I never said anything about NPC empire building, but since you bring it up you are playing an MMORPG…so there is story line elements through out the entire game.
Since i dont see anyone else jumping into our little side discussion here…I did say publicly if anyone wanted to entertain my thoughts on this matter…is this you implying that you r willing to do just that?
Meh…there’s nothing said here that can’t be said better with a few rounds of antimatter.
hmph, ok I take that as, a no you dont want to hear my thoughts…
Also
is such a cop out defeatist closed minded attitude.
Have a good day o7
And that’s YOUR obsession. You chose that. Good job. Grats… umm… well done? Slow clap? I’m not sure if you’re waiting for applause or for everyone to start playing like you do.
Sigh. I was merely responding to Max saying I only do this or that, and pointing out that I do a lot more.
Many are, indeed. Thats the reason why EVE was for a long time (and still is) a game that is despite it’s great concept and solid lore a niche game. It simply isn’t attractive for a wide audience because many of it’s mechanics are way to complicated, there are too many exceptions, too few intuitive gameplay.
But your idea of wardecs isn’t just “declare war, attack something, poof done”. And thats my point. You can’t make people watch explanation videos or read some pages long wiki articles to understand the concept. Thats unattractive. Simple rules are the key to be attractive to many players, the old saying goes: “Easy to learn, hard to master!”, thats how good games are made.
Thats roughly the price of a fitted battleship with a reasonable pod. A whole corp that cannot afford this, probably isn’t ready for a war anyway.
Quite the opposite, thats exactly how good games are made. It’s called monitoring and balancing. If the players use a mechanic in a way the developer doesn’t like, he tweaks around to make those usecases less attractive, less lucrative, less effective unless the balance he desires has been found.
That is an illusion. The devs aren’t waiting for a “complete concept” that they can then “implement”. They will never do that. At most they will take some key ideas or listen to some key problems, but the implementation will be done by themselves as they see fit. The more complex and detailed you make some proposal, the less the chance any dev will take time to even read it. Believe me, I worked with Blizzard Entertainment in the early 2000’s in their community feedback team when the early stages of StarCraft Broodwar needed lots of balancing before making it the basically most successful RTS of all time. Game developers never want the players to construct their game for them. They want short, precise problems to be pointed out and fixes suggested that could probably solve those problems with as little effort as possible.
So trust me, if your main “concept” is more than half a page long, chances that any dev will ever read or consider it goes down straight to zero.
But yes, it really is, post warbond, declare war, attack targets, done. And for the defender it’s post war bond, war gets declared, pick some options from the Air Opportunity interface, members see their War Actions available and decides to do some of those or not. Poof done.
That is literally all there is to it from the participant side of things. Everything else is transparent tracking and calculations done by CCP, visible in the War Report.
Yes of course, I literally said it is a sample proposal to show how you could achieve things like defender agency and give defenders valid reasons to participate. Which is literally what CCP asked for:
As I said, your “high cost/limited number” proposal would only cut down on the scale of mass wardeccing, and people would likely get around that by using multiple deccing corps and then allying up.
And as far as CCP is concerned, they probably think they’ve already solved that one. If you don’t want to be mass wardecced, you don’t put up a structure, you don’t become eligible. They gave people an easy out. If you do put up a structure then obviously you’re fine with being wardecced (from CCP’s point of view).
Mass wardeccing is a problem (which they think they’ve already solved), but it’s not the problem. The key problem with wardecs is there’s generally no reason for defenders to participate. CCP probably thinks they solved that one too, by putting expensive Quantum Cores in citadels “so they have a reason to defend it”.
But a quick review of stats show the situation hasn’t really changed. It’s still a few corps wardeccing a lot of targets, few of whom fight back. CCP likely just shifted the scale of the problem a little.
Tell me what part of your proposal encourages defenders to participate in the war and I’ll be happy to look at that. That’s really the only thing that’s been missing from wardecs from day one.
Fine. They already pointed out the problems (small numbers affect huge, defenders don’t participate, defenders stop playing). My ‘main concept’ isn’t half a page long, it was stated multiple times:
For short ‘fixes’, here you go:
Your ‘fix’ does nothing to address defender agency, activity or retention. It only limits scalability and cuts rewards for the attacker. Let us know when you’ve got something that encourages defenders to actually participate in wars.
Because thats the only one that will ever work.
Those who get wardecced in EVE simply don’t want to fight. And no matter how hard or smart you or CCP try to make them, they won’t do it. And if you push it too far, they simply stop playing and paying. It’s not a matter of mechanics or motivation or oppotunities. They simply don’t want to shoot others.
Nothing you can design will ever change that, you can only chose to either include those people, then you have to protect them from being farmed over and over again. Or you exclude them, saying ‘well, wrong game for you!’. Then you can simply keep the current system, it’s at least very clear.
