These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wars and structures
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sentenced 1989
#41 - 2016-10-12 15:00:48 UTC
I kinda like the idea and think it has potential, but some changes would be needed for balance (this is purely entertaining idea and adding points for both sides).

1) You should not require this structure to start a war - there should be max number which you can start before needing it, lets say 3-5 (less then 3 might be to little, more then 5 defeats purpose of number 2)

2) You need one structure (citadel) which is not located in wh space to raise it for another 3-5 (here is where scalability would come in play). When wardecing your target gets notification which structure is running as HQ for your war, removing it ends the war.
I am also pondering if this should be restricted to highsec and/or lowsec since wardec has only sense in those areas
Wormholes could be tricky to find aggressor and nullsec could enjoy security of big 0.0 alliances to defend structure.
Highsec offers easier siege for defender and lowsec brings issue of neutrals being able to target it as well but some defenders might not want to venture there

3) It would make sense to allow aggressor to pick which HQ is relevant for which war. You mentioned the need of regional HQ's, but that is complicating both on codebase for CPP and players (I can image lot's of playing on regional gate + I can image some aggressors running safety red, so you chase target, jump through gate and meet concord...)


With this your suggestion has a bit more substance. Small corps which have a reason to dec one or two other corps would be able so without much issues. Corps which wanna wage wars with lots of corps would need structures, would need to defend them, etc - giving chance to defenders to end it.

However, also keep in mind that this in the end just brings up the price to start war. Corps / alliances which lead lot's of wars could just align their vulnarable windows one after other so they have coverage and manpower to defend - but overall might provoke more fights since it gives objective to defenders.

The Incursion Guild

Epic Arc Guide
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#42 - 2016-10-12 16:39:26 UTC
I think 1 structure created by the war dec is a pretty solid idea. The more decs you carry, the more possible (not likely or plausible) it would be for the folks you have under the gun to gang up and topple you dec list. It would kind be like the snow flake principle. 1 snowflake is pretty and harmless, but when they all decide to gang up on you - the road gets treacherous. I like the 1 structure covering multiple decs. The balance would be that you would have to weigh out the who and how many end of the dec list you fund against those little snowflakes ganging up on your structure and resetting your dec list to ZERO. It's that kind of thought and consideration that would bring meaning back to HS pvp and remove the merc chaff from the merc wheat.


Here's a scenario I see playing out. The first time a reasonable force shows up to take down a player farming alliance dec structure, there will be a gut check by that alliances leadership. I'll be honest, of the player farming groups out there (like any group of people), some have moxy and will relish the content beacon, and some (the pure farmer and non pvper groups) will fold up like the cheap suits they are. There are several player farming groups out there that DO NOT in any way shape or form want adversaries that could shoot back and harm their little ships. You won't get any Serendipity tears if the posers get smashed out of the business.

The outcome: HS pvp heads back toward actual pvp. HS pvp fits evolve back into actual pvp fits (mids no longer dominated by sensor boosters). The big poser groups and individual poser pilots would go do something else less dangerous. The weak would be deleted.



Then again, until the Ally mechanic is removed there really isn't any mechanic that can't be easily over come. Getting rid of that rubbish needs to be the first step down the path to saving HS pvp. I used to lobby for a cap on the number of allies, but it is the major influence on HS pvp being..... not good.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#43 - 2016-10-12 16:47:49 UTC
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#44 - 2016-10-12 17:27:50 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false.
There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.

Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation.

Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides.

Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract.

But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting.


In a technical sense, true.

In a practical sense under the current system the agressor still wields the basic ability to end hostilities, since they're the entity that has the choice of docking up, presenting no targets, and still having the elective option of undocking at any hour of the day to go shoot up a structure.

Which is kind of the core of the idea of "make it so everyone has structures to defend" to even that out a bit and have central fight points that create fights.

Thought I'd clarify since this point has been a major element in at least my reasoning/pushing for the "use an existing structure or be forced to anchor a free one" approach.

But yeah, no, yeah, Wars over structures are extremely common. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either never owned HS structures or is being willfully obtuse. The entire existence of HS structures is counterbalanced by such wardecs.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#45 - 2016-10-12 17:46:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Donnachadh wrote:
You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true, ...

