EVE General Discussion

I will grant you this one....

A very simple solution would be, that the watchlist just works in HS. Titan pilots will not be so often in HS.
And if there is something to fight over I see no reason why it shouldn't be back. If the deccers needs to defend some target it will most likely end the blanket wardeccing because you would need to defend the target all day long = no ISK gain. Limit the time for non consensual wardeccs by doubeling the price each week after the second with a 3-6 month cooldown and most of the wardecc problems will vanish.
Wardeccs are a tools but they also have the ability to disrupt corp live so they have to be limited but not erased. They should focus on creating content and not being a license for robbery.

Aaron, are you back to smoking weed again.... You know it addles your brain and makes you come out with complete rubbish, and I giggled when I saw you start using I am a 2003 player so I know better rubbish again. Is that why you used an un-tanked T1 indy to move a Cynabal and it's fit and got ganked? Your powers as a 2003 god like being did not save you...

Lord Razpataz pointed out your watch list error and your attempt to hide it , but Aaron you remember KRULLEN Binazeski, well he is a 2003 player too and he confirmed to me a while back that the watch list and the free intel on the map existed at the start of the game.

The Structures would need to interact with the local network, so in hisec, lowsec and NPC null local is supplied by the Empires or pirates, in sov null sec people will have to have their own local using an OS. That is how I would get around capital watching in part. So the objective would be to place your own local OS in another alliances space, but I am getting away from hisec here.

Next part the vulnerability, as I wanted the watch list OS to create a point of conflict I would suggest that it has no invulnerability period as such being always vulnerable, but they are cheap about 100m would be fine. When reinforced it will shut down and have a timer to when it comes out, it does not fulfil its function when reinforced. There can only be one active in the constellation, more than one and they overload the network so only one can be operating at anyone time and one coming out of reinforced is set to idle. Multiple ones can be left in a system / constellation and they can be left idle until needed. They will need to be probed down. I think a constellation is a good compromise, a region would be too much coverage and a single system would be too small a coverage.

They would work at a corp level, but if you are a member of an alliance it will supply intel to the alliance, the OS will be linked to the corp, so if a corp does all your Watch List OS's and leaves an alliance the alliance loses that data.

Fuel I am so so with, having to fuel them will make people a bit more likely to be specific with them which is perhaps a good thing, but is a drag, CCP have to make their mind up on that one. On balance I would go with fuel, but don't make it too much of a pain.

The key objective for me was to give hisec players something to be able to get back at, my opinion has always been that conflict will likely happen around something that has value.

It was not so much a eureka moment, but the realisation that the best conflict is over something of value and it does not just have to be ISK value.


On the hisec indy corp, the Indy structures are very important, I know you won't agree with me but a base one that can be pulled down within the 24 hours of a war dec has to exist, but the advantages it gives on yield or whatever are not as good.

There should be better ones that give better yields and bonuses, but take time to pull down beyond 24 hours. My hope is that those will be conflict drivers on the other side, but are also a major loss with decent rig drops for you to benefit from.

And the indy structures only give benefits to the member of that corp.

No. This will not create a conflict point. What will happen is that the structure will be hit when the owner is offline. Once the strategy for this is perfected then anchoring such structures will be pointless.

There needs to be a vulnerability window that has a random component to it in terms of shifting the

Why not bind the Window where the wardecc is active to the time window of the structure? So while the wardecc is "active" you have to be able to defend the structure but you can also hunt for targets. Bring the structures shields down, 30 minute reinforcement, then you can kill it. This will give the defender time to gather a fleet. And this will prevent the deccer from choosing some AUZ time window because then he can't use the wardecc himself.

Shae Tadaruwa: EVE is more then just ripping of noobs or miners. There are other playstyles then just PvP and they are as valid as PvP because the players are paying the same as you and I. You are so angry because some game mechnic change might disrupt YOUR playstyle but you have no problem with disrupting the playstyle of others. There need to be a sensible solution that make wardeccs possible while not being too disruptive to other playstyles. A "I just want it all" is something my children asked when they were 3. What is the idea behind blanket wardeccing corps for weeks and month? Disrupting corps just for fun? Corps are designed to be a focus point for the players and not just another game mechanic. If a mechanic rewards corp changing something is wrong!

Pedro: Corp hopping will be a problem, right. You can bind it to the player. So if more then 10 player of a corp have the "flag" the price raises. It is checked when you declare the wardecc and when you enter corp. So the CEO can either refuse the recruit or pay a bonus to an exiting wardecc.

So here are many experienced Wardeccers. How many wardeccs did you have to end because the pressure from the target was to strong? I was told it is hard business so how many target really faught back and really hurt your corp?

BTW: I haven't seen any stats how many ships the deccers lost to a war compared to their kills. If wardeccing is such a hard thing you could surely show me.

The reason I suggested that was because most war dec entities have a wide TZ coverage, but it also pushes better target selection on their part.

"Wide TZ coverage" is an empirical question and penalizes those corps without it. Also, all structures in the game have a vulnerability window...you'll need a more convincing argument than this.

Additionally, the vulnerability window will, as you say, lead to better target selection or as I'd put it more precise selection. After all, I wouldn't just go deccing every other corp I see lest some of them are in my vulnerability window and they get together to start taking down my structures.

And that's exactly how it should be. The structure should be vulnerable while you can defend it and while the other players have a chance to destroy it. If you choose an AUZ time window you shouldn't be able to hunt at US prime.

I'm not a wardeccer. So your last sentence quoted there is a dumb assumption.

I agree totally that there is more to Eve than shooty, shooty pvp. But risk is an integral part of the game and in highsec, the only risk that exists is created by players.

That is part of what makes Eve great. It's not a game that wraps us in cotton wool and rewards us for everything we do. We don't all get certificates just for participating.

It's a game that creates conflict, that creates challenge and where that challenge largely comes from other players.

I'm all for more engaging PVE and improving opportunities for reward. Just not at the expense of reducing risk.

Remove wardecs all together. I could care less. But at least balance that by removing almost all reward that is possible in highsec too.

There shouldn't be a 'have your cake and eat it too' environment. You either fight to eat your cake (not necessarily by shooting, but by outsmarting and outplaying your competitors), or you lose it. That's what makes Eve great, no matter whether pvper or pve-er.