That requirement was also removed years ago. You used to need high faction standings in order to place a structure in high sec or low sec.
That’s why everyone and their dog has structures all over the place now.
3 Likes
I’ve no idea. All I can find is references to ‘Faction Fortizars’…which were limited in number…whatever they are, and back in 2018. As they were limited in number, I presume they are all gone now. Clearly wars must have changed a bit since then…and yet 2018 is where Kezrai’s CCP ‘quotes’ come from.
Back in the early days, placing a structure required a certain amount of faction standings. The higher the security level of the system, the higher the standing required. For example, in order to place a POS in a 1.0 or 0.9 system, you had to have 7.0 faction standing. That is your personal corp’s faction standing. It took into account the aggregate faction standings of every member of your corp. So if you had some members with low faction standing towards Caldari, for example, you’d have to kick them out of your corp for a week so your faction standing would raise back up to a high enough level to place the structure.
But once it was placed you could let your faction standings drop as low as you wanted and still keep the structure. High standings were only required for the initial anchoring of the structure.
2 Likes
Maybe that’s why they eliminated the requirement - too easy to add a few players with high standings as a work-around. Now if it had to be maintained, like Faction warfare…
1 Like
I’d much rather they had kept that system, but also required the standings to be maintained. Why would the Caldari allow you to keep a structure anchored in their space if you went into negative standing with them?
2 Likes
Anyway, long story short, the current system of placing structures make it too easy to cheese and just anchor them anywhere and everywhere. It should be something you have to work towards and maintain. But that would require effort, and we all know how the current generation of gamers feels about that…
1 Like
I guess that makes sense: easy to cheese structure deployment, easy to cheese wardecs to destroy said structures.
1 Like
not for several years now, like before upwells were even thought of let alone introduced.
I wholeheartedly agree.
- Structures should require Empire Standing for the corp anchoring them. Maybe not 7.0, but some. In times of Epic Arcs (selectable Standing boost, easily sharable) and by using the anchient “Data Center” tag trades, it is pretty easy to push a member that you really want to have in the corp over the limit needed)
- Citadels and POCOs also should require Starbase Charters, explained often enough why (POCO empires in the hand of Altcorps protected by blob alliances).
Member shuffeling during war and altcorp abuse:
Needs to be adressed.
- a corp that has declared a war (offensive) should not be able to take in any members until all offensive wars are over
- members trying to leave a corp that has declared a war (offensive) can only leave into an NPC corp, but not another player corp for at least 14 days (7days standard war duration + 7days grace period)
- structures’ services cannot be ‘rented’ to corps who have declared offensive wars, means all access given through access lists is suspended until all offensive wars are over, they cannot use other capsuleer-owned stations, only their own and NPC-stations.
2 Likes
doesn’t matter if they’re hard to find. What matters is making sure that you have to put in the effort to find them. Most systems off the beaten path are not scouted by people because that doesn’t happen every day. In Eve, that’s what you want. You can’t turn it invisible, but you can sure keep it from being seen by a casual passerby.
You’ve hunted, but I don’t think you hunt every single day all over Eve in every single system in every single Empire. No one does that.
My point still stands. Things CAN be hidden in Eve. The goal is to get enough out of it so that when someone does find it several months or years down the line that you’ve already gotten your money’s worth out of it.
Yes there is
Good for you, you actually managed to (sort of) read the post you were trying to criticize. That’s a good start. You still kinda failed on the whole ‘comprehension’ angle, but baby steps, I guess. Have to start somewhere.
Well, actually I said there are no extra hoops. Meaning more than the current system. And you were working so hard to chop a piece out of every sentence you could and label it a hoop, that you apparently didn’t stop for 2 seconds to even consider what a ‘hoop to jump through’ is.
It’s an extra action the player has to take in order to accomplish the process. So, things that the game automatically calculates and automatically applies don’t count, since the player has no need to do anything at all.
