If I recall correctly, there’s Fanfest data from some year ( I think 2018, though may be more recent ) showing that the average player has 2.4 accounts and 4.6 chars. I recall arguing on an earlier thread that this didn’t leave much scope for vast numbers of players multiboxing.
Agreed. “Averages” are all fine and well, but how many “active” players do we have? (those that login at least once a day, etc.)
Say the peak of active players is roughly 30k (average) at any given time. Are we talking about 300k players for 2 hours each each, 600k players for an hour each, etc. And how many of these are Alphas, Omegas and single vs. multiboxed accounts? How many are multiple characters on the same account?
If that includes alpha accounts, then there is plenty of scope for vast numbers of multiboxers.
Mr Epeen 
1 Like
In your system, can you detail out some or all of the “wartime” activities that you propose will earn points during wartime? You implied mining- could that be done anywhere in Eve or would it have to be done in the presence of a structure? Or the enemy’s structure? What would these wartime activities be in your proposal? Specifically?
There is an unintended problem with Kezrai’s system.
Larger corps like AO…the members can mine all over the place. During the wars down south that we’ve been in, miners back in Oipo are 45 jumps away. In fact I regularly note in my travels doing suspect hunting that there’s AO miners all over the place. I know you mine some distance from corp HQ.
I suspect a smaller corp would be more limited in mining scope. I mean…they could mine all over the place, but I doubt a war would be incentive enough to do so. So the incentive to 'carry on doing what they are already doing ’ is greater the larger and more spread out the corp is, and less for smaller corps.
Make friends to help defend your stuff or use their infrastructure instead.
The numbers were growing. What part of this equation do you have a problem understanding?
While good advice for today’s game, it’s just a shame it’s come to this.
Keep in mind it’s not meant to be a detailed blueprint of every possibility. It’s just there to show that the specific problems identified on wardecs can be specifically addressed.
The proposal states:
All it needs to be is a decent spread of actions that corp members would normally do in space - mining, missioning, exploration, combat etc. It has to be in space, so the wardec corp has potential to hunt them or stop their actions.
Only actions taken in high sec count, because wardecs are essentially a high sec activity. Structures are not required for either attacker or defender.
It’s not a problem at all, it’s addressed in the design of the proposal. (If you’d spent a bit more time understanding it rather than chopping out a dozen half-sentences to label ‘hoops’ you might have caught that.)
First, attacking corps don’t get those options. Attackers can only score points through kills or through interrupting defender actions in progress. The attacker chooses the war, but the defender chooses how they’ll fight it.
Second, the per-capita scoring system means large vs small or small vs large is mostly irrelevant. If a small defender has only 6 members, but those members are all engaged every day in their war actions, they’ll have a high per-capita score. A ‘large’ attacker (or defender) needs to motivate almost all of it’s members daily to compete with that.
The system favors small, focused, active groups who are skilled at what they do; over large groups where players are just used to showing up for the structure timer.
The per-capita scoring is also what makes it harder for mass wardeccing. It’s much harder to efficiently chase down and target 60 different groups that are, as you say, “all over the place”… than it is to focus on a few. What’s going to matter is how successful the average member in your group is at their tasks.
I think wardecs can be fixed
- War HQ concept is removed
- Only corps / alliances with sov can wardec and be wardecced
- Members of corps / alliances that hold sov recieve a new booster effect
- Structures in high sec receive new bills, possibly based on System Cost Index. Failure to pay results in severe consequences
Take it or leave it
So youre proposing to fix the lack of participation by rewarding non-participation. There’s a reason i have jump clones and spare ships stashed in several corners of Empire space. It’s so i can easily jump and resume play if this sort of thing comes my way.
It’s good that mining and mission running in a region of dead space will be counted as pvp in this proposal.
Fundamentally, combat is flawed in EVE. Here me out on this one…
• If you go looking for a fight as a solo player, you’re unlikely to find an opponent that isn’t bait, part of a larger group lurking or some combination thereof.
• If you go looking for a fight as a small group, you’re more likely to get dropped on by vastly opposing forces than finding a comparable group to fight.
• The premise of N+1 doesn’t apply in EVE - there’s just no proportionate response. It’s N+10 or N+dog pile to ensure the hapless victim(s) lose so badly that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. And then we have the zkillboard to humiliate them further.
• “If you’re trying for a fair fight in EVE - you’re doing it wrong.” Well, there’s the fair fight, an unbalanced fight and then dropping a nuke. “Get more friends” is the common response. Unless you have a lot of friends - good luck trying to coordinate anything when many of them will be online at the same time. So unless you’re part of a really large group - good luck with that.
