I answered all your questions. You need to work on your reading and comprehension I am sorry to say.
Obviously you have a thing for me so lets get to work on your assumptions here that expose your game.
You cannot say that limiting wars to 3 without a war HQ and limiting it to 20 with a war HQ would not have an impact on blanket war decs. A limit is a limit. So would you think reducing the war HQ limit to 10 will do it? My objective is to make blanket war decs difficult.
Three allies that can integrate with in fleet, whereas now they have to be separate with no logi which we all know is how to win fleet fights. The limit is applied to the aggressor, so if people want to war dec the same defender, their loss in terms of targets. And allies are per war so you can have the same allies or different allies for different wars.
I do not believe that having war decs focussed on indy players only is sensible, especially as their skill sets do not necessarily mesh with PvP, people doing PvE content have a better skill set.
That is still there, destroy the war HQ and all wars drop including the 3 they would get without the war HQ and the one week inability to war dec applies. However adding restrictions to renewing the war or limiting them over time are all possible.
PS Just so you know, I know quite a few people in Initiative, and I would go as far as saying that they are one of the alliances I most respect in game.
Ganking is mainly carried out by a few psychoâs in certain areas, Uedema for example, plus a couple of other places along the pipe, this can easily be avoided.
Getting possibly wardecced by an alliance of hundreds or thousands means I could get hit anywhere by anyone in said alliance.
All thatâll happen in my case is Iâll log on an alt in an npc corp for the duration and just carry on regardless and the alliance/corp setting up the wardec will be out of pocket, every single time.
Many corps will do exactly the same, Iâd even encourage it to piss the whole wardec crowd off.
So for anyone reading this, get an alpha clone set up in an npc corp, just in case
Ganking is a highly efficient way to make ISK, perhaps the best way to farm in Eve, that is why some people decided to get in the way of it. Kusion is not a psycho for example.
If you mean a nullsec alliance, most of their people stay in nullsec, in fact you would likely get the better end of the deal with a lot of potential targets.
That is one way to do it, I would suggest that this would be a target selection issue of the people war deccing you. But have you ever thought about having fun getting in their way.
Many will, however in my own experience nothing upsets them more than you beating them.
Perfectly fine to do that, though I would suggest training up one of your alts and keeping them in an NPC corp.
Donât forget that this is aimed to reduce the size of war deccers and enable allies to actually help someone who wants to fight.
I have also been in sov null numerous times, been in big battles etc., I have done gate camping too, can be fun at times hunting or evading people but can also be tedious waiting around for stuff to happen. I quite understand.
I donât think that you would be severely impacted by the changes I suggested. I was all over the forums at one point, but hardly got any war decs and when I did most of them were useless hunters, I had one person, one in all my time playing that actually made an effort to hunt me and that was for one day only. Most war deccers are lazy because they hang around pipes, hubs and mission hubs, if you get a war dec do other stuff out of the way and let them waste their ISK if that is what you want to do.
I mentioned having fun because one war dec I got was because I was seen moving an Orca, so I just camped their Jita camping during their weakest time and reduced their kills because the one player active at that point was impacted by the threat I posed. I made that war dec cost them in lost kills and they ended it and did not renew, but I also made sure not to make it personal by killing one and rubbing it in.
People say you are powerless against wars, you are not, you can chose to be powerless, or you can chose to be a thorn in their side.
My intent is not to make your game worse by any means, I want to enable people to have better hisec wars with this and I do not believe that this suggestion would impact you at all.
I made the comment about Goons and indy because I was aware of certain comments made by a particular Goon player in the past that was the one behind the industrial development of the Goons and who was in the CSM.
Initiative are one of the alliances that I have the most respect for and I know quite a few people in that alliance.
It was done because of that indy focussed player who was a member of the CSM at a certain point of time.
I still did not see the flaws you suggested that there was in my suggestion.
You assume that I have no idea about war dec groups and their motives and style of play and how they are funded. If you want to think that then feel free. I know more than you think I know and I see no reason to explain it to you. And the thing you talked about I was aware of.
Of course that is not going away as such, but there are more targets and when you speak to certain war deccers you find out that many want to go back to small intense wars.
I think you are confused here. No idea what your point is? Perhaps I canât see it.
The problem with repping is likely due to the potential clashes with multiple wars and allies, which is why you need to restrict it in some way.
Ganking has itâs own drivers.
