EVE General Discussion

I see all the usual suspects are still doing their best to justify keeping a broken mechanic.

War declaration mechanics are a patchwork of patches. It doesn't work for either the oppressor or the defender.

The whole thing needs to be torn down and recoded.

Mr Epeen

I always wanted the defenders to be able to add others on their side.

PVE corp A gets war decc'ed and is just helpless victims.
One of them has a friend in low sec, they talk to the leader of low sec corp and they get added.
Now attackers are at war with PVE corp and low sec corp.

Then throw in the option for defenders to be able to extend wars for free. So, if the attackers are losing and want out, they have to pay a fee.

Additionally, if you are in a fleet or even some cases not, to be accepted into it, the FC gets a question, "X is at war. Let them in your fleet?"
If they do the fleet is also in the war temporarily.
If a random repairs someone in the war then they are temporarily in the war also.

This way you can't pick one out of a fleet, have to face all of them and you can get those pesky logi that seemed neutral also.

Disclaimer: Some of this might have changed, haven't been in a war that mattered to me for years.

I'd argue with you Mr. Epeen, but these analogies are hard to top.


Find myself laughing in a public place. Excuse me a moment.

Attackers in wars literally can't end a war without surrendering. And basically no attacker is ever going to offer a surrender.

Subsequently if you get wardeced you're going to be at war for at least a week, two if they've paid the bill for the next week already and you're not going to be able to reduce that by winning unless you're dangerous enough to seriously inhibit the general gameplay of the aggressor. Which you aren't because due to the massive increase in the base cost of wars and the hugely one sided ally system the only people who ever declare wars are people that the average joe can't even hope to beat and that expect to be at war with mercs much of the time.

Effectively the current mechanics have led to a meta where defenders are unlikely to be able to make a war end in less than a week by fighting, the best they can do is prevent a second week.

You think? you do realize many new players quickly join highsec PvE corps, right?

If that's what you got out of what you quoted... then you either didn't read it, or can't read.

Has the term emergent game play been used yet?

Whats clear here is that a lot of carebears who don't know how to do a thing, cross the rubicon into full ret@rdation by then asserting said thing is not possible.

(What I am alluding to here is that its actually very easy to survive during wars without getting zapped..)

So instead of following their EvE forebears and putting mind (and google) in motion, each new generation of fail-bears and pansies look for the quick fix to their 'meh effort' dilema, often choosing ever-fabulous forum wailing threads like this to whine for further nerfs to war mechanics.

That is not EvE. One could in fact say, that is the exact opposite of EvE.

Now let's be honest, these selfsame pansies that chip away at our HTFU traditions will not be happy until hisec is a 100% safe Disneyland.

Look at history. Nerfing can-flipping and introducting 'crimewatch' was Step 1. Nerfing wars further (and awoxing) is Step 2. Nerfing ganking further is Step 3..4..5 ad infinitum, until roses are sprouting out of Cannibal Kane's, Psychotic Monk's and loyalanon's arses instead of antimatter...

My friends, this water-torture of nerfs to hisec must simply be stopped, and a bullet put in the head (in game) of any who not only propose them, but who sit on the CSM and idly give nodding approval to CCP as they seek to make hisec wally-world.

And fail-bears, want to not die in hisec?

Do this. Then, understand how war agressors operate. That's it. Done.

There, no more excuses.

tldr;
HTFU, or GTFO.

F

Neurtral logi ought to be done away with, it just does not make sense. Aiding and abetting a suspect ought to make one a suspect. Aiding and abetting a War target ought to make one a valid war target as well. Interfering in a duel should not be allowed (I mean it is a duel).

Now on to the Ganker vs Bear debate that popped up on this thread, virtually all risk is on the Bears side and very little is on the Ganker side. This is because game mechanics allow the ganker to choose targets at will and there is little the Bears can do about it. Basically if a Ganker fails to get an isk efficient kill every time they choose to engage it is only because they screw up but the Bear's skills don't really help.

E.G. If a Ganknado shoots at a T1 indy and fails to lock in time nothing happens to the gate camp and therefore no risk, if the ganknado locks and fires and fails to kill in the alpha it is because they didn't bother to ship scan properly and decide whether to risk the shot or not, and finally if the kill fails to drop isk effiecient loot that is mostly because they failed to cargo scan properly.

The solution is not however to remove risk from the Bears side as well, but to increase the risk to the gankers. I think this can best be done by changing the kill right and bounty system to each other. The ganked get a killright and have the option to go collect themselves or give to a friend for vengeance (as they already can) however since Bears are... well Bears, they also ought to be able to sell the killright (again which already exists) to people who have the ability to collect.

now I know everyone is thinking "what a stupid noob, thats how it works already". I know that, the actual changes I propose are to allow a player to attach a bounty to the killright as it is sold, sell the killright w/bounty to particular individuals/Corps/Alliances (bountyhunters). This adds incentive (a possible 60m payout for the hull of a ganknado) to the current system which was lacking and would force Gankers to really watch their backs whenever they set up a gate camp. I think this will also improve the current bounty system by limiting who can actually collect the bounty (the problem now as I understand is that when your bounty gets sufficiently high one just has a friend collect it, that plus insurance money for the hull makes having bounties on you profitable)