Are Wardecs always going to be broken? Is a fix even possible?

Communications Center General Discussion
371

Hello, @Arthur_Aihaken had some similar ideas abotu standings. But it seems to mostly apply to who can place a structure. Other than limiting who can place structures at all, I don’t see how this affects wardecs? It doesn’t seem to change anything from either the attacker or the defender view.

Let me know what I’ve missed here, thanks.

372

OK I think I understand better now. This seems more focused on getting corps to interact more with the space around their structures, not so much about wars.

So it’s about structure ownership but not about war mechanics, correct?

373

The main purpose of them is to break you out of your safe space and into the wider world of EVE Online.

374

In the simplest terms, the corporation would need to be able to maintain a certain standing with each Empire to be able to wardec and maintain a wardec in that region - just having a structure and the defender having a structure isn’t enough.

This is just in high-sec only. If your corporation’s Empire standing in that region drops below a certain level - any active wars immediately end.

Something like 5.0 to deploy a structure and 7.0 or higher to issue a wardec. In addition, deploying a structure should have some bonuses for that corporation (only):

• Astrahaus (15% LP bonus), Fortizar (25% LP bonus)
• Athanor (15% mining yield bonus), Tatara (25% mining yield bonus)
• Raitaru (15% manufacturing speed), Azbel (25% manufacturing speed)

And if your corporation’s Empire standings drop below 5.0, your structure(s) automatically go suspect. The idea here is that if you want to play in the carebear sandbox - you’re going to have to do at least a little carebearing yourself…

1 Like
375

In the past, like when my corporation was created…
You had to have a Faction Standing of 6 to place POS in Vaankalen Star System.

So in the beginning I had to get Caldari Faction Standing 6 and put up our 1st tower before i could let anyone into the corporation, cause your Corporation Standings is avg of every pilot in your corporation after 7 days being in it.

So if any wardeccr or any one wanting to be war eligible by puttin up an Upwell/PoCO/or POS tower, they would first have to have the Faction STanding for the system they want to deploy in.

And then maintain that standing always otherwise you basically lose the structure.

This would ensure that only those that want to deal with wardecs would be putting up structures, etc etc.

376

Getting and maintaing Faction Standings might be to easy to game.

So, adding Starbase Charters, (they are Empire Specific) as fuel would ensure only those that really really want to “EMpire Build” would work to maintain that type of fuel since charters only come from LP stores.

If we use 40 per hour as a base line, that would
960 per day at 4,800 LP
6,720 per week at 33,600 LP
and so on…

So PoCo, Upwell, etc would req interaction with mission running, the market, or making deals with those that run missions.

a Star system with 8 PoCo would cost 7,680 charters or 38,400 LP per day…

Some groups have as many as 20 or more moons being mined in HS…thats a lot of LP.

What this does is make those doing these activites or wanting to do wardeccs to really really think if the effort is worth it…and for the complaints of seal clubbing…i doubt very few would be doing that for long.

377

I have the solution…

  1. Scrap the binary ‘war eligibility’ ( on of off ) flag entirely.
  2. Introduce a sliding scale of factors that make a corp more, or less, eligible for both being able to attack and for being able to do the attacking. Two separate scales.

Defender Scale :-

  1. To be eligible for attack a corp must be over a certain size
  2. Members who swap to another corp if condition (1) is met are still eligible up to a week after the swap. This prevents corps simply temporarily reducing member count to avoid the size limit.
  3. Structures are only eligible if the corp has more than 50 members…and again rule (2) applies.

Attacker Scale…

  1. Attacking corps can be any size…BUT…declaring conflict results in a 15 minute suspect flag in highsec that anyone can respond to. This opens up highsec wardeccers to being attacked by absolutely anyone in highsec.
  2. The usual 3 minute engagement timer also applies.
  3. If more than a specific number of members from another corp attack the wardeccing corp, then that corp itself becomes war eligible. So the advantage of (1) needs to be applied very carefully.

The great thing about the above is that it is self limiting, yet equally could result in an all-out war cascade.

1 Like
378

If you have to throw in loopholes to make it work or mitigat gaming it, then it is a bad idea.

I almost wish @Kannibal_Kane or @Tora_Bushido would chime in on this thread.

1 Like
379

I have a better idea: Your corporation announces it’s desire to go to war with another corporation. All warring corporation members go permanently suspect while the war is active. Let the games begin!

1 Like
380

It completely removes the notion of wardecced corps being ‘helpless’. But at the same time, it puts helpers at risk. What I love most about it is how it could lead to a whole cascade of wars, with the helpers themselves becoming war eligible, and so on with anyone who helps them. A ‘war cascade’ would be brilliant…spreading across highsec and eventually dying down.

381

“Suspect Day” in high-sec. Hilarity ensues…

382

So does re-instituting Faction Standings and use of Starbase Charters, cause it means you have to put in the Effort to want to play at that level. Otherwise go play Halo and F off.

383

WD’s are ridiculous. Imagine IBM blowing up Apple’s headquarters.

Do you really think that our society will devolve to a point where you can destroy people and corporations on a whim?

384

No…I’m against anything that forces people to do PvE in order to do PvP. It’s supposed to be a ‘sandbox’, not a hoop jumping exercise.

385

Have you ever heard of a concept known as a ‘game’ ?

1 Like
386

A game loosely based on the human experience.

It’s not what I would call, “fantasy.”

387

I’ve charged up a Normandy beach and shot 400 Germans. Fortunately that was in Medal Of Honour : Allied Assault. I’m a hero of Stalingrad as well !

1 Like
388

Within the realm of reason.

Just sayin’.

1 Like
389

Half your posts are about forcing players to do PVP in order to do PVE, though. If you were an honest player, you’d just say “I’m against anything that forces people” and leave it at that.

But you are not an honest player. You are a carebear advocating for CCP to give you a risk free turkey shoot in high sec because low/null scares you.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:

7 Likes
390

A ‘game’ should have ‘fun’ for those playing it as it’s highest goal (right after or on par with returning profits for the hosting company). WDs are no fun for those wardecced. It’s only fun for the wardeccers (which are compared to the people they wardec a tiny minority). So even when seeing it as a ‘game’, wardecs are not benefiting this ‘game’ at all. Especially if we recall (and we can’t repeat that often enough): Everyone who wants to do PvP can just leave HighSec and explore all the vast space out there where he can gang up, shoot or get shot, from 1on1 to the biggest fleet battles. EVE doesn’t need wardecs, they are not benefitial to it and they do cost the game players, lots of.

CCP is best advised to either get rid of wardecs entirely or redesign them in a way that they are ‘fun’ for all those involved. But before all, they should never be lucrative so a group of experienced vets can make a profit-generator out of the idea mass-wardeccing other corps to just farm their assets. this single point is the most urgent to fix. Wars should be an option for those ready and willing to engage in it, but it should be challenging and not profitable by default.

5 Likes