Yes it is, and most wardeccer accept that risk when deccing bigger entities. That was not the point.
I know wardeccers are REALLY hated, but do we seriously need to implement a mechanic that make 0.0 blocks be able to with impunity have a way to punish the bad wardeccers when they feel like. That’s seems to be the goal, empower not the littleguys who wardeccers pick on, but the big 0.0 block that “dont care about wardecs”
I would have loved it IF blanket decs was just unique to 1 organisation, but its not. Its now the only viable way of doing wardecs. After watchlist was removed every wardeccing entity that started launched around 100 wars. Even if they were only 6 guys active.
I would not mind if his imperfectly ideas is thrashed out, in threads like feature and ideas or other places where it can be discussed. It’s when they throw these kinds of ideas to CCP and cant answer the playerbase they represent I personally have a problem.
Yeah, because what the big 0.0 blocs really want to do is waste time hunting down a structure and dealing with more timers just to get rid of a war dec we tend to not pay any attention to. I’m more surprised when I go into HS and P I R A T or Marmite don’t have me dec’d.
And if one of our people dies in something expensive in HS because they got caught by a war dec? Good. They should stop being stupid.
Being the little guy in EVE is only an advantage for hiding. I do not believe that what you are asking for right here is possible. There is no way we can give a 5 man corp the ability to win condition a wardec against a good wardeccing organisation, without giving it to goonswarm too. Even something as terrible and uneve as instanced 5v5 pvp, you’d theory craft and practice to death and win every time, except against organisations with thousands of players to draw on (some of whom would be naturals at whatever thing was the decisive event).
Almost all of the top 50 aliances by size are pvp alliances. The reason you wardec 100 alliances is because it takes 100 wardecs to get 1000 active pilots in your wardecs, in highsec. If 15 of the top 50 alliances basically lived in highsec, and quite a few had 5000 pilots, then you would not need 100 wardecs. The mass dec represents issues with the targets.
One of the major demotivators for having a larger organisation is the inevitability of being wardecced, and the inability to do anything decisive with it.
The watchlist had other problems than just super pilots. It allowed one player to chase another player out of the game. There are people that are not satisfied with kills.
Thats your prerogative, but imo thats pretty unconstructive and leaves the representative with not much space for free thought, or unfinished thought. (IMO finished concepts are CCPs responsibility).
It’s less about ‘finished thought vs unfinished thought’ and more about ‘if we can poke holes in it (and even more, come up with fixes), we save CCP time and effort’. And, you know, part of the benefits of discussion is more ideas come out when people start talking.
I’m for empowering the little guy, and sry to hear you dont think that is possible.
If you would read my suggestionas a whole. I’ve put in a win condition I think is more usable for smaller groups than going after some structures.
“If the defending party is winning the “isk war” the attacker is not able to extend an ongoing war and when the war ends with the defenders on the winning side the aggressor cant dec them again for an amount of time. maybe 14 days? month?”
As a 5 man corp you definitely can “win” the war. Highsec wardeccers fly around in very shiny ships and pods, so if you find one alone you can fight back and be war free, and the wardeccer are not able to re-dec and thinks twice deccing again.
That is exactly my point, why was 6 people needing 1000 active pilots to hunt. Its because without tools to find their targets the only viable way is to throw a big ass net, and sit on a hub waiting for someone to come to them.
The win condition for your system is playing tag. ie I would not seek to kill any of your ships, I’d just get my 5 man corp logged off for the week and then seek to tag your ships during an unrelated fight with another target with something that had absolutely no influence on outcome.
The worst problem is now I’m even more motivated to get my corp logged off for the week, and you intend on putting more constraints on what they’d do instead of logging off (ie by disallowing drop corp, you increase the relative value of not logging on).
but its silly for me to risk fighting those, when I can win the war just by tagging your players, and likewise its silly for me to play eve in any other way during that week because the war outcome is now conditioned on not giving you real fights.
Not only that, if my corp loses a jumpfreighter or something in the first day because someone out of timezone didn’t read an email or see the notification in other notification spam, then pretty much everyone can schedule forever off, we’d just close the corp, that war will never be fixable.
You missed my point, you have no appropriately sized targets, nothing you propose changes that, and you propose keeping all of the reasons why this remains so.
The watchlist was removed for more reasons than just the super pilot. It isn’t going to return. Any proposal that is really requires the return of the watchlist is going to fail.
First off, how is playing wack a mole (killing a wardec structure) better than playing tag?
Second… See, you’re coming up with ideas to end the war already! No more permadecs! Get them with with their pants down while occupied with someone else. Great strategy, how we entertained our self jumping on station gamers in amarr.
