If bounties mean nothing, than completely remove them from the game!
If CCP counts on a harsh gameplay with harsh behavior from their preferred gamers only, than they can’t expect ANY loyality from me (and some others), as missionrunner and formerly person, which once was very active in the german help channel!
Now… I have to say: If CCP dont care of their customers, why I should? Let new players die dumb and frustrated. If I write in a channel I get bounties. NO CCP! Thats not a game I LIKE TO PAY FOR!!!
Really… EVERY A$$HOLE is able to give a sh!t-bounty to persons they dont know. WHY???
And the only way to get rid of this crap is to die in a ship, lose money and make a gift in form of a killmail to some other a$$hole!
Does CCP really expect that I pay REAL MONEY for a game where I get harassed in my FREE TIME???
This means a waste of time for me. Not fun in my free time!
Are you honestly going to try to argue that war decs are not currently tilted significantly in favor of the attacker? Did you ignore the stats that were put out at Vegas?
Nice avoiding the question mr politician. I asked where you get that 95% from. Drop the rhetoric and backup your claims. The data they showed at Vegas was not attacker vs. defender, but a cherry-picked sample of the wardec results of the top 5 alliances no matter if they where defender or attacker.
The actual numbers attackers vs. defenders is more like 4:1 but that doesn’t make for a very good story if you want to push a stupid idea that has no real arguments for it in reality.
The tragic thing is that you actually know this, but like the “new players” thing you chose to argue with it anyway. Which really shows how you don’t care about facts as long as it suits your agenda of getting rid of game play you have no interest in anyway and is just an annoyance for your feeder corps.
You saw the number of kills by attackers vs. defenders.
95% is an estimate. The 5% for defenders is because they can bring in allies, but they almost never do.
Again, your style of gameplay has zero impact on nullsec. Nobody in nullsec cares about your miner ganking. What everybody should care about is driving folks out of the game because you’re so risk averse you’ve literally killed three ships that could fight back in all of 2018.
I would appreciate a more targeted reaction, you probably missed the fact that I’m not a suicide ganker nor wardeccer, and acknowledge the problem because I live in highsec and see the consequences.
Please consider a solution which explicitly includes people who want to fight (see my proposals).
I don’t even use wardecs because they are ■■■■ and need to be fixed. But I want them to be an interesting mechanic that is actually worth engaging in and not some stupid structure bash ■■■■ or crippled version of nullsec warfare. But what I currently see is some CSM championing the cause just to block and to ensure this feature gets completely crippled.
This is what it showed. If you want to lawyer me that 105 attacker kills for every 1 defender kill is not “number of kills by attackers vs. defenders,” then go ahead, but you look stupid doing it.
You’re missing the overall point because you don’t want to concede it - nobody is honestly going to argue that war decs are not heavily tilted in favor of the attacker.
Those 5 corps have 105 kills per loss. It is not an attacker vs. defender statistics. Those are the 5 top wardec corps with professional setups that do nothing else. They are very good at what they are doing.
The overall attacker vs. defender number is somewhere around 4:1 . @Black_Pedro and @Solecist_Project both fetched all the wardecs and ran the numbers and you where active taking part in the discussion when they told us this results. So why the heck are you now lying about those numbers and try to sell them as something they aren’t. You are like 25x off!!
So again, where do you get that 95% from? From the 105:1 ?? That is complete ■■■■■■■■ and you know it!
I’m not. I’m going off the numbers that CCP gave us. But even taking the numbers you would rather use, 4:1 is still heavily lopsided.
As I stated before and you keep ignoring, the point remains that wardecs are stacked heavily in favor of the attacker. Are you suggesting that they aren’t?
Are you now trying to cover up your lies with a nice little goal post shift? How about you own up to the stuff you get wrong before you jump to the next baseless assumption, because we already know how that ends as when it is all examined and clear that you are once again making just stuff up you will jump back to the previous fals claim and round we go…
Maybe you should first try to understand what this numbers are all about before you go all ballistic and “oh so STARK, let’s disable wardecs”…
No, the wardecs mechanic is stacked in favour of the defender as you have seen from your little wardecs against us just recently. The fact that the strong prey on the weak has nothing to do with the mechanic and is EVERYWHERE in EVE, and not a wardecs exclusive.
I’m being consistent, and you’re being a pedant. As has been said over and over again, the data shows that activity during and after a war dec shows a significant drop off compared to activity before a war dec. That, couple with the fact that most wars don’t record a single kill, demonstrates that the meta for dealing with a war dec is to log off.
We don’t need mechanics in the game that are designed to get players to stop playing.
This isn’t hard. This is what we have said, consistently, from the beginning of this process.
The numbers are bad no matter how you spin them.
You guys are such a joke.
Nobody is suggesting that the strong preying on the weak is a bad thing or something that should be changed. That’s not the point of what we are talking about here at all. You’re never going to fix that.
Again, this is about the fact that the best tactic for dealing with a war dec for the vast majority of players, and the data shows this, is to log off and not fight until the war dec is over.
That . Is. A. Bad. Mechanic.
I don’t know how many times folks have to say this for you to understand that.
How do you get people who have zero interest in pvp to go out and pvp?
The ultimate answer is you don’t, no matter how you twist it.
People are stubborn and don’t want to change.
And CCP is trying here to cater to the large masses of casuals that won’t even last a couple months anyway lol
Then why do you constantly come with the “95%” and 105:1 and “wardecs are stacked in favour of the attacker” if that isn’t an issue. And you say you are consistent…
And since you are completely clueless what to do about it you think the only solution is to cripple them. We get it… It’s just lazy and stupid in my opinion and shows no actual interest in ACTUALLY fixing wardecs but to get rid of something you don’t care about.
Why are you here and discussing this? Why are you in ever wardecs discussion telling everyone all the time the same couple of lies you think justify the removal of the feature? You have obviously no interest in a constructive solution and are not creative enough to come up with anything beside crippling the mechanic in regard to the current meta. Why are you ■■■■■■■ here??
I have said before and I’ll repeat it again. The NPE has to be PvP focused. What’s the point of new players essentially belt-feed into the content mincing machines of the Big Five? Because that is what has been happening. It is also why, giving players some sort of option to fight back is doomed to fail. (particular when new players are led to poor choices from the start and spend six months training industry skills).
I would seriously suggest you do actually do the opposite. Made wars cheaper and last longer. Do not bother with the entire Social corp or Structure Requirement. Increase Concord reaction times. Give the Belligerents exactly what they want.
But in exchange for this, Null Sec has to step up. If you sit around and agree to parcel out moon-goo for profit; then Blue Donut can agree to work cohesively the save the game from itself. They move to pro-actively recruit directly within the Starter Systems. Sever the flow of players into the high-sec mincing machine. This fits within well within the primary meta that players linked within a social context are more engaged with the game. If Null can do it well enough, then Big Five starve for lack of content.
On the other side. I would direct you to review how effective tightening the mechanics of suicide ganking have proven. Hint: not. A rule system to govern wars-dec would have to be a lab-rat maze to have any hope of moderation.