That wipes out 90% of your ‘hoop’ examples right there. Which is no surprise since you apparently didn’t even understand the things you were typing. For instance, points awarded for doing War Actions are all completely automatic. As are any Rep & Reliability changes. No actions needed on the part of the player = no hoop.
I described the details because they’re mostly all new. That doesn’t mean a typical player needs to follow all those details, any more than a typical player needs to know how angular velocity is calculated and applied to turret tracking.
My war process, from the player point of view, is this:
Attacker - post War Bond, declare war, attack target ships or structures.
Defender - post War Bond, wait for war, click a few radio buttons to select War Actions, then go about business as usual (just more carefully).
It’s actually fewer hoops than the current system, which requires obtaining, transporting, anchoring, outfitting and Coring a structure before you can even be eligible.
Not only is it a bit sad to see you once again demonstrating total lack of comprehension, you can’t even seem to get that the things you keep complaining about (ie. “Why does it become CCP’s problem to protect your structures?”) don’t even exist in the proposal.
There is no protection of structures - with the possible exception of the single limited medium structure, which isn’t even a key feature. I just tossed that in because @stefnia_Freir made a good post about the idea, and it helps corps get started.
All regular structures cause full war eligibility and are attackable just like they are now. No extra defenses. No help from CCP. And even more players would be eligible for war under my system than currently. And new, smaller corps could get in on wars easily and cheaply.
Well, I guess maybe a couple pages of text and a few numbers might seem like quantum mechanics to you. You do seem to have difficulty with these things. Like that thread where we had to explain Damage Resistance to you half a dozen times before you even started to catch on.
The game keeps track of all the points, and displays it on your Corp, Character, and War Report pages. Just like it does for, you know, every other important stat in the game. It’s no harder to ‘work out’ than bringing up your Air Daily Goals page to see how many you’ve done this month.
No, the only difference is, I understand what I read before I start replying. You should try it some time.
Wardecs are only significant in high sec, really. In low sec, all they do is remove the small standings loss you would otherwise receive for killing a target, and the defense response from gate and station turrets.
They’re used for more than “extending conflicts from other regions”. You need them to remove structures, replace POCOs, address grievances (like ganking, interference, harassment or just trash talking). And just for provoking fights, which is valid gameplay.
And they do, as well, allow warring parties from other regions to target supply runs and fleet movements that could otherwise use high sec as a safe staging, travel and re-supply zone.
They already are. Every corporation can be 100% safe from wardecs just by not putting up a structure. It’s not a huge limitation, there are plenty of other structures they can use.
The problem isn’t protection from wardecs. It’s that small corps have no real growth path to become larger, structure supporting corps; and smaller or developing corps have no progression incentive to engage in wars at all. The forcing of a structure plus a core which is basically just a free kill for wardec corps is a significant barrier. As well as the fact that there’s very little to be gained in a war for corps that don’t specialize in structure bashing.
Personally I don’t feel EVE needs more ‘protection’ than is already there. What it needs is more options, progression paths and incentives for corps to move from the ‘safe from war’ to ‘less safe’ to ‘doesn’t need to hide from wars’ to ‘able to defend themselves reliably’ stages.
Yes, that’s why my proposal added War Debt for leaving one group, and Member Fee (or increased War Bond costs) for joining another.
I know people want simple, one-off solutions. But when there are literally a half-dozen different problems tied around wardecs and the various exploits people use, there is no simple solution that handles them all.
CCP already made a simple solution - no structure, no war. And as Gloria says, “don’t anchor what you can’t afford to lose”. That’s honestly a good enough ‘solution’ to stop some of the problems wars cause. It’s just too simple to actually lead to interesting behavior, because there’s too many ways around it.
What I don’t understand is: How do they prevent their station from being razed? I mean, it will be under attack right when the war starts and then the reinforcement timer runs.
