Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas


(Quor Dresden) #184

Forum posts are usally just from one perspective. An individuals opinion on a topic. I am thoughtful of many perspectives on this topic, I only posted my opinion on part of it. Balence, if you choose to call it that, always has multiple sides. Some like it, some don’t.

I am interested to see how this all works out. More unknown changes on the way. I’m sure many of the opinions on this thread will change.

(Ashterothi) #185

Those without territory should not participate in the conduct of warfare.

All of that aside, if you are unafraid of war, why is the need to have a simple structure (it can be a small POS in some far flung corner). I think that it isn’t a bad thing that one can be “knocked out” of the war-game. You havet to pick yourself back up, build a new castle, and then engage once again.

(Lijah) #186

The biggest ‘issue’ is with war dec, as described in the blog above, is interaction with them and war being pushed on people who don’twant them.

Those people who are part of that problem are principally the small scale industrialists. They’re the peeps who when war dec’d don’t have the ability, numbers or inