I always try my best - but the challenge is that it’s very hard to always anticipate what might be exploited.
I guess we’re stuck with the system we have. Imperfect - but at least not exploited to the hilt.
Let me throw a different idea out for high-sec:
• No structure requirements or requirements at all - other than the wardec’ing corporation needs to be in high-sec.
• All high-sec corporations have the option to opt-in or opt-out of wars (with the caveat that if you’re in a current way, you need to wait 24-48 hours to exit).
• Opting “in” gains that corporation a 50% loyalty point and 50% mining yield bonus (regardless of whether or not it’s at currently at war with anyone). If the attacked corporation owns at least one structure, their bonus is doubled, ie: 100% loyalty points and 100% mining yield.
• Opting “out” loses that corporation a 25% loyalty point and 25% mining yield bonus (so you can still be “safe”, but you’ll be earning less).
• NPC corporations automatically opt “out”, but lose a 50% loyalty point and 50% mining yield bonus.
• Bonuses are based on current values, so you’ll either be earning more (with more risk) or less (with less risk) with this change.
Addendum: Made a few tweaks with respect to NPC corporations and corporation structures.
1 Like
I can agree with this but there should be other long term ways.
Feel free to take the ball and run with it.
Many years ago, CCP decided that people in NPC corps was a “problem” that they needed to fix. Just something to think about.
I’ve contributed on this and other game issues in the past, and I’ll contribute on this one and in this thread. But since it’s an actually meaningful issue, I’ll do my homework first and come up with something more useful than “just make it all great for the attackers and the defenders can get screwed”.
Issues to consider:
- Has it always really been a bad mechanic? (All indications say yes)
- Can it be improved in a manner that addresses the core issues (wardec abuse driving players out of the game)
- Can it be done with minimal coding and existing concepts? (Otherwise CCP will never do it.)
- Is it breakable or exploitable just as bad as current system?
Note: some exploitation/abuse/gaming of the system will always occur. Practically every system in EVE has exploits/abuses. It’s not about coming up with perfect systems, it’s about coming up with ones where even the exploits don’t break things too much and might even be interesting.
No attack, I just pointed out you’re all BS and no substance. And I disagreed with the idea because it’s just a crappy gimme-gimme for wardeccers. Come up with something halfway intelligent and you’ll get credit, likes and discussion from me.
Here are the main problems with wardecs:
- Wardeccers require an expensive structure instead of a pirate den
- Some corps cannot be wardecced
- Wardec costs are way too low
- Defenders Ally-system doesn’t work with crimewatch, you can’t even rep your allies.
- Highsec crimewatch leaves a lot of loopholes that leads to defenders not catching reps and feeding in frustrating ways.
- fix corp hopping to avoid the timer after loosing the WarHQ
If there is a war we constantly have members that are in Minmatar Militia and can’t receive repairs and feed pirates. Also it’s super annoying because you need to change alliances to defend yourself properly…
In Nullsec if Goons and Init needed to join for a war, image the chaos, it would be fixed by CCP in one day…
but for some reason in Highsec it isn’t a problem. This shows me that CCP doesn’t take highsec seriously even tho they should take it seriously.
1 Like
removed 5 posts for the below reasons:
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
Yes indeed…and this would surely also solve the problem of people ‘deserting’ back to a holding corp as one would suppose that the holding corp must by definition also have more than 25 members and thus be war eligible. I’d also have it such that the act of any single member deserting back to the holding corp automatically carried the war to that corp as well.
Although I have done a lot of structure bashing, I’ve also grown tired of the way wars centre solely around structures, and the invariable move back to some holding corp, as I see wars as the perfect opportunity ( way better than suspect hunting ) to have ship based PvP content in highsec or indeed anywhere else. Indeed…I had one character that deliberately didn’t swap back to holding corp so as to take such advantage of any wars that came up. I was effectively able to take advantage of any conflicts Blackflag were involved in.
Instead of trying to go forward, or backwards…
How about we think of maybe taking a step sideways…
An idea i can think of is …
1.) Add Starbase charters as fuel to every player structure in HS.