“disallowing drop corp” where did it say that? You’re free to opt-out going to an npc corp, but not able to join another for the remainder of the war, how is that disallowing dropping corp? It just stops you from dropping corp and remaking it do dodge the war. And stopping the wardeccers to jump to another corp in war with you to dodge your allies.
Real fights… hmmm, can you elaborate. The alternative CSMs are proposing is bashing a structure and that is SO exciting!
Its been said many times, you can’t cure stupid. And with multiple warning when joining/creating a corp there is no excuse if you find yourself being a target.
Do you really think if wardeccers didnt spam wars there would be 0.0 block size corps and alliances living out of highsec?
I have been wondering, seeing as this thread is mostly now about war deccing.
Could CCP maybe put in a system where defenders with good (5+ corp) Empire standing be able to bribe the empire(s) to help them fight the war deccers?
You have one group paying Concord to turn a blind eye. While the other group could pay the local Empire to help protect. Full details would have to be worked out and tested for balance. It would at least make a good ISK sink both ways and maybe encourage people to hard focus on a single empire as a group so they have the required corp standings.
I would almost want the same thing for 0.0. Use NPCs to cause more conflict or open up more conflict. Say a system is empty and has a low ADM, then pirate factions would more likely set up there. The longer left alone, the worse they get, even expanding to other systems. More of a feature so groups control/own only the space they can use. This would take a lot more thought and problem solving then I can give here for it to work well.
“A change has been made to the shield state that will break all incoming locks when it completes the repair timer, in order to make AFK-shooting at structures less powerful.”
If a bunch of people are AFK shooting at a structure, they are probably shooting at it uncontested.
What’s the point of breaking locks when the repair timer has already finished?
“Jin mentions FoF Ravens and the room collectively groans. Larrikin replies that he is looking into that.”
FoF Missiles don’t fire back at citadels that have aggressed a pilot. I hope that ‘Fix’ is what is being looked at.
Is the groan because the CSM hates FoF missiles, or hates the mechanic of trying to use a Raven to out-range the citadel lock range with FoF Missiles ?
If the CSM thinks out-ranging is an issue, where is the indignation about super carriers range of 4000KM’s? A fortizar and a Nyx have similar ISK costs and capabilities, yet one has a magnitude more targeting range.
CSM Notes, Page 60
“An anti-fighter Flak cannon for citadels was suggested. The original issue seems to originate from the current meta due to playing around with the engagement range.”
Is mutually exclusive with
CSM Notes, Page 30
“Sort asks about arming structures differently during fights to counter the actual fleet brought. Fozzie says the intent of the design is commitment and complimenting the defending fleet.”
if you consider that many citadel structures only have 1 turret slot.
Stop it with the ASML and AXL already. Replace both with a “Upwell Missile Launcher” and let operators load appropriate munitions.
No?
Quote from the 2018/02/13 Patch Notes
“The Standup Warp Scrambler has been changed to the Standup Focused Warp Disruptor, which can be scripted to provide the effects of a Warp Scrambler with a reduced range.”
I am interested to hear the argument that this adaptability in the fitting choice due to changing charges is not in conflict with previous statements regarding citadel fittings and commitment.
The war doesn’t end until I’ve sat out my week logged off up 1 kill to 0. ie the soccer wars. Get 1 goal and then put the 5-5-0 formation out to bore the crowd and the participants. In this case the 5-5-0 formation is docked or offline. ie there is no upside even to winning the war - its still effectively being ‘won’ by a week of doing nothing.
In this scenario they’ll still drop to NPC corp, and then the absolute most you’ll get out of them is tornados in npc corps on the undock, to try get the 1:0 scoreline for me. If that fails, then a new corp will be formed at whatever time the wardec system lets them go to a new corp. Its not preventing corp hopping.
People are perfectly fine with shooting defended structures - particularly if its just a fleet fight in reality. They are not fine with clearing a region of undefended structures, and they are not fine with entosising them - though I did personally enjoy a recent entosis fight because it was new to me - and it wasn’t my job to be the entosis ship very much ( i had a back up link fitted).
Also people are fine with turning up to a timer that they set aggressively, where the loss is the status quo, likewise they are perfectly fine with setting those timers. Remember it is not the wardeccer that needs motivation.
Not only that, pve in the future will probably gravitate towards being more like multiple players shooting defended structures and fleet like enemies, ie its a task that will feel more and more like playing their game. We’ve already wiped the cas pve fleet a couple of times on FOBs, and the people that lost ships were willing enough to get another ship and try again on the same day. (where we learned about alerted FOBs).
We can train people to accept shiploss, but aren’t going to do that by having wars won by complete avoidance of shiploss.
