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.
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”
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.
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.
Exactly! Everything you said is true despite the “That’s never been proven!” Responses. Very few high sec players are there because they WANT war (ganking is not war).
That is the answer, and purpose for war in HS.
Your broader definition is bunk.
Controlling Resources, (collection) from ore to ice to PI, to control the market…
Without Ganking, or better yet, War this is difficult if not impossible to achieve.
To promote PvP competition between players. (there is a reason NPC vendors do not really exist in EvE)
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how limited or incorrect it may be.
Since I apparently got the ‘simple’ answer right for you, it seems odd that you state something you’ve never even seen to be pure bunk.
Huh, well good thing I provided ways to make more and cheaper wars between more entities than we have now, isn’t it?
Well again, your opinion is your own. Even though you clearly haven’t grasped anything about it, nor made a single accurate observation, despite multiple attempts to. And frankly, you keep harping on “fixes” that have nothing at all to do with actual wardecs, but simply with the side-mechanics of placing structures in high sec. And your suggestions (standings, charters) are easily gotten around, and irrelevant to war mechanics.
Actually, what we have now is a completely arbitrary game mechanic deciding that. The destruction of the War HQ. I proposed something based on how much skill and effort players put in to the war. You know, so that:
Which again, is exactly what I suggest. Giving players more reasons to be involved, greater ability to do so, and more ways to manage their risk level.
Actually, “ignorant” refers to a lack of knowledge or awareness. Which you’ve demonstrated multiple times throughout the thread.
I get that you’re upset, because your own ideas were irrelevant and easily dismissed. Even though in fact I pointed out that I wasn’t opposed to them. But since they don’t relate to war mechanics and address zero actual wardec concerns, they’re simply completely inadequate.
Much like your ‘critique’ here of a proposal you’ve demonstrated literally zero understanding of.
It’s fine if you don’t like it, or want to pretend you read it, or even if you read it but simply failed to understand it. But since it gives more players more reasons to actively engage in regular EVE gameplay actions, trying to dismiss it as somehow taking away “players right to decide” or “inventing a new game” just shows how little of it you followed.
Maybe try again later, when you understand the difference between actually engaging in wars, and merely anchoring a structure.
I dont think hanking has that big of an effect. Maybe it used to, but not now. You still have bots and afk miners. If ganking was really influential in high sec, you’d see a complete lack of mining barges, exhumers, and Orcas. You don’t see those ships on a daily basis in Low sec, but you can’t throw a rock at a mining belt without hitting one in High.
The last several times I was in Brapelille, Safety was ganking barges yet you’d still see miners in them every single day.
I agree with the point made that players will set their own war objectives. Some followup thoughts:
Say deploying structures in low-sec or high-sec required good standings (1.0 to 9.0, for 0.1 through 0.9 systems). Would it be too easy to circumvent this with a holding corporation that had a few players with excellent standing? And if so, does this kind of nix the idea?
What does using starbase charters for structures in low-sec and high-sec achieve? Is this just to require corporations to source these for their structures? I’m assuming these can be easily acquired on the open market, from contracts, sister corporations (etc.) If so, this sounds like another speed bump easily dodged.
I’m not sure the removal of cores is a solution, either (I think the rework required is too extensive). It’s there for a guaranteed payday and would upend a lot of game mechanics.
Asset safety is also something that could be tinkered with, but again - this probably has far more reaching consequences outside of wardecs.
I have read your garbage 3 times now in total…and it is all bunk.
no, your proposal ensures ganking becomes more of a norm over wardecs.
Everything you have to say to me, is garbage as well.
War is simply Diplomacy by different means.
Making structure ownership more tedious with both use of Faction Standings and Star Base charters means the people wanting to own PoCo’s and/or Upwells will have to ensure fianicial success before deploying their first one. Have to maintain afterwards for continuance.
This means the current “wardec” corporations will have to grind or include pve’rs to grind for them in their ranks or politics. cause the market wont keep up with charters past a certain point.
