fine, the "corp lite" proposal. I support it.
  • I guess. Won't change much although perhaps if costs scale downward, it would make wars more useful for small corps fighting over a system or constellation.
  • Kills mercenaries as a profession in the sandbox; bypassed by those wanting to target a specific corp for a long-term dec by using alt corporations
  • Turns war into contrived 'capture the flag' limiting its use in the sandbox. Provides near perfect safety to large groups that can overwhelm the nodes when they spawn thus makes deccing a larger group risky/useless. Current ally mechanic provides extreme risk that attackers will not be able to defend the nodes against unknown opponents further making wars unattractive to declare. War investment completely provided by attacker so there is nothing to win by attacking (although I am not against defenders claiming some of the fee).
  • Already exists. See: ally mechanic.
  • Docking games are beyond wardec mechanics and are maybe being addressed by the docking mechanics of the new structures .

Wars are basically fine. They serve their purpose to allow limited conflict between two parties in highsec as intended. All the complaints here stem from either a sense that the attackers are just trolls and not risking enough (which can be fixed to some degree by the new structures although attackers will always be risking less than defenders or they would never attack in the first place), or that players should be safe from attack in highsec completely because they are unable, or choose not to defend themselves. The latter view cannot be fixed without breaking some of the fundamental designs of Eve. Being "weak" cannot be a strategy to defend yourself from other players or veterans will always make themselves "weak" for the free protection it offers.

The intended Eve solution to the problem is that if you don't want the risk of a wardec, then forgo the reward of the player corp - stay in the NPC corp (at least until some new social system is released by CCP). Better yet, HTFU and learn how to function under a wardec and/or find some friends to help defend you. Simple as that.

The only problem, if there is one at all, is that new players often end up starting a corporation without understanding the ramifications of that choice, or join a terrible one that misinforms them about the realities of this risk vs. reward-based game. Just like when that 3-day-old new player stumbles into lowsec and is podded in 15 seconds, they do not understand the risks of that action. Yet, we don't have people coming here going on about how lowsec needs to be removed or nerfed to "save the new players".

All that is necessary is to better educate new players that player corps are competitive entities, not glorified chat channels, and provide new social tools so that those that do not want to compete can play the game and still have a social experience. I am sure there a few more tweaks that can be made to encourage conflict between more equally matched sides, but player corps are always going to have to deal with the risk of attack. Highsec is not safesec - nowhere in Eve is safesec - so all players, new and old alike, need to accept the fact that as they gather more power and resources, eventually someone bigger than them is going to come along and try to knock-down their sandcastle.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#52 - 2015-08-31 17:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
deleted

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#53 - 2015-08-31 20:32:47 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Horrible idea. wardecs are being used, just because you don't like how isn't a game problem it is YOUR problem.


Trenmir Bedala wrote:


Going to make this my new signature ...

I have nothing useful to say, so instead I'll insult the OP.


EVE forums are a brutal place, if your tender, "sprinkles in my hair, pink unicorn, lollipop", sensibilities are offended by a comment as docile as this one you are in for a world of hurt when it comes to reading the EVE forums, might i make a suggestion that better suits your thin skin.

Candy Crush Saga forums are that way ----------------->

You're welcome,

Maldiro

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin
Codename-47
Avocado Cartel
#54 - 2015-08-31 20:44:14 UTC
Im gonna tell everyone a little secret, You can reform a corp for about 5mil before the wars even start and just dodge them all.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#55 - 2015-08-31 21:10:11 UTC
If I can bribe CONCORD to look the other way for a WarDec, why can I not pay them off in the same fashion?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#56 - 2015-08-31 21:30:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If I can bribe CONCORD to look the other way for a WarDec, why can I not pay them off in the same fashion?


Because that defeats the purpose of the mechanic completely. Why propose something that would render it toothless against everyone but new players, anyway?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-09-01 04:50:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
afkalt wrote:

So let's turn it around. I WANT to attack the wardeccing corp, yet I cannot. They can freely attack us via our structures and I can inflict exactly no pain on them because they have none of these things, they have no skin in the game.