So what has all of this led to? Risk aversion. “A strange game. The only way to win is not to play”. How do you avoid having to replace losses that you can ill afford to lose? By not engaging in any activity or content that would lead to said losses.
Enter wardecs. In almost every scenario it’s simply easier to just stay docked, let the structure(s) be razed and pillaged and then continue on as though nothing happened. Why would you fight with asset(s) worth significantly more than the structure(s) you stand to lose?
There’s no mechanism to preserve, foster and encourage groups to succeed to the point where they’d actually provide content down the road. It’s too easy to be abused - so nothing changes.
What we’re left with is “seal clubbing”, ie: groups like Black Flag that prey on every corporation they can for the lol’s. Anytime they get a challenge, they resort to structure timer and similar games to avoid anything remotely approaching a “fair fight”. And they’re far from the only ones.
. . . . .
The only way to fix wardecs is to take down, dismantle or otherwise abandon all structures in high-sec, stop any and all PI and burn the installations to the ground and cease any and all trade at player-owned structures in high-sec.
This effectively dries up any and all content (and revenue) for any other non high-sec groups and turns high-sec into a veritable wasteland. Congratulations “clubbers” - you won! Enjoy the pyrrhic victory! Don’t let the gate hit your ship on the way out of high-sec…
Then and only then might wardecs (and high-sec as a whole) get some deserved and long overdue attention.
1 Like
Exactly! I’ve been saying this all the time. CCP has the power to make ships cheaper. I won’t defend a structure with just my Corporation. It’s not big enough. I’ll go in with my Alliance though! But that kind of force is too big to bother with a small structure.
Just remove war decing. Have structures get repossessed if left unattended without fuel for 3 months. You don’t need to declare war in low and null so there’s no need for that system at all. Scrap all these penalty ideas. We don’t need to punish players for not wanting to lose their ships in a suicidal attempt to win against a force 20 times their size. Reward intelligence. Don’t punish it.
War declarations in high sec have always been a dumb idea. Penalizing people for exercising the better part of valor against a supreme force is an even worse idea.
2 Likes
Imo corps that hold sov should be able to war dec each other and fight in high sec
But being able to be war decced is a liability so i want to see players in the proposed model that are in corps that can be war decced recieve a permanent booster. for example 5% more damage, mining yield. This makes being in a null sec corp and potentially war decced more sought after i think. It kind of avoids people leaving corp to avoid the war dec because if they leave corp they lose their booster.
Name of the booster effect is “Sovereign” and it gives 5% more damage and mining yield to anyone who is a member of a corp or alliance that holds sov and thus can be war decced. It has infinite duration until you leave corp and its active everywhere. Lets go
There are no rewards for non-participation. In fact, there are more disincentives to non-participation than currently exist. All rewards from the proposal are directly tied to being active in space and successful at those actions during a war.
As stated multiple times, I didn’t take existing options away from players. I only added new options. If you want to run and hide from wars, you still can. That’s your choice. You just get no rewards for doing so.
Not sure why you’re so desperate to interpret various features exactly opposite to what they state. It doesn’t make it look like you cleverly spotted a ‘flaw’ - it just looks like you have difficulty understanding what you read.
Well whatever, blind and baseless opposition to all change isn’t anything new on these forums. Even though none of these ideas are going to end up as ‘change’. They’re just examples to show that current design problems have possible design solutions… if CCP only paid a bit more attention to player motivation and the risk/reward balance of certain mechanics.
1 Like
Your only qualifier was “in space” for participation. I asked you for specifics and that was all you listed. You didn’t say it had to be within the same system as the enemy. You simply said, “In space”. This means that I’m not running and hiding. I’m participating. I’m 45 jumps away in a completely different race’s Empire Space (instead of Gallente space, I’m now in Minmitar), but I’m in space participating by doing mining and mission running.
That was your qualifier. It’s not running. It’s participating. I get points without any penalties or punishments.
That was what you meant right? This is why I asked for specifics. This is how ideas are perfected.
Edit: How much time must I remain in space in High Sec to avoid punishments? 8 hours a day? What if I work or have a busy life that limits my time to every other day (which is actually the case- I’m not on every day. I am usually on every other day). Keep in mind- I’m not attacking you- I’m asking. You proposed penalties for being logged off. That was your idea. So where is the line between inactivity and a real life engagement?