Here are the losses for the last 30 days:

Start: 2016-09-12 17:46
End: 2016-10-12 17:46

Customs Office highsec losses: 208
Caldari Control Tower highsec losses: 8
Caldari Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 6
Caldari Control Tower Small highsec losses: 21
Gallente Control Tower highsec losses: 1
Gallente Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 4
Gallente Control Tower Small highsec losses: 23
Amarr Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 2
Amarr Control Tower Small highsec losses: 11
Minmatar Control Tower highsec losses: 1
Minmatar Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 1
Minmatar Control Tower Small highsec losses: 5
Sansha Control Tower Small highsec losses: 1
True Sansha Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 1
Guristas Control Tower Small highsec losses: 1
Dread Guristas Control Tower highsec losses: 3
Dread Guristas Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 2
Dread Guristas Control Tower Small highsec losses: 1
Serpentis Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 2
Domination Control Tower highsec losses: 2
Domination Control Tower Medium highsec losses: 1
Domination Control Tower Small highsec losses: 1
Astrahus highsec losses: 12

Total losses in highsec: 318 (208 POCO, 98 POS, 12 Citadel)

That averages at 10.6 structures per day killed in highsec over the last month for POCOs, POS towers and Citadels.

There is nothing special about the last month compared to any other month from running the analysis against a couple of other 30 day periods at random.

My understanding of 'extremely rare' might be way off I guess, but 10-11 everyday on average doesn't seem rare at all to me. That's more structures killed in wardecs than the number of freighters lost to ganks in the same period (by almost 2:1).
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-10-13 07:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind.

Clearly not in the interest of real people though.

So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.

Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#47 - 2016-10-13 14:50:27 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

Your entire comments seem to be based on this premise and it is false.
There is NOTHING the defenders can do to end the war. Even if you undock a fleet and curb stomp your aggressors at every meeting the war still does not end until the aggressors want it to end.

Except, you know, surrendering or closing the corporation.

Which are actually the only mechanics either party can use to end the war early and both mechanics are equally available to both sides.

Also you're dumb. You just have to look at highsec structure kills on zkill to see that literally hundreds of highsec wars involve structures. Wars about structures aren't rare at all, they're actually extremely common and structure attack/defense is probably the single most common type of mercenary contract.

But please don't let facts or reality get in the way of your inane carebear ranting.

Speaking of checking your facts, may I suggest that you take your own advice.
Before I list these yes I am aware that this changes as new things are added to the kill list.
First structure kill in high sec was an MTU on page 3 but then they do not count since you do not need a war dec to kill an MTU.
That was followed by 4 photon scattering arrays on page 4 - all owned by the same corp and killed in the same system so likely all at the same POS. But she states that are large numbers of structure kills every day in high sec so I must keep looking. Well boredom set in about page 50 with no major structure kills. Lots of MTU and a small group of POS related add ons that are essentially disposable and easily replaced. Causes the critical mind to wonder, if structures are a major part of war decs why no POS or citadel kills? If you are going to war dec a corp because structures then why stop at killing small easily replaced items like photon scattering arrays when you could kill the POS or citadel? Then we look at the active wars in high sec and in just a minute or so count more than 150 corps that are under war dec. Using the total size of the list, the part of it that I looked at and then extrapolating we could easily have more 1,000 active high sec war decs and the two data sets simply do not support your claim that many / most high sec wars are about structures.

Surrender or disbanding corp, thank you for pointing out just another of the many reasons why high sec war decs are in a terrible place and need to be altered radically. Even though I agree with you that the aggressors should be able to end the war whenever they want by simply retracting the dec, both you and Ralph are wrong on one point. The aggressor can end the war by simply refusing to pay to extend it and no surrender is required. Yet none of this changes the fact that the defenders have no way to end the war other than surrender, even if you are curb stomping the aggressors at every encounter you are REQUIRED by the current mechanic to play under war dec, or surrender to end the war. Yes I know the whole disband corp and all the other dec dodges that can be used. Despite what you may think I would rather fight than dodge, and given the ability to end a war by fighting I would choose that option in most cases. However the current unbalanced system offers me no reason to fight, and it is often better not to fight because boredom. In my years in this game I have found that the average war dec player is very much like a person with A.D.D. they get bored easily and move on to something else so not fighting is often the fastest and easiest way to get them to go away and leave you alone to play the game your way.