And if you can only do 1 war dec per upwell rig that can only be made from T2 salvage, you put pressure on that salvage market and other t2 rigs…makeing them more valuable beyond their ISK value.
Wars are not meant to be fun, exciting, maybe entertaining to watch or do, but not fun…
They are not meant to be for direct profit…
There is no reason for a defender to do anything right now…
There is no reason for an attacker to do anything right now…
Your way is such utter bull , my way forces defenders and attackers to change their mentality about wars and owning structures at all…
I have been to actual war in RL, and I have been involved in wars in this game…the true underlying concepts for them both exist…
You have no experience in either @Kezrai_Charzai by the way you talk and created your proposal.
This means you have no credibility or right to speak here, your ideas are garbage and it is time for you to just stop talking.
I take it you want to make structure ownership more tedious - yes? You can still “cheese” the standings to some extent, but eventually (as you point out) the supply of starbase charters isn’t going to keep up.
That’s basically the gist of his ‘plan’, yes. More tedious grindwork for EVE, yes that will fix things. “Go back to the way it was 10 years ago when I started” as the ‘fix’. So many sad little vets out there who can’t get past their rose-colored memories.
Max’s ‘solutions’ don’t really hurt anything, they simply don’t affect wars and they’re easily bypassed. Exactly as you said. First, corps will just trim down to a few high-standing members before anchoring. And then they’ll simply set up courier contracts to deliver charters on a regular basis, direct to their door.
This will give business to some individuals who will ‘rent’ their standings to corps, and services like @Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras “United Standings Improvement Agency”. It will also increase the market somewhat for turning LP into Charters and selling those, so nothing wrong with that.
The new “can only declare 1 war for every T2 rig” wrinkle he tossed in out of nowhere, well add all this up and it’s pretty clear Max wants virtually no wars to occur, despite a lot of tough talk about how vital and necessary they are. And he wants fewer citadels to compete with his own.
And he wants players to be forced to do more PvE in the known location of their structure systems in high sec, which is what would actually “ensure ganking becomes more of a norm”.
So, more tedium, forced PvE, easily located gank targets, less competition, no wars, and all of it nothing to do with the actual conduct of wars at all. Very good solution there by Max.
I particularly like the way he entirely evaded all the issues about aggressor bias, defender participation, and giving players more options instead of taking them away. That displays true focus on the irrelevancies rather than the reality.
But apparently, he ‘knows’ all, and I’m Jon Snow. So I guess I’d best stop challenging his mastery of the topic and move on. Otherwise, he might “cry tedium, and let slip the clogs of war” on me.
Your consistent need to invent what I supposedly think and hurl it back as some kind of ad hominem is simply going to be flagged from now on. It is not acceptable behaviour. Misconstruing what someone has said is one thing…inventing someone else’s opinions that they have never stated is quite another.
“Maybe” and this a big “maybe” buying charters can protect you from ganks? Add a percentage loss on amount of ore gathered? I’m not saying this is a good idea, just a stupid idea to spark other thoughts on a solution…
Charters for structures (mainly POCOs) ensure that no big bloc POCO empire can be built, because nobody in an altchar-holdingcorp will be able to re-fill the charters for a 1000 POCOs in a 100 different systems month after month after month. On the opposite this job is incredibly easy for a local corp who really lives there, because re-filling charters for a month for 10 pocos in the system you live anyway is a 5 minute job doable with a frig.
It basically takes away power from big blobs altchar-empires back to local inhabitants. Now you could argue “yeah but the big guys could shoot the POCOs anyway and the small guys can’d do anything about it!!!” - true, but that would be boring and reward them absolutely nothing because you can’t loot anything and can’t even place your own POCO unless you are willing to re-fill it every so often yourself. So unless the “small group” stepped on the toes of the landlord somehow and they want to make a statement, they wouldn’t bother to waste his time shooting cheap structures for hours for no real gain. That was the way smaller corps could hold POSes for a decade in Lowsec. It was boring and unrewarding to remove them and as long as you didnt poke the big guys or interfered with their business, they simply left you alone.
, my way forces defenders and attackers to change their mentality about wars and owning structures at all…