2.) Create a Rig for Citadel Class Upwells(Astrahus and Fortizar only) This limits an entity to 3 wardecs per Citadel Class Upwell Structure.
3.) Remove Quantum Cores as a req for HS Upwell structures.
What Im proposing here, is if an Upwell(any type) runs out of Starbase Charters or Fuel Blocks it shuts down.
If a PoCo runs out of Starbase Charters, it can not be used for Export/Import, its that simple.
Citadel Class Upwells are the only structures that can be used as War Hq’s because of the new Rigs.
Idea is to promote(hopefully)
1.) Limit but not exactly stop Blanket Wardecs.
2.) With the correct balance of Starbase Charter useage, to bring wars into more localized event status.
3.) attempt to create a more effective synergy between pvp and pve players through useage of LP stores and market trading(star base charters)
4.) overall incentivization for the overall playerbase to feel/believe it has some agency and worth even in HS.
TDLR: TO better war mechanics for HS, the marrying of indy with war(PvE players and Combat PvP players) is going to be required, as in how Nullsec entities operate. There really is no choice in this for a proper discussion to move forward on that matter.
No, having done loads of wars and structure bashing I think you are wrong. If people leave its because they had a nice mining/production station system set up and group A destroy it on Monday and group B come along and destroy the rebuild on Tuesday. The incentive for structure bashing is generally the quantum core. A lot of corps simply don’t bother to show up to defend…so wars with smaller corps end up becoming solely about core grabbing rather than about any ship to ship fighting.
Perhaps the exact details of what Distaine argues for need amending and refining, but to me the general idea is to make wars less focused on structures and more on inter-ship combat. To me this is the whole purpose of the 25 man corp size…as currently most of the corps whose structures are bashed dont even have that number of members. I mean…of course a corp with just 2 members is not goiing to be able to defend a structure. And why should a 2 man corp’s structure be any more defensible than parking a blingy Golem in Uedama and shouting ‘gankers…come get me’ ? CCP have created a system where people can set up stuff they cannot possibly hope to defend.
By requiring 25 members before having a structure one is creating a greater chance of there actually being a proper ‘war’…rather than just a quantum core grab.
The incentive to leave an NPC corporation and setup your own corporation is the 9% savings. Beyond that, there’s almost no incentive to establish a structure and make your small group a target. All risk - minimal reward.
I’m not sure the issue is with the current system. Rather, there’s no financial incentive to assume more risk under it.
Increase the rewards and corporations will automatically assume more risk. You could nerf existing rewards to try and encourage players to move into their own corporations and establish structures, but I think the carrot would be a better incentive than the stick.
If someone is abusing a system, that’s on them. I don’t like having my gameplay limited or restricted because some giant corporation is abusing the system by doing something I, as a small player, can’t do. I don’t care what the giant corps are doing. I should be able to have a citadel as a 3 man corporation.
Again nope. Someone declaring war on me should not in any way change my gameplay. If Concord is going to step up and do something other than BLAP someone for attacking someone in High Sec- If they are actually going to prevent me from performing tasks (like leaving or joining other corps or from flying Orcas because of a deserter tag) then ooooohhhhh boy!!! Do I have a list for you!!! Concord should be doing a LOT of things to restrict ANYONE who’s ever ganked a barge or freighter in High Sec! Since we all know that would completely destroy High Sec, there is no way in hell Concord should be upgraded beyond BLAPPING people for attacking in High Sec.
In other words- don’t set precedence! No deserter tags. Everyone in New Eden should be able to face or run away from war in any way they see fit. If a 100 man corp wages war on a 3 man corp, gameplay beyond war should not be affected.
Why? Why even have a war bond? Who is going to pay it? The losing corp? Concord? How much would the war bond be? And again- who would pay it? Are we making war declaring profitable beyond the structure core? Isn’t that why people hate cores?
No War Bonds. And no- the defeated corps who got war deced by a much larger corp should not be forced by the game to pay them. If I wish to pay them for my corp to help with the war effort fine. I just don’t want the game to force me to because of a highly mismatched war dec.