You are wrong about the care bear thing, I simply have a more practical and well balanced way of looking at the situation and quite often that manifests itself here as a pro-carebear point of view. Speaking in broad general terms here carebears are far more likely to spend real life cash money to play this game while the more hard core low, nul worm hole players are more likely to plex their account using plex they buy from the carebears. I have always found this aspect of EvE interesting and to be honest a bit bizarre and confusing. Those who are most likely to pay with plex seem to think they are more important than those who are most likely to actually spend cash to buy those plex. Yes I know not true in all cases but I did say I was speaking in a broad generalize way here. If I was running CCP I would be taking high sec down the path that the money was leading me to and in many ways we have seen precisely that happening.

But then none of that really matters we all pay to play this game in some way, and we all have an equal chance to state our ideas and opinions and yours are no more or no less valid based on game play style than mine.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#48 - 2016-10-13 15:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
You can see representative structure stats for each month just 2 posts above, which specifically contains the data of the last 30 days.

I'm not sure what you're looking at in your analysis, but it doesn't relate to what Vimsy wrote. If you really want to do it manually, start with Customs Office losses:

https://zkillboard.com/ship/2233/

It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly.

As for the attacker being able to end the war anytime they can't, except only through the same mechanisms defenders have available - surrender or disband. Each wardec period is fixed at 7 days, so even if the attacker is curb stomped on day 1, they can't just end the war. Everyone still has to wait out the remaining time, even if they would rather end it immediately. The surrender mechanic is pretty silly in that regard as no one wants to surrender. An ability to retract/offer terms other than surrender would be good.

They can of course decide not to renew the wardec, which isn't quite the same as ending it at anytime.

That was specifically noted by CCP during their last wardec changes back in 2012:

Q: Mercs can't escape war?
A: That's true and the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of on a whim.

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/changes-to-war-mechanics/
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#49 - 2016-10-13 21:21:51 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind.

Clearly not in the interest of real people though.

So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.

Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.


This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window.

If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers.

You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment.

Because of the problem you just mentioned.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#50 - 2016-10-13 21:29:48 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind.

Clearly not in the interest of real people though.

So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.

Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.


This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window.

If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers.

You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment.

Because of the problem you just mentioned.

And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#51 - 2016-10-13 22:01:38 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind.

Clearly not in the interest of real people though.

So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.

Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.


This is specifically why the POS model of vulnerability is going to way of the dinosaur in favor of the citadel style vuln window.

If you're talking about structures of any type, the basic assumption should be that you're talking about structures with vuln windows rather than reinforcement timers.

You know, because reinforcement timers are a failed experiment.

Because of the problem you just mentioned.

And maybe you missed the part saying 'no vulnerability window' in Serendipity's post.


Didn't miss it so much as affirming/expanding on what you said.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#52 - 2016-10-14 11:11:23 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind.

Clearly not in the interest of real people though.

So the defenders, with no real interest in defending themselves just wait until their attackers are in their downtime and in bed, then just slink along like gutless carebears and shoot a structure that can't shoot back, just like some PvE activity.

Yeah, that's really in the spirit of pvp.



Don't be a boob and accidentally omit part of my quote. I brought it in it's full glory so everyone may see how you try to skew my post.

"Also, in the spirit of PVP, any war dec structure should be a lump of HP that says "come and get some". No citadels, no entosis, no 2nd and 3rd timers, no vulnerability windows, no max dps limits - none of that. This is about conflict - plant your flag and plant your feet with no complex or silly structure mechanics to hide behind. Make like POS mechanics with a 24 hour maximum invul period that can be adjusted by the owner to fit the time of their choosing. If you can't handle that - the war dec business may not be for you."


Obviously you are afraid or perhaps find determining your corps prime time to set the timer too daunting. I'll try to help you. Your prime time is when most of your pvp types are online to defend. I'll make it even easier for you. Make the timer like the POCO timer such that you can set it for a specific time of day in lieu of doing the math and figuring out how many hours.

Step 1: structure gets RFO at the time of choosing of the attackers
Step 2: invul period ends at the time of choosing of the defenders

Timer is 24 hours maximum - The group assaulting the 'war structure' shouldn't have to fiddlefuckaround over 3 days. Smash it and then smash it again.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#53 - 2016-10-14 13:15:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Scipio Artelius wrote:
It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly.

I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway.

And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated. I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared. We could have thousands of structures killed in high sec every hour and that still does not prove that those structures were the reason for the war dec, all it proves is that they like the other characters were victims of the war dec.