- can they end the war (“win it” by grinding war-points through mining/exploration/PvE) before the timer hits? If so, what would hinder them to just scan themselves a nice little WH, collapse the entry behind them and just mine all day long until they have “won” the war by mining. And the attackers can’t do anything to follow them?
- can they just grind points and at the end of the 7 days of war the “winner” is who has the most points? Then they will lose their station anyway, no matter how much they grind war points.
What do I miss?
Because there is no station. Structures are not a requirement. The current system forces you to put a structure up to be eligible, before you have any war experience. Since control towers are cheap, people can at least become eligible as defender fairly cheaply, but it’s unlikely they’ll get wardecced for that.
I remove structure requirement, which allows even smaller corps to start warring (or defending), and develop their war management skills and readiness without needing to drop several billion of structure on the line.
It also gives them the limited structure, to use as a home base and develop their structure management skills, before dipping into the war system.
Keep in mind this was intended as a flexible example framework to show there are other ways and rewards for participating in wars than “kill structures”. I kept the war timer to 7 days, which means both sides have at least 1 weekend to do their stuff, and wars are short and tidy. At the end of 7 day timer, ‘most points’ wins. So there’s no incentive to drag things out or try to exhaust the other side.
As stated, War Actions only count in high sec. Players can’t earn points for their side unless they’re actively doing things in space in high sec where they can be freely attacked. (Ie. no actions for manu or trading or other docked-up activities.)
Yes. But losing a structure is an entirely separate thing. First off, you don’t even need a structure. Second, when you lose war, ISK gets paid from the War Indemnity Bond of the loser to the winner. They don’t ‘lose’ stations. They can’t even finish killing a station in a 7 day war. So they have to dec again if they aim to structure kill (which they can’t do if they lost the first one).
Again, this is meant as a conceptual guideline. It already introduced too many new concepts for people to fully grasp, so I didn’t write out all the detailed interactions. As you said, CCP isn’t going to use any player suggestion as a blueprint anyway.
For instance, defender corps could use specialized Corporate War Projects, instead of an “AIR Opportunities” type menu. Or it could use both. The details are less important than the concepts:
- Give more corps more agency and more interesting choices than current
- Give corps viable options for conducting wars using the gameplay they’re good at
- Reduce the imbalance between corp size (per capita scoring) and aggressor target bias
- Give defenders reasons to do more than “just log off till the war is over”
1 Like
What is the purpose of war, in your proposal???
How about a simple answer first to that simple question?
In the context of what should be the purpose of war in HS?
It’s a rigged question because it doesn’t have a simple answer. It’s like saying “What’s the purpose of the player economy in EVE? Answer simply”
Simplest answer: purpose of war is allow corps a means to settle grievances in high sec, where it would be otherwise blocked by Concord.
I myself have a broader definition, and CCP will have their own reasons for it, but you wanted simple so there it is.
You say that as if that would be a benefit? But these people don’t want war. They want to be left alone and have no single interest to deal with people who try to trick, bait, trap and kill them. Be it as defender or attacker. They don’t want to gain war-experience, they want protection from veterans trying to curbstomp them with their far superior experience, knowledge, skillpoints and assets.
It’s not a matter of “war not being interesting enough”. Most new players coming to EVE don’t give a **** how “interesting” wars are they don’t want them. Because they want absolutely no interaction with outsiders of their group, except maybe sales/purchase from the market. And that point is a 100% non-negotiable. Zero chance of changing that. Never ever.
Lets say your system is in place, how would you determine “how many” points someone needs to achieve to “win”? I mean, “mining 1 million m³ of Ore” is easypeasy for a corp with some max-skilled miners and max-skilled orcaboost but totally unachievable for a newbro corp where 3 people can fly a barge and 3 others a Venture with Mining Lasers Skill on III.
Why wouldn’t the Veteran attackers simply go farm the war-bond money by “outmining” the newbro group on any imaginable parameter?