*rolleyes*

Their ships are assets too, dummy, and many war corps typically fly expensive ships at that. If they are attacking your structures, actually try defending those structures, and killing them to inflict loss on them.

Seriously, like with most complaints involving wars, your problems pretty much go away if you quit bitching, knock off the persecution complex/defeatist attitude, and actually try playing the freaking game.

Honest question: How do you draw parity between one group with a costly, immobile asset and another with assets that potentially cost far less, can be highly mobile, and at the temporary cost of their effect in combat can be rendered invulnerable with practically no effort (docking)?

Worse, how do you do so when the structure owner must field those same assets on top of the structure in question? Or is lopsided risk with all other things being equal including the will and force to fight not an issue?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#58 - 2015-09-01 08:04:21 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Honest question: How do you draw parity between one group with a costly, immobile asset and another with assets that potentially cost far less, can be highly mobile, and at the temporary cost of their effect in combat can be rendered invulnerable with practically no effort (docking)?

Worse, how do you do so when the structure owner must field those same assets on top of the structure in question? Or is lopsided risk with all other things being equal including the will and force to fight not an issue?
Parity? Eve is not about parity - it is about taking and defending what you can. It is about building sandcastles, and knocking them down, not about fair, honourable fights in the center of the sandbox. You don't get to claim the other side is more powerful or has less risk - what matters is that you are benefiting from something and thus have to defend it from all-comers - the risk and burden is on you. If you can't defend it, it wasn't really yours to begin with.

That said, structures are, and will continue to be a significant force multiplier. POSes are currently so strong probably to be unassailable to most normal forces - just go ask in C&P for a quote from a mercenary group to take down a large highsec POS and even if you find a group willing, the cost will be more than any reasonable value you can expect to get out of it. Without capitals, the tedium of grinding down a hardened, large POS is too much for anything less than many dozens of players.

That is part of the rational for the new structures using the entosis mechanic. Now you will no longer need to bring 30+ battleships, just one ship with an entosis module, but the now defender gains complete invulnerability 95%+ of the time. They will be only vulnerable a few hours a week, and the structures will have significant active defense that can be use to help your side maintain control of the grid. We'll see how they balance it, but I expect a couple of players in cheap ships, or even just one in the citadel, will be about to hold the grid and defend the structure against many times that number in attackers.

If you don't want, or are unable to take that fight with the odds so overwhelmingly in your favour, then you don't deserve that structure. That's just Eve. Make or hire some friends to help defend you. Or just let it explode - without bubbles and 24h notice you can evacuate most of your stuff, and the new citadels are even safer - and build another sandcastle when the dust settles. Let's add a new variant of the first rule of Eve: don't deploy what you can't afford to lose.

Making both sides want to use structures is the way forward to make wars more active and give both sides the ability to force the other to fight. Making it easier to force a fight and more costly to evade, but giving the defenders a massive advantage when actively defending, is the strategy CCP is taking to stimulate conflict.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Koebmand
Silverflames
#59 - 2015-09-01 08:24:03 UTC
Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote:
Im gonna tell everyone a little secret, You can reform a corp for about 5mil before the wars even start and just dodge them all.


I am going to give you a small list that is by no means complete:

Getting everyone in new corp, also those who only log in a few times a month.

Moving PoSes.

Industry jobs in PoSes.

Corp Offices.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#60 - 2015-09-01 08:32:16 UTC
Koebmand wrote:
Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote:
Im gonna tell everyone a little secret, You can reform a corp for about 5mil before the wars even start and just dodge them all.


I am going to give you a small list that is by no means complete:

Getting everyone in new corp, also those who only log in a few times a month.

Moving PoSes.

Industry jobs in PoSes.

Corp Offices.

Where did you get the idea you wouldn't have to defend your right to have those from?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=