Which is exactly why I gave them options to pursue the war that don’t involve fighting.
Yes. Hence why I say they need options that make sense to them on their own terms, in their own chosen playstyles. Which is why I explained the proposal fully because people like you and CCP seem to think you can just keep removing options from the game and it will somehow ‘fix’ things.
There’s no ‘protection from being farmed’ here. I see that you don’t get it, and of course CCP doesn’t get it, but it’s possible to reframe gameplay problems by giving people more options and more agency that makes sense to their own view of the game.
Wardecced corps have the same two options now that they ever did, and your proposal doesn’t change that: Quit playing, or feed the trolls.
My proposal adds one more option to that: beat the wardeccers by playing your own way, the way you’re good at. Don’t ‘fight’ them on their ground, choose your own.
That’s the only new concept here. Defender agency and choice. Give defenders the opportunity to make their own interesting choices instead of just being forced into another losing battle.
People have a hard time wrapping their head around new concepts, no biggie that’s normal. But there are ways to give defenders more options that make sense to them on their own terms. This was just an example to get people thinking along the lines of how that could be done, rather than simply being blind to the possibility… as has been the case since wardecs were introduced.
Wars will never be fixed or fair, its the nature of War. Wardecs in Eve will only be considered fair if both sides, the aggressor and the defender agree to the mechanics which will never happen. 99% of wars in hi-sec are where the aggressor is the bigger alliance/corp and any mechanic implemented will favour them. Therefore the smaller alliance/corp that is the defender will never agree to any form of war. I pretty sure its been mentioned before but the majority of war decs are made by the bigger corp against the smaller one as its safer and easier to bully them.
They’ve already participated by the very act of placing a structure. You keep trying to paint the wardeced party as some poor unsuspecting ‘victim’. But any such party would know full well that the placing of a structure opens them to wardecs.
It is your anti-PvP stance that places any of this as a ‘problem’. Instead of asking why a party that cannot hope to defend a structure even place one in the first place, and placing any responsibility on that party, you go straight into the attack on wardeccers as the nasty aggressors.
It is the complete lack of any nuance that I object to. It isn’t the wardec environment that is one sided…it is your presentation of it.
Don’t anchor a structure that you can’t defend. It’s that simple.
/thread
High-sec structure = seal clubbing. It doesn’t get any simpler…
1st thing that should be done - is the Devs turn back on the need to have Faction Standing for the Security Status of the System you want to anchor in. (for PoCo’s and Upwells) this would affect LS and HS (Empire space)
2nd thing - Add starbase charters back as fuel req for ALL player structures, at 40(large tower) per hour minimum, that would be 960 per day.
3rd thing - Add/Create an ADM system for Empire Space similiar to what null has/had, you need to mine or Kill rats enough in a particular system, essentially have enough Points accumulated on top of both 1 and 2 to anchor and maintain a structure.
This way those that really really want to go for “Empire Building” play style can do so…and those that dont…well have fun with your social corps.
If you want to reward the attackers with loot, money, prestige, and slave girls, you have to make it difficult for them to destroy a structure. Adding on taxes for the defenders and lowering PvE payouts because they failed or avoided PvP isn’t the way to get defenders to defend a crap structure against overwhelming odds. It just makes them quit the game.
If you want defenders to participate then you have to offer them something more than higher taxes and lower payouts if they run and hide. Give them a stronger structure. Make that damn thing defendable. Right now, it’s super easy to use a Cap Neutralizer on it which ruins its defenses. Change that. It’s a station. I can store X-large ships in there, but I can’t give it spare Capacitor cells? I should be able to load it up! It should have enough capacitor to shrug off any shipboard neutralizer.
Give it drones. Give it the power of a dreadnought with the ability to also track small ships.
You said it in your proposal that structures should remain the focus, but you said nothing about how disposable they are. No one is going to defend a disposable structure against overwhelming odds just for lower taxes. They’ll sacrifice it and build another. No small force is going to go up against a hoard of cheaply fit PvP ships when they’re outnumbered 10 to 1. You mentioned tasks and those tasks will be done if they don’t involve going against a well organized large fleet of disposable ships.
The strongest incentive to make War Decing worth it is to actually have something worth defending. You could just leave everything and give a participation trophy, but it would have to be a big one.
It has to be possible to break even. If the reward doesn’t cover cost, it’s not worth it. From the attacker’s standpoint, the structures pay out WAY more than they cost to destroy. They’re called Loot Piñatas for a reason.
They’re disposable. I can lose the one we have and build a new one without breaking the bank. Why defend it? Do you see corporations defending their Venture ships? No. They’re disposable.
