Look, that is not how EVE works. It’s a dysyopic place and well… You don’t need a war dec to do what you are stating. They could do that with a thrasher and just accept concord losses. Marcs do what they do because they want to be mercs. It is the role they like and want to play. And they want content too. The main way to get any, especially when there are no legitimate merc contracts, is to war dec the world and see what happens. And the reality is, the loss of the watch list made the blanket Dec one of the few options.
Now I’m not saying bring back the watch list. It had issues. However, CCP should have at least made locator agents state if a target is actively logged in or not so you don’t fly 20 jumps just to find the target isn’t even online.
People complained about the ‘free intel’ that they thought the watchlist brought, but the truth is that it was equally beneficial for the hunter and the hunted. If you were pro-active enough to add your hunters to the watchlist, you could see if someone that could be a potential threat was online.
The #1 issue with the watchlist is that CCP had the logserver in our possession that could be abused the way it was. The watchlist was instantly jerked out of our use the moment it was posted on Reddit about how it was being abused to hunt Super & Titan pilots, where a fleet of people would remotely get a ping for them that content had just come online.
So why didn’t CCP just decide to fix the issue with the logserver instead of the watchlist? Lady Ayeipsia is 100% right about the watchlist removal being the #1 contributor to mass wardecs and hub camping. The time invested to do any kind of hunting regardless of what space you live in is just miserable. To be fair there are still people that hunt and all that, but they are doing so by using an unintended workaround to see if people are online.
I am 100% saying bring back the watchlist or some other kind of mechanic / feature that allows us to tell if another specific player is online.
I’ve thought for a while that wardecs shouldn’t be paid by ISK, rather a set number of LP bought charter shares. Change in payment model compels wardec groups to become mission bears themselves–putting more assets out in the open to attacked by other wardec groups.
Charters become corp shares upon purchase by any member of the corporation. By this mechanic they can’t be sold on the market, but corp directors using them to place ‘votes’ on corps to attack thereby ‘spending’ those shares. If you dissolve the corporation you lose any shares stockpiled.
Types of mission LP for wardec payments:
Concord LP Charters (covers entire cluster and requires more LP)
-200 Concord shares initiates a war declaration cluster wide on designated target.
Empire/Faction LP Charters (covers region control by that empire/faction and requires less LP).
-100 Faction Corp shares initiates a war declaration in that faction corp’s region.
Share Charters are purchased for 1000 LP each. Corp shares expire every 90 days.
You forgot: 'insert: ‘welll… you consent to pvp when you undock…’
At least be consistent and recognize that you are as predictable as the rest of the leets in the game. Also, you like to follow me around. I’m flattered.
Interesting idea, but would allow gaming. They can just mission running alts or ransom mission runners for their LP in order to pay for wars. I actually like the idea! Gives me something new to ransom!.. but yea, it’ll be useless since it can be gamed.
I actually have no idea who you are and don’t remember you posting before. All of the people like you kind of blend in together in a heap of pathetic after a while.
These charters are instantly converted to corporation shares, a non-physical item. The ‘give shares’ function on these type of corp shares would be disabled. If the corporate is dissolved any shares stockpiled would vanish. Wardec actionable corp shares are universally wiped the same day for everyone in increments of 90 days to prevent massive stockpiles (i.e. January 1, 2018 then again on April 1, 2018 etc etc.)
That’s the trade off of the mechanic I am proposing. Either they mission with their mains or alphas or recruit people to the corp to build LP, but they all do so within the corp that they want to launch wardecs from.
This approach provide ample undocked counter-play opportunity for attacks while someone is in a krab phase to earn LP.
I am pointing out that you are assuming the decision will be made in a way that suits your argument. I am pointing out that the players actually have a choice there, indeed, many choices and options in terms of strategic and tactical behavior and that your conclusion is no sound.
Suppose I write:
Given that Bob attacks Sue, then Frank and Joe can join in.
Now, that might be true given the mechanics change you are recommending.
My point is that I’m calling into question the part that goes, “Given that Bob attacks sue…”. One way to approach this problem is for Bob to NOT attack Sue. In which case there is no increase in conflict. Further, you are assuming that Frank and Joe are going to attack (which they must if conflict is going to increase). What if Bob changes his tactics so that Frank and Joe do not want to attack? Again there is no increase in conflict. In economics this kind of assumption is called ceteris paribus which means, “all other things the same, or unchanging or constant”. All other things are not constant so you should be careful saying it will promote more conflict.
I know how your suggestion works. My point is about the dynamics.
As I noted one solution to avoid this “war against all” would be not engage in wars of aggression, if this actually obtains then it would be less conflict.
This is essentially my point. You are assuming nothing else changes including player behavior. That is a very bad assumption and why so many of CCPs attempts to get to a given outcome have fallen on their face.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? If they do “not declar[e] war or by not attacking targets with witnesses around” that would be less conflict.
This is how it would be done:
Find someone with LP, let him join corp, buy charters, leave again.
In the end, it’s only a matter of Isk and additional effort without any added value in game-play.
I do have some sympathies for the general idea of tieing wars to the faction’ space you are fighting in, though.
Yes, the risk is already there. Unfortunately, in most cases it’s rather theoretical than actual, because there is no incentive for the attackers to pro-actively pursue targets and leave their comfort zone and even less incentive for the defender to fight back (again: there are exceptions and yes, the means to efficiently pursue targets are missing).
The cost for a single wardec is not a relevant sum. Also, losing the money is not a risk, it’s a certainty, no matter the outcome. I you are satisfied with the outcome, is a different matter, though. But one, that can be easily influenced by choosing the right target.
I tried suggesting that all the NPC corps be in perpetual war with a diametrically opposed NPC corp, so that even in an NPC corp you must still be diligent, despite immunity from wardecs.
I was surprised how much resistance it got from players whom I would have expected to support mitigating safety of NPC corps.
On one hand people seem to want more conflict mechanics in HS, but on the other, paradoxically, dont want NPC corps to be targets.
This would be very much like faction warfare - just without the farming - and definitely target a lot of new and unexperienced players too. Sounds a lot like infinite, easy kill mails, if done right. Take a look at the zkill link to get a glimpse how this is currently done in FW: Take a look at : https://zkillboard.com/character/1696486388/
Lore wise, it would only be logical to have npc corps from different allegiances fight each other in all areas of space…
It would mean people in npc corps would either have to work together (ermahgerd teamwork) or leave in some player corp
And small psa: wardeccers won’t bother deccing some random 6-man corp unless they manage to lose some expensive ship to pirates or whatever… and even then there’s plenty of ways to avoid those
That’s not really true. I had a wardec against my alt corp (around that size) a few weeks ago just for having a character in local around Jita. A friend that flew the same way at the same time (also small corp) also had one a few minutes later. Both corps had no track records of easy or expensive kills.
I checked the list of active wars from the aggressor and they were just starting to stack war decs and they were just declaring war on (nearly) every corp passing by, no matter if 3 or 300 men in corp
Avoiding a random wardec is not that easy. Avoiding the consequences is.