Then 5 Leshaks and 3 Guardians ‘should’ be able to come along and deprive you of your station. After all, your station is really just a blingy ship with a quantum core, parked in space. Thanks for the quantum core…onto the next bash.
Really, one needs to either make stations more defensible, better weapons, or increase the corp size requirement for owning a station, or both. Your 3 man corp station is just too easy to destroy. You’ll probably just end up paying for ‘protection’ from one of the very corps that would otherwise bash it.
The war bond would come from the aggressor and all additional entities who choose to be involved. Instead of simply losing your war costs when defenders decide to leave corp, a bond could act as incentive to fight and also a refund to the aggressor if the defenders decide to break up the corp. In reality, war is not only an attack on your name, but the people who claimed it.
War IS extremely profitable when you claim power and space. The problem right now is that no competition will ever arise unless those in power decide to allow you to rise. It is 100% reality that new corps are given the time and space to grow on purpose and decided by those in power now. Unfortunately, the same power pyramid which forces you all to always be under the thumb of “those who know will come get you…” is also the same problem for those further up the ladder. It is intentional and only meant to build and hold power for the few on top in nullsec.
We need fair pvp and a chance for ALL to grow. not what we have now, which is simply a game designed for nullsec to hold all power at any distance (plus Hulk-Smash in the shortest time periods) and for highsec to simply be a funnel of recruitment to the same null groups. CCP may get larger wars in nullsec but they dont understand the cost and how everyone pays for it all the way down to players on day 1.
You also mentioned that exploiters of holding corps (mostly nullsec) should not define the rules for valid players with 3 man corps wanting a citadel. How to solve that? idk atm but I hear you and agree. Its not like you can defend it… but its also not fair to give you chance to hide it away and enjoy it while you have it.
Highsec is its own End-Game. Everyone should have a chance to take power, not just become a cog in someone else’s machine. Thank you for the smart replies and ill try to find a solution.
1 Like
Sorry I did not read all of this simply because I can scroll down to the bottom and find that after over 10 yrs, no one has a good solution to this problem.
I can’t blame the dev’s simply because the players have a lot more available brainpower (cough) and as yet, still no one has a good idea.
I think you are missing the point. In almost every case I have seen where people ‘desert’ the wardec corp it is immediately after the destruction of a station or the wardec HQ. People do so to deliberately avoid the very war they were quite happy to be in 5 minutes earlier…even though the war itself actually has a 24 hour ‘cool down’ period and is technically not yet over.
Thus wars become solely about station bashing and safety in numbers in large fleets with logi, etc. People desert the wardec corp precisely to avoid any conflict outside of that…to avoid any one on one or smaller group PvP that really ought to be an intrinsic part of any war. Most real wars are not huge set piece battles but lots of minor skirmishes as well. Being able to desert the wardec corp completely eliminates that…and thus also eliminates a good deal of what would otherwise be excellent opportunities for PvP skirmishes…to the detriment of the game.
I don’t think anyone has an ideal solution because every idea is dependent on a significant change to something else.
Maybe high-sec is best left in the current state it’s in.
If you didn’t read them, how do you know that none of the suggestions are any good?
Nothing wrong with significant changes to something else. Not every interest in the game needs to be or should be protected.
The primary reason there’s been ‘no good solution’ appears to be because everyone is trying to control, tax or limit the actions of the aggressor corp, and/or trap the defending corp members in the war ‘so they can’t flee’. Which always leaves the option of simply not playing, which CCP has already pointed out is the actual core problem.
Any war ‘solution’ has to consider the interests of the defender. Otherwise they can just follow the “A strange game - the only winning move is not to play” path. If they have nothing to gain and only to lose, why feed the trolls?
Arthur, you yourself, and here and there other people over the years, suggested tweaks that would give defender corps some reason to at least be war eligible… but not necessarily to either participate or even remain active during a war.
That’s the element that’s always been missing.
1 Like