Which is why I am focussed on making the ally system work for them.
This is not about ganking, which is a tactic, or more like effective ISK farming.
There are a lot of pretend allies, we have allied with some people in the past. Ally selection should be like war target selection, done with thought and a relationship not merely accepting anyone like most are.
With a limit applied to the number of war decs people will have to be more selective with who they go after, that is easy to understand. As another poster explained he would go back to avoidance, which is fine, however we are looking at people who want to fight with allies that can add to their ability to fight, there are some around and that will improve the game.
Yes, quite. Itâs okay if you donât have answers on things you never considered. It happens to the best. Most people will defend their âideaâ to the end. Thatâs fine too.
As an aside, you did notice the little triangular button right above the quote in my previous post ? The tldr ? It contains the details and those were written for you. Took me some time to write it, too, but it was fun, and part of a discussion that I am interested in, Maybe it will explain a few tidbits here and there, you never know. You seem to have found it. Thank you for your replies to the details. Iâm not going to respond to those replies. All has been said that needed saying.
From your last reply I am starting to doubt you fully appreciate the current wardec mechanics and requirements. Attackers never have âofficial alliesâ, in the current state, only defenders do. The only way to have âalliesâ as an attacker is if your âalliesâ all wardec the same target. For each of those wardecs the âdefenderâ can have any number of allies (that is, if groups offer assistance in the war), that is the current state. So the advantage on paper is for the defender.
Your suggestion says:
while
tilting it heavily in favor of the attacker - theoretically at least.
Thereâs no denying. That suggestion is unbalanced. At least CCP (re-)designed the wardec mechanics with genuine concern for hisec in mind, and remedied the wardec mess that hisec used to be. Thatâs what your idea would lead back to. Letâs see if the CSM and CCP (in any order) support your idea for âsmaller warsâ with the inevitable consequence of straightforward ganks disguising themselves as wardecs.
I can already hear the screaming in the ice belts, those orca locust swarms ? yay. There is a certain nostalgic quality about Hulkageddon, isnât there. For the price of 100M, stop eating your heart out in HISEC, thanks to the no-structure-required, get free ore/ice and mods at the same time and give Concord the finger
Although Iâm not sure anyone else in hisec would appreciate this newer and more lucrative side of âindy ganking disguised as wardecâ, lol.
And that was just one tiny idea that spontaneously popped up. Iâm not going to reveal other fun activities that could be pursued âŚ
But ⌠if this discussion on wardecs could at least lead to an improvement of fleet mechanics in relation to CONCORD mechanics typical for hisec, (e.g. allowing for âalliesâ to be in the same fleet, get/give reps without limitations etc), that would be fantastic.
As an amusing aside, it was that same wardec mess that pushed the hisec section of my first alliance finally into nullsec back in 2011, where our pvp section had already joined Sev3rance (RIP, still love ya, -7- and Fury).
P.S. Thank you for this discussion, even though we donât agree on most points.
P.S.2 Why not simply increase the wardec fee to 1B. Wouldnât that shorten the list of active wars in those blanket wardecâer groups ?
I have never said that attackers have allies within the mechanics or will have in my suggestion, not sure where you conjured that one from? Only defenders can have allies within the mechanics.
The only way to have allies as an aggressor is for others to war dec the defender, and the key thing here is that they cannot act as one fleet and rep each other.
The intention is absolutely to turn the advantage of an integrated fleet onto the defender with their allies. Glad to see you got there.
Most wars are only one attacker against one defender who may get allies, there are certain larger wars that pull in many others, S.R.S would be an obvious example. But the focus is on smaller wars.
When you say it tilts to the attacker, they have a hell of an advantage at this point in that many of them are large and have fully integrated fleets which the defender and their allies cannot do, my suggestion is to change that.
My suggestion is to work against the current imbalance where the defender with their allies are unable to deploy an integrated fleet. I also want to see smaller war deccers creating smaller wars that maybe can be fought against and break up the larger war deccers.
Those ice mining Orcas will drop corp and then join an NPC corp like they did before. No one ganks them because they are actually linked to the main gankers.
I think the war dec system was doing the job in that it pushed people into nullsec, the alliance you were in obviously needed that push to get them (indy players) out of their comfort zone.
Thanks for that, it is the most important part, it is not that I have a dreamy thought that people will magically decide to fight back and create fun content, most wonât but the objective is to empower and help those that do, the current system is against that in my view because the whole focus falls on what are indy focussed players and they canât get effective help to fight back.