One of the other statements I made was that the vast majority of the wars are not about structures they are in fact simply buying a license to kill others (yes I am still OK with this aspect) and structure kills have no affect on this. So I do have a challenge for you, pick a 24 hour period and count the number of high sec corps that are defenders in a war dec. Then go back to that same 24 hour period and count the number of corps that lost a structure. When you do this as I have on many occasion you will quickly see how totally irrelevant structures are to the overall picture of wars in high sec.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#54 - 2016-10-14 18:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Donnachadh wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
It's pretty inefficient to do it manually, but at least you can easily see lots of highsec losses quickly.

I do know how to use zKill but thank your for the lesson anyway.

No problems. You seemed to be struggling. Based on your earlier post, it looked like you were manually clicking through all the pages on zkillboard through the UI rather than accessing the data through the API and downloading just what was needed.

Sorry if I got that wrong.

Quote:
And yet this whole aspect of the discussion does not invalidate the things I have stated.

This is where we might differ here.

Back on page 1 where I claimed the wardec mechanics are needed for 'legitimate' reasons, you claimed that as 'the great lie of war decs, that being that there is a legitimate reason to wardec another corp'.

In response, it was pointed out that that there is, the 'use of wardecs in order to attack POCOs, POS towers and other Corp level assets. All of which are absolutely legitimate reasons to use the wardec mechanics.'

You responded with 'You state that wars are fought over POCO's Pos etc and I am sure that there are the extremely rare cases out there where that is actually true,'.

So in response, the data clearly shows that it isn't at all extremely rare to use the wardec mechanics to attack POCOs, POS and other corp level assets.

It's extremely common and is not only a legitimate use of the wardec mechanics, it's an absolutely necessary one because the only other option is to attempt to gank them, which isn't a reasonable option at all.

Quote:
I did not at any point state that structures were not lost to a war dec, I stated that structures are rarely the reason why the war was declared.

No. As above, you claimed there was no legitimate reason to declare war on another corp and that the use of wardecs to attack POCOs, POS towers and other corp level assets is extremely rare.

If you look at the killmails tied into the stats posted above, you'll also see that it's not the big wardec alliances involved in most of those structure attacks.

However, if now you want to change this whole discussion to frame it differently and claim 'structures are rarely the reason wars are declared', then show your proof.

If you know this to be true, it must be based on something. Show us, because a detailed look at the killmails for structures suggests something different.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2016-10-14 19:03:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

By targeting the large groups, suggestions make it virtually impossible, or substantially more difficult for small Corps and single-character Corps to declare war against people they really want to affect for "legitimate" reasons. All the risk and expense is shifted to them as a huge barrier and the defenders still get to drop Corp, dissolve and reform and otherwise screw over the war.


Even a small corp should be able to scrounge together enough cash for a small citadel.

As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#56 - 2016-10-14 19:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Old Pervert wrote:
Even a small corp should be able to scrounge together enough cash for a small citadel.

Why should they have to put up, at minimum a Medium Citadel, in order to declare war against someone, or even so they could kill a POCO or POS?

Back in post 24, I included a very relevant example:

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/

We cover those losses through SRP, so no real issue for us, but huge respect to the 1 guy, new to the game, with no kills on his killboard, who rightly was ticked off because one of us was talking **** and decided he would do something about it.

In this scenario, he would first have to put up a Citadel, which we would just kill.

He wouldn't be able to do that.

The guy has extended the war into a second week and good on him for doing so. We totally deserved it (but will now respond to it so it doesn't continue).

Huge respect to him and what he is doing is perfectly fine. That shouldn't be essentially eliminated from the game.

Old Pervert wrote:
As for single player corps... Eve isn't a single player game.

Wars are not single player activities (there's always at least 2 parties involved), however a lot of single-character corps exist and a lot of players find solo play to be their preference.

Mechanics are essentially the set of rules we all play by. They not only serve to determine how the game behaves, but also to define the types of behaviour that are allowable or not.

When mechanics changes are proposed, should they reduce interaction between players? My view is they shouldn't. The mechanics should encourage interaction between players (or at least not discourage it) and then the extent of that interaction should be determined by the players through the choices and actions we take.

Here, the proposal to tie the ability to declare war, into a structure ruins the choice of a guy like the example above, just to restrict the play of the large wardec alliances.