Structures make money and then if they get war deced, most corporations are anchoring a new one somewhere else even before the first one is destroyed. Attackers think, “Yay! We blew up there POS! We rule!” without even realizing that the defenders have already resumed operations somewhere else with very little lost time.
In fact, there was recently a complaint about that on Reddit. Someone was complaining about how easy it is to simply build another structure.
/Thread
-From the Eve is dying thread but it matters here also-
I remember sitting outside Dodi with my boys at war. There were many small gangs to worry about and even the small indi corps had teeth when they got pushed. People grow balls when they realize its only 4 dudes on single accounts they have to prepare for. War Hqs are the reason you all in highsec had to deal with posers like SRS who only had 5 people using 10 to 15 accounts each as the bottom entry point to real pvp. They paid for it all with a Visa each month and couldn’t do anything but sit on a citadel with mulitiboxed Paladins. As long as war hqs exist, this will be the entry point to pvp other than ganking. And just in case you dont read my other posts. Even if you do manage to fight 50 paladins as a base entry level… you still only get to exist by permission from those up the power pyramid. And at the top is nullsec blocks who dont even fkn live in highsec.
All you’re saying is you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the proposal. That’s ok, it’s a couple pages of stuff, not everyone is going to take the time to read it and think about it.
Your error here is that you appear to be focused, for some reason, on how the attacker would be advantaged and the defender ‘punished’. It’s misguided because this proposal directs many advantages away from the attacker and gives them to the defender.
First, it doesn’t only “reward the attackers with loot, money, prestige”. Both sides have roughly equal opportunity to gain all those rewards. Current wardecs effectively only reward the attacker, who is the only entity likely to get loot drops and structure kills. My proposal puts ISK in the pool which either side can fairly win, and the defender doesn’t even have to do combat to do it!
Second, it doesn’t “make it difficult” for attackers to destroy the structure for defenders who pay the 5% tax… it makes it impossible. Only non-war eligible defenders pay 5%, and so their single structure is safe from attack.
Only defenders who do not want to participate at all pay a very small 5% tax on very few activities. You say “if you want defenders to participate then you have to offer more”… which is exactly what I proposed. Participating defenders get the ability to earn substantial bonuses and war bond payouts, and they don’t even need to risk combat ships to do so.
I agree that current structures are under-defended, but this is a pipe dream. Making a structure ‘more defendable’ only means it will take a somewhat better fleet to smash it. No structure in the game has ever been unbreakable, that’s the whole point. And no matter what you do with the structure, no 20-man corp is every going to defend it from a 300-member war corp.
I literally said the exact opposite. Did you even read it? Are you confusing it with something else?
True. Which is exactly why I structured the proposal precisely so defenders can win the war without engaging in combat at all. Again, it seems you didn’t read more than a couple sentences of the proposal, and apparently misunderstood those. Or are trying hard to misrepresent them for some reason, it’s hard to tell which.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. Defenders choose their own task lists, they don’t need to fight the attackers on the attackers strong ground.
This is exactly why CCP put big expensive Quantum Cores in structures, which you want removed. (Another pipe dream BTW, those are there to drive the fights in low, null, and WH space where 3/4 of all destruction occurs.)
The strongest incentive to defenders is to give them a viable chance to win against a larger PvP-focused attacker. My proposal gives them viable actions and viable rewards. “Make structures stronger” only means a more expensive killmail at the end, it gives them no chance to actually gain anything. There’s no ‘gain’ for the defender in fighting endless wars just to protect their structure.
Yes, that’s why my proposal gives them actual payouts and rewards. What does a defender gain in your “make structures super strong” scenario? Zero. Zip. Zilch. They have to fight a war and lose ships for no possible gain. And when it’s over, they have a brief period before they have to do it all again. That’s senseless, and it’s exactly why defenders opt out of the game.
Before you come back with another 5 complete misconceptions about my proposal, don’t you think you should finish reading it first? Here’s a link to make it easier to find:
your proposal has many issues with it…
give it up.
Even i whole heartedly disagree with it…
MY way is much simpler to start with cause the things im proposing first exist in the game code already. Devs just have to flip a switch.
Starbase charters are still even in the LP stores.
Well, you haven’t pointed out any of them. Nor has anyone else really, they just failed to understand it. “It’s too many steps” or “too complex” or “it only benefits attackers and punishes defenders” from people who barely read it.
And your proposal? Please.
Literally all you’ve done here is change the requirements for anchoring and fueling structures. This does absolutely nothing to change the nature of wardecs. They will all still extremely favor the aggressor, with no rewards, no reason to participate, no reason to even log in for the defender.
Forget all the details of my proposal, ignore every aspect of it. Just answer me this question:
What is your proposal doing to make it more possible and more rewarding for the defender to actively participate during a war?
That’s the only thing CCP asked for. They already know how to make things more expensive, thanks, they don’t really need any help there.