Your plan makes it impossible to clean up after stupid. ie the consequences of stupidity are not just 1 ship and its cargo, they are now forever until that corp can get an 11bil score in return. ie not only does the wardeccer get the thing they wanted, but there would be no counter play after that happens, the whole corp would perceive itself as having lost the war before most of them even got to log on.
Nope - I’m suggesting CCP has a great many things to do to make larger scale corps outside of null worth doing (particularly group scale pve), and this is just one of the things that should be done.
“Sort forwards feedback about taxing miners directly like the ratting tax. This was considered a lot especially for moon mining. The issues would be needing to either calculate ISK cost of the ore, or transporting the ore magically as it is mined, neither of which are trivial.”
The ISK value of the Ore is already magically calculated when reprocessed. What is the problem with using that formula as the basis for a mining tax? I am surprised that this question did not come up when station refining was changed to an ISK value as opposed to a % of the refining output.
Its important to realise that corporate tax from ratting is taxation on the output of ratting. The output from mining is Ore, not ISK. Tax the reward, simple for the miners to understand, simple for the owners. The ledger is still useful to detect thievery, and if the owner so wishes is free to use this information to negotiate a market based arrangements if they so wish to set the rate to 0%.
On that subject, why not make it a choice of the structure owner to decide if reprocessing attracted an ISK or Unit based charge?
How about that old chestnut, charging for ore compression?
As for collection?
By far the most painful aspect of moon mining and mining in general is having to warp back and forth to empty a full ship. I see other corporations using Orca’s and Rorqual’s with tractor beams to act as Mobile Tractor Units since those deployable items are now banned from effective deployment near citadels.
It would seem natural that an Upwell Refinery with its giant drill/tractor beam could automatically vacuum up cans of those with docking rights into their personal assets?
Don’t like that?
Tether gradually repairs ships, why not a ‘conveyor’ effect that gradually empties ore bays?
If there are people AFK shooting at a structure that are not doing enough DPS to reinforce it then I don’t see the problem. If you double the number of people who shoot the structure and go AFK while it is reinforced, then the repair timer will be irrelevant.
So I mine some ore and you want to tax me for it.
Which value do you use. The raw ore, the value of the compressed ore, or the value of the minerals.
Now if you charge me based on the value of the minerals, what level of refining do you use for the taxation.
Refining ore this is easy to do because you have only one possible end product, minerals, and you know the exact amount of minerals being produced. Mining ore this is not easy to do.
It’s not irrelevant though, because it means the structure is damaged constantly, which means if someone else comes along to shoot it they don’t need to shoot as much.
It is important for the argument to distinguish between the act of mining and the act of reprocessing. There should be room for distinct instances of taxation.
Refining Tax
You refine ‘something’ and a ‘something’ is taken as a tax.
Mining Tax
You mine ‘something’ near a refinery citadel and ‘something’ is retained by the refinery owner as a tax.
Its the the ‘something’ that is taken which becomes an instant point of contention. The value of a compressed ore can vary from its uncompressed state, not to mention its value can change dependant upon the region of space.
Conveniently this is also highlights that the ISK values are treated as universal when reprocessing and the majority seem to have accepted this without question.
For both of the above scenarios it is much more transparent and equitabble apply a % tax of the item produced, rather than a dreaded arbitary ISK value, giving each party the same opportunity to turn the item into ISK at a value of their own choosing.
Ok, so how does that percent tax travel from my ore hold to the Athanor. If it’s magical then you just set tax to 100% and you can use hulks at max yield with no need for haulers. If it needs me to dock in the Athanor, then I just don’t dock in the Athanor.
When items were reprocessed in stations a % of the output went into a nominated corporate hangar division.
When items are mined ‘with permission’ ie, docking rights the refinery could ( and I defer to CCP’s ability to program this ) be tractor/conveyed into the miners personal storage. Think of it as tethering, just instead of repairing it empty’s ore holds.
After all, a refining platform is a moon blasting weapon with a giant tractor beam.
When mining ‘without permission’ ie, no docking rights the player is responsible for their own haulage, thusly if the desire was to ‘siphon’ the owner gains no passive benefit and forces action ( PvP ) to remove ‘thieving’ players.
There will not be a single miner upset that they can spend more time mining and less time hauling. Warping back and forth from a citadel to a moon rock is painful, ball sandpapering work. It gives incentive to pay the refinery owner to mine and a tangible benefit to the miner. It gives distinction between mining in an asteroid field and mining at a refinery.
Assume outside of Null that ‘siphoning’ makes you suspect. This would encourage the deployment of friendly refineries, competition over resources sources and opportunity to PvP mining thieves.