It's not a balanced suggestion because it only serves to limit interaction through mechanics rather than player action and it makes certain, totally legitimate, play almost impossible. It also gives nothing back to the wardeccers for the additional requirements placed upon them.

There will be no wardec rules that everyone is happy with. If someone has a war declared on them, there will always be people that whinge and whine about how it is unfair. So the amount of whinging and whining shouldn't be a measure of the change required, since the proposals will always be magically in favour of the people that whinge.

Changes need to be judged objectively and for me, this current iteration on the structure proposal, still fails to deliver a balanced set of mechanics that allow us all to make viable choices.
Knight Jay
Doomheim
#57 - 2016-10-16 08:21:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Knight Jay
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here.
Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities.
WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups.
It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..

Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.

In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.

This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#58 - 2016-10-16 10:51:41 UTC
Knight Jay wrote:
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here.
Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities.
WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups.
It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..

Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.

In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.

This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target.

WTF are you on about.

Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting.

You need to drop the drugs.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Knight Jay
Doomheim
#59 - 2016-10-16 12:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Knight Jay
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Knight Jay wrote:
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here.
Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities.
WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups.
It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..

Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.

In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.

This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target.

WTF are you on about.

Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting.

You need to drop the drugs.




try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready.
People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea.
And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#60 - 2016-10-16 15:51:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Knight Jay wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Knight Jay wrote:
To throw a wrench in a large amount of peoples arguments here.
Wars should not be the domain of individuals or small entities.
WAR is WAR. In nearly every definition of war (do a google) it's carried out by nations or large groups.
It should not be the domain of single players or 3 men corps. And if the game is going to pigeon hole them into it they should not be fighting them on the same scale as an alliance of hundreds..

Small groups should be looking to other mechanics such as a new bounty/mercenary or kill-right system. And if small groups want to hit big groups they should be thinking more gorilla warfare with raids on their space or supply lines. Everything the op posted makes war's a balanced affair more inline with the spirit of armed conflict. The idea of tactical regional HQ's is fantastic.

In short. Enough is Enough from gankers and greifers. You have had over a decade of unbalanced mechanics. It's time for Eve to move on. Adapt or die.

This said. There is nothing to stop other mechanics being added to help balance a smaller corps war against a bigger one when it comes to defending their HQ. There are tons of idea's you could add to this core war and structure mechanic to not only balance it but make it genuinely the most entertaining gameplay in EVE. Ie: Minefields. deploy-able guns. EVEN allowing a HQ system to let a single carrier jump in and fight war targets there. If you have good NPC standings with your HQ systems NPC they will help defend your HQ. If you don't they may take the opportunity to attack it with their own dreads. Bonuses to mission lp or mining yield in the HQ system. Basically you can both make it purposeful for the defender to actually want to declare war and use the HQ system for "logisitc" as well as remove the genuine troll fest that is the current war mechanic where one group of players sits relatively risk free in a pipe system to Jita targeting everything juicy until they get chased off for 5min and they just clone jump to the other side of the map and do it to their other war target.

WTF are you on about.

Wardecs are only needed in highsec. Capitals can't enter highsec and those already there can't take part in any fighting.

You need to drop the drugs.




try reading. It was a possible idea!!!!! that one of these hq structure could allow a carrier in the highsec system with it. its called spit balling ideas. you know its how content creators start on a new project. get off your high horse this is a idea and suggestion forums. people make suggestions. They don't all have to be gold standard 100% ready game mechanic revolution ready.
People/player/devs could read them and go hey I really like that idea but lets take part A from that idea and Part B from that idea.
And they have already said they are considering capitals in high sec. Stop trolling because you dont want to lose your precious war dec ganking.

Oh god. Another weak minded fool. Pointing out a massive hole in your suggestion isn't trolling, though it seems your ego is a bit fragile, so let me say - yeah great idea.

Let's allow highsec to let capitals jump in, although they can't reach all systems in highsec, so your idea would require further changes to force projection...no issue at all.

Additionally, since capitals can't be in highsec and your idea is to allow a single carrier to jump into a system, only Corps that have capitals would actually be competitive in this situation. That requires them to at least to active in lowsec in order to stage this carrier....Ah, oops. That just totally screwed over even further, the highsec corps that continuously complain about wardecs. They don't have capitals. Damn.

Totally genius idea.

Also, I'm an industrialist.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."