That’s what they used to do before the watchlist changes.
They all used to fly all over the place hunting people who they were paid to hunt.
Now it’s just hub camping and pipe roaming.
It’s one of the reasons I quit the business a year ago.
Hunting was the more exciting thing you could do, be it solo or with a small gang, but nowadays that part is pure randomness…
@CCP bring back the watchlist, or at least give hunters a mechanic to be able to hunt again
You are dealing with a complex dynamic adaptive system. You should really not make such linear projections and call them reasonable.
The risk should come from those directly involved in the war. Wars are paid for in order for aggressors, defenders, and people assisting to fight.
Wow… you couldn’t even pull a whole sentence for your response this time?
The point of that fragment (which you removed all context from), was that the individual decision of attacking a war target would generate more conflict if a suspect timer was set than it does now for the person attacking. That’s not a complex system… that’s a linear result of an individual decision. The “more conflict” quote was specifically talking about the result for the person attacking, as illustrated by " (by making the aggressor go suspect when they attack a war target… allowing them to be targeted by whoever)"
You have a very intellectually dishonest method of discussing things on this forum.
Why?
I seriously don’t understand why you think it should work this way. It’s not a matter of choice… a corp doesn’t choose to have war declared on them. Why do attackers need to be guaranteed that only those they declared war on (or joined the war) might respond to their aggression? Other than the fact the attackers are risk averse in a different way from those they are attacking?
There’s is no guarantee on the aggressors side that other won’t join in. We have a mechanic for this. It’s called assisting in the war. Do you understand how that works or should I explain it?
This is why we keep having “one more nerf” threads. It is a fatal flaw and it doesn’t matter if I quoted more. You are making a serious mistake.
You think your suggestion will bring more conflict, but there is a hidden assumption in there, that nothing else changes. But we already know that is false, so you conclusion is now dubious.
It is not my fault you are using a linear approximation where it is totally unwarranted.
The problem is that you are implicitly assuming that the aggressors will not change their behavior to mitigate or even eliminate this outcome. One possible adaptation is to simply not aggress or even wage aggressive wars. In which case, you will not get an increase in conflict.
It is the same kind of mistaken thought process that periodically pops up in the AFK cloaking discussion. By making cloaks detectable it would increase conflict because people would go out and shoot the AFK cloaked ship. This is wrong in that nobody will AFK cloak anymore, so there would be no increase in conflict.
The problem is you are using a basic model of the game that does not accurately represent what is going on. People engage in this kind of simplistic reasoning and then are frustrated when reality does not work like their overly simplistic intuition suggests.
In short, you are being too simplistic and you are just wrong.
If I quote more or less that does not change this conclusion.
Or less. It could also result in many confrontations not happening, making wars even more boring, resulting in significatly less wars at all.
Or alternatively, mass war decers just focus effort and Jita gets even more of a "war dec griefing hel"l than it already is.
This is actually something I agree with you on this topic.
Make wars more meaningful and all parties involved will be much more inclined to actually fight back.
Given how many people go suspect for ganking and other activities,any do you think people will go after the war aggressors?
Not likely, but there are already existing mechanics for those wanting to jump in against the aggressors. No need to change that.
And agressors usually run away when opposition comes around (or/and they call in their merc friends to jump on the bandwagon)
It’s important to note that not all defenders are defenseless. A lot choose to be, and there are existing mechanics available for players that feel they need or want help.
You are taking a statement about the results of a decision (the decision to attack causing a suspect timer resulting in more conflict from that decision, and suggesting that I was making a prediction about how the behavior of attackers might change based on that.
You created that by selectively quoting what I typed.
I’m not sure if my post was confusing, if you are lacking in reading comprehension or if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent my posts to argue something other than what I was posting about.
I’ll try to make this very simple and clear.
By adding a suspect timer for a war aggressor attacking a war target, they will end up (on average) getting more conflict every time they choose to attack. It won’t always be more… but it will never be less.
Since I believe there is very little risk currently for those declaring war, I believe this additional conflict is beneficial.
I’m making no predictions on how wimpy those declaring war are. Perhaps they are so risk averse that some choose to avoid that conflict by not declaring war or by not attacking targets with witnesses around. I believe the benefits of adding more risk to their attacks (which currently have very little) are great. As many have pointed out, the fact that eve is NOT safe and free of conflict is a good thing. That applies to those declaring war against industrial corporations as well as the members of those industrial corporations.
You seem to have a very one sided and… dare I say… simplistic view of the game. You seem to believe that risk of consequences from conflict should apply much more to those who are having the conflict pushed on them and very little to those pushing the conflict (and thus choosing the engagement). I disagree with that on a philosophical level.
The risk is there, sorry. The fact is that what you perceive as a lack of risk really is the fact that there isn’t a whole lot of people that wish to directly engage in war targets. Aggressors undock and fly ships and those that sit here and complain like you don’t do anything to punish them for taking said risk of undocking.
Please tell us what your philosophical beliefs are and how they can be applied to a video game. There’s a food chain in this game and players that choose to whine and decide to be a victim rather than actively doing something about it are bottom of the barrel here.
