Its your usual tactic to pretend someone has not understood. But I have. You forget that ( unlike you ) I actually do wardecs and have actual experience. The last time I undocked wasn’t 2017.
So…lets unravel your claims…
The station owner has already maximised the risk by the very act of placing the station in the first place. Oh, you forgot that bit. You know…the ‘don’t undock what you can’t afford to lose’ bit.
But they already had their choice. To place a station or to not do so. You want them to be rewarded for the folly of placing a structure their 3 man corp cannot hope to defend ?
No personal responsibility in any of this ?
It’s ‘broken’ because the system allows people who haven’t a hope in hell of defending their structure to place one in the first place. Of course people are going to bash those. Why wouldn’t they ?
Right. That’s why my system would cause them to be war-eligible. And by your own statements, anyone who doesn’t want to be war-eligible is happy to sit in an NPC corp.
Right. So, CCP and other open-PvP MMORPG devs have already proven and stated that everyone attackable everywhere is terrible for the game. So you want to make it even worse.
Well done.
Dude, seriously, please don’t try to tell a programmer what programming is. I could code this myself in 2-3 months. It’s a couple interface changes, a copy-paste-edit of Air Opportunities, some Tracking copy-pastes, some Standings code copy-paste, and a few changes to Corp wallets. And some simple calculations at war end.
If CCP couldn’t turn this out in under a month then they need to hang up their keyboards. But let’s give them 2 months, so they have time to test it on SISI.
…of thing you introduce when you have systemic problems in your core system. The ideas are new so they seem “sweeping and systemic” to you, but they’re really quite minimal changes.
The effects are sweeping because it totally shifts the Wardec mechanic from “serial abuse of the very many by the very few with near zero risk” to “affordable wars with both sides having a viable shot at winning”.
That’s a big change, but not a bad one. Don’t be scared. It’ll be fun, I promise.
Thank you for making my point. 40hrs * 12 weeks = 480hrs. (i.e. “hundreds of hours”).
TBH, at this point, I don’t think I’d trust you with simple calculations…
Look, I can see you’re butthurt about me poking holes in your 27-step process to crack an egg. If I’d known you’d be so fragile about criticism, I wouldn’t have bothered replying (and I certainly won’t make that mistake ever again). But at this point, I think I’ve had all the interaction with you that I care to.
High-sec wardecs will never work until you apply similar conditions to Faction Warfare, ie: standings. This prevents “day-trippers” (null-sec, etc.) from getting involved as their individual (and averaged) Empire standings would prevent wardecs from going forward. No “skin in the game” = no seal clubbing.
Also note that you need to implement something similar with standings to be able to deploy structures in high-sec as well. An average of 5.0 standings with that Empire to deploy medium structures in that Empire space (only) and 9.0 standings with that Empire for large structures in that Empire space (only).
With this in-place you could then relax the wardec conditions of eligibility (at least from the target perspective - the attacker still needs to have a structure).
Gosh…as a wardeccer I have to say this is 99% a complete fairy tale you have made up. It bears no resemblance whatever to reality.
I’ve encountered numerous situations where members of the wardec fleet wanted ‘more of a fight’. Nobody’s ‘sneering’ anything. And in fact most wardeccers want resistance as otherwise the whole endeavour can be somewhat boring.
That’s what actually happens. But as you’ve never been in a wardec fleet…you wouldn’t know.
I think most wardeccers cast a wide net - hoping for that one diamond of a good fight amongst the rubble. I’m sure deliberate ‘seal clubbing’ happens as well, but I don’t think this is exclusively the case with all wardeccers. At least under the current system.
What I proposed is the same stepping stone. You want to wardec - fine. You first have to have halfway decent standings with the Empires that you want to wardec (aka: PvP) within.
If you don’t have or can’t maintain those standings, well - sucks to be you (no wardecs). Since most of the eligibility requirements for war targets have been removed (only the attackers need one structure), this is a fair tradeoff.
There is thus some “give and take”, ie:
• You have to have decent standings to deploy a structure (no standings, no structure)
• You have to have excellent standings to deploy a large structure
• You have to have a structure to wardec (ero, you need decent standings to start and maintain a war)
Nope. I’d cancel my subscription if that were ever introduced. There’s simply no way I’d put up with any PvP being gatekept behind some PvE activity. This is supposed to be a sandbox…and I’m already tired of all the CCP ‘content’ that makes it anything but.
I hate to burst your bubble, but probably 90% of the activity in this game is first and foremost - PvE. Ratting, mining, PI, industry, trade - all PvE. Only a very small % of players make their income solely from PvP - a much higher % PLEX their account and the vast majority PvE for income.
What are you doing in EVE right now? I’m hauling minerals… Unless we’re talking about the Tornados haplessly locking me on the Jita undock, in which case it’s PvE with a poor attempt (by others) at PvP.
More expensive? You mean a billion ISK each Wardec? Keep in mind how much ISK per day large corps make even in High Sec. They can afford a lot to harass a smaller corp. Especially if, like you suggested, each time they wardec, the smaller corp has to also pay a warbond.
Clarification: If the War Wallet is done correctly, then each entity one needs one War Bond at a time. When any given war concludes, any losses are deducted from the War Bond, and the War Bond is either auto-refilled from the War Wallet, or the corp suffers War Debt until the WB is refilled.
There is no need to post multiple War Bonds.
As for what you’re replying to, that’s a response to @Hatch_Nasty 's notion that all war problems could be fixed simply by making them much more expensive. Or leaving them the same as now, if the corps happen to be equal size.
Which addresses none of the problems with wars, except for mass wardeccing. But you should take that up with him if you think it’s a good or bad idea. And as you say, high ISK costs aren’t really a barrier to some corps.