Okay, so I can travel in Ventures to Kurmaru (0.6) and go mine there. As soon as the first war-target appears in local I go dock, install a jump-clone there and self-destruct the pods. Waking up in Jeras (0.6) - at the other side of the EVE map. Now my attackers need to fly all the ~50 jumps through highsec until the first one arrives in Jeras. At which moment I go dock and Clonejump back to Kurmaru (0.6), and my attackers can travel the whole way back?
That is interesting gameplay? The old rule (which will even right now everyone tell the defenders) still applies: evade them at all costs, go dock if anyone of them is in local, never interact with them and only blueball/dodge them.
Sorry, I really like the effort of thought you put into this and your will to explain everything, thats greatly appreciated. But with my almost 20 years experience in this game (especially in the field of mentoring new players and helping smaller groups) I can’t see a single way this would really work. It’s simply against what the players want and the only way to “win” is to run away all day long and try to grind “points” under pressure, which makes the “game” they wanted to enjoy into a hassle they hate.
At which point they will leave the game. As they have done to the thousands under the old war-system where everyone was wardeccable.
1 Like
They have that already. Just by not placing a structure in place.
Well, you’ve got your firm opinion on that. But I’d ask what data you have to back it up. I’m perfectly aware that a significant number of high sec players don’t want anything to do with wars. And they would still have that option. And they’d even be able to have a limited structure for more options.
And if they ever wanted to grow beyond that point and have full structures, they’d have ways to ease their corp into it without risking everything at once. There are risk-taking players in the game, otherwise we wouldn’t all still be here.
It’s in the proposal.
Also in the proposal. The only points attackers can score are from ship kills, structure kills, and disrupting defender war activities. Only the actual war target defenders can score points from successful activities.
Already addressed all these. In the proposal. Which maybe you should actually read for real? I mean if you’re going to try to hairsplit and dicker over exact mechanics, you should stop guessing at them and read them.
If you don’t complete your war action by downtime, it’s considered interdicted. Points for it go to the attacker. Jump clone timer limits your shenanigans. And I’m sure the skills you gained experience in watching local, docking up, jump cloning out etc. will serve you well in the future.
Yes, I clearly indicated this is one of the problems that needed to be solved. You know, in the proposal. And sure, players still have the option to log out and evade the war altogether. As I also stated multiple times, I’m adding more options for players to make their own choices, not taking them away.
However, if they choose to evade altogether, then both they and their corp get no Rep & Reliability points and they lose whatever portion of their War Bond the attacker beats their score by. And if they happened to own a structure, and they wanted to block the attacker from completing a structure bash, they’ve lost their chance to win the first round and prevent a second war round.
Again, clearly stated in the proposal and the lead-up. There’s no way to force people who absolutely refuse to take any risks or engage in conflict to participate in a war. I stated up front that is not achievable.
The intent is to encourage the percentage of players who are willing to take some risks in order to gain some rewards. Because the current system offers effectively zero reward for defenders. And it gives them zero options other than “try to beat the attacker at their own game, for a reward you can’t achieve (a structure kill), and that you didn’t want even if you could achieve it”. So of course the standard advice is “disengage” because there’s no reason to engage.
It gives miner corps a chance to win by mining, mission corps by missioning, explorer corps by exploring. And if they do it successfully, they not only get paid ISK from the war bonds, but they earn bonuses to their own activities like mining, missioning and exploring.
You seem to be demanding a ‘perfect’ solution. I’m simply showing that a ‘better than current’ solution is possible, that addresses the key concerns CCP actually stated: extreme skewing in favor of aggressor, and reasons for defenders to remain active during a war.
I’m not opposed, for instance, to more expensive wars to cut down on farming. Or standings/charters to increase local activity. Those ‘could be’ fine, but they’re actually separate issues. They don’t reduce the skew, and they don’t encourage defenders to participate, and they don’t provide a growth path for small corps or to slowly bring non-entirely-averse players into the broader EVE picture.
1 Like