I have pointed out before that there currently exists a mechanic where players that with to join in against an aggressor. It’s really simple and only takes a few hours from the time your assistance request is put in. Then you can make those risk averse war dec corporations wish they never would have undock, right?
No. The fact that you’re here coming up with unnecessary ideas for features says all too much about your attitude of being at the bottom of the food chain. You have no interest in doing better for yourself. You want those that infringe on your gameplay to be punished by other players anytime they go to a gate and attack something.
You too have a very simplistic view of the game. You assume that people will attack a suspect, yet this does not happen. I’ve seen ample suspects fly through major trade hubs with no problems.
On the other hand, merc groups employ neutral logi ships constantly. They do so to hide their numbers and to bait people into attacking. Yet when you rep someone with a limited engagement timer (which the neutral logi do) you get a suspect timer. Do you know how often those neutral logi are engaged? Rarely. So you want to add a mechanic that will rarely if ever be used.
Yet, the risk to an aggressor in a war dec is partially covered by the cost of the war dec. The aggressor pays in the hopes there is a target. If the corp disbands, the isk is lost. So where is your suggested change to this aspect of declaring war? There has to be balanced and you favor adding to the risk of the aggressor, so would you be willing to see a drastic reduction in the cost of war decs to cover this change?
A reduction, yes. Drastic? You yourself were saying this would have a very limited impact. So a limited reduction in cost would seem more reasonable.
Part of what confuses me about those talking about this issue is how they contradict themselves (often in the same post). They’ll say that a suspect timer would have no impact because people don’t attack suspects all that much now… then they’ll talk about how adding a suspect timer would reduce the number of people declaring wars or attacking once wars were declared.
I’m fine with people saying it’s an change that would have no impact and isn’t needed. They may be right in that it would change little.
I’m fine with people saying that it would cause a drastic decrease in wars. They may be right… it could swing things more than I think it will.
I have a problem with people arguing both will happen. I can’t see how that would work.
The biggest question is… why?
Why add a suspect timer to the aggressor? They’ve paid for a war and legal aggression in highsec. There’s nothing criminal or suspect about what they are doing.
I have already stated many times previously that if you wish to engage in pvp against someone that is involved with a war, you’ll either need to ally in on the defenders side or get them to duel you. This isn’t about people that may or may not shoot at a suspect. This suggestion is completely based on the fact that you think that all defenders are helpless beyond belief. The ones that are in over their head, they can easily find plenty of people to help them via assists.
The risk for aggressors already exists. You just have to stop being bad / lazy long enough to punish them for it.
500 active wars? Really? 99% of which are completely randomly put on corps with players that want no part in pvp?
insert: ‘welll… you consent to pvp when you undock…’
These players dock up indefinitely, find other things to do, other games to invest in. It is undeniably a fact that this directly effects player retention.
If you think you are so badass and need to prove you are elite, then go do it against someone who wants the same. If you have a legitimate cause to bring a wardec on someone, then so be it. But to just station camp, instalock and blap… have some pride ffs. Grow a pair and find a fight, don’t buy a cheap slaughter.
But I think you can see how both could happen because it’s part of the very nature of why you seem frustrated with the current system.
See, there really are 2 groups who declare war… Mercs who do it for fun and/or profit, and those non-merc corps who use the war dec tool to achieve a specific end. They are distinct groups. There’s a difference between say Marmite Collective and PIRATE who want targets for content itself and Morskoj Heavy Industries who are trying to take POCOs from an Indy rival and eliminate that rivals citadel to keep manufacturing index costs down.
Now if you add a suspect timer to a war aggressor, I believe it will have no impact on mercs but will drastically reduce non-merc corps willing to use war decs for their needs.
For mercs, they already expect war and generally have many active. They understand gate mechanics and how to use Jita population limit to split an enemy fleet. They know how to play station games and talk to other merc groups. If your suggestion was implemented, most likely, they wouldn’t care. If attacking in a non-trade hub, they know few will join in the fight and already deal with suspect timers since they use neutral logi. They will blue each other up in jita to avoid any major loss and it really won’t change anything for them at all.
On the other hand, the non-merc group will declare war less. They won’t want the perceived added risk. They won’t want to chase a target’s freighter into Jita because they know that every trade hugging merc will come running to the gate to kill the suspects. The non-mercs won’t always want to go kill a poco or citadel because that group one system over is a Marmite fleet that is just waiting for them to go suspect and score easy kills.
Unfortunately, there is one war dec mechanic and it has to cover both groups. So it is possible for a change to impact one group negatively and not another group. And may be the fix lies somewhere in that aspect… Maybe corps could declare merc status to see a reduced war dec cost at the risk of going suspect when attacking a target while non-mercs could stick to the current system. Still, it is possible, when a mechanic impacts many groups, that a change could easily benefit one group and drastically harm another, even when both groups could be viewed as the aggressor.
Who has 500 active wars?
This is EVE. You’re playing a pvp game. If you want a friendly farming simulator, I might recommend you play World of Warcraft (on a PVE server of course!).
lol