Thanks for the discussion, but I think we agree on the most important parts at least from my reading of your comments.
I donât think a monetary cost like that really works, all you do is push wars to bigger groups which makes the current situation worse.
Example: (which is possible currently and in your suggested rework). Alliance 1 wardecs your alliance. Alliance 2 wardecs your alliance (they are in coordination with alliance 1), etc etc. No, they are not âofficiallyâ allies via the mechanism. They act and coordinate as allies. They will put separate fleets on the grid, but still fight together (as in any nullsec conflict, if youâre familiar with those). Sure, coordination is sub-optimal via the UI. So FCâs operate several voice channels at once, to make the fleets work together. It is no different than making a joint operation in the real world, between different âforcesâ. There is a central coordination, and a dedicated chain of command. How do you think we brought down the TTT in hisec, or how the remainder of the Trade Consortium defended it ?! Each fleet has its own logi and boosts, goes without saying. Your structure is going down, in a nice ball of flames that lasts longer because of⌠well, hisec, so TiDi is terrible, because the servers are rather pre-occupied to check on every pilotâs âsecurity and criminal statusâ
I did see that, and is fully understood, I do not believe that you must put a block on how many wars an entity can have applied against it, however that may have to be applied.
The issue here of course is that the allies might not match, so perhaps the mechanic will have to allow the allies to fight against the other attackers while in fleet. There will have to be a point in time that the mechanic will say no to more war decs because of the possible permutations which the aggression system canât handle, when they allied with people that then war decced them, but I think the fleet at this point can be the driver. Or at least I think it should be.
It will be only an issue with large and XL which is why I made war HQâs medium structures only. But making the war dec cater for XL and large makes it not fit for what hisec wears really should be.
Ending the ability to put XL structures in hisec was the correct decision.
If I want to target your hisec ice mining farm (your harvesting fleets), and not so much kill your structures, my needs on the combat grid are tiny compared to what it takes to bring a structure down.
The motivation for simple wardecs is rarely the structures, but the activities and the ships that can be frozen or destroyed.
Destiny beat himself. But while we are mentioning Destiny we should explore what my proposal would do for that person.
Destiny is an effective solo war deccer, does tend to camp Amarr trade hub but does go out and about and blows up stuff. Destiny has made various enemies that make it impossible to put up a war HQ for any extended period. My proposal would benefit Destiny as he would be able to do three war decs without having to put up a war HQ. It is this type of solo and effective war deccer that my suggestion of not having to have a structure to do 3 wars is designed to help. I want people like Destiny out and about hunting those that have become their target, even those that annoy him on the forums.
Thank you for giving me an excellent example, a war deccer in such a poor situation that he could not even put a war HQ to war dec me and instead had to embarrass himself on the forums with his weakness.
I think that no corp should be immune from wardec. I have seen many instances where players should be punishing other players for acts of utter stupidity or aggression but are unable to do so because we can no longer wardec people, only gank them.
I wonder, though, whether the bit about âcomplexityâ and involving CCP in making decisions based upon it, is entirely feasible. No doubt, the actual decision will be coded into the mechanics on the basis of probabilities, but it still sounds very tentative.
Itâs not as if you have to present a fully worked out proposal; there are bound to be areas of murk, and perhaps those might attract comment from someone else here or on the CSM who can offer an opinion.
This is the real issue, it is perhaps the complexity of the aggression mechanics that made CCP decide that repping of allies in a war should be a criminal offense, though I would not rule out stupidity or lazinessâ.
Having done some programming myself I realise that the complexity of this is an issue, and I suggested that one had to make a decision to apply a block to the war decs or allying if it did create an issue.
However the most simple and effective way to deal with this is perhaps to, use the fleet as the driver for this decision in that once an ally is in fleet with a defender than all their aggressors are at war with you.
I cannot emphasise how important being able to have a proper fleet is to a defender and their allies, you know just how good the top tier war deccers are with their bling fits and large number of logi, and for CCP to make it so a defender and their allies cannot take them on as a group is just poor mechanics.
I would love a CSM member to think about this.
I do not flag those type of posts in GD or C&P, but I will do here, this is a features and idea thread and your posts are hiding the discussion points. Please desist here, you can blast at me in GD and C&P and I will never flag you there, unless of course you go way way over the top, but here I will flag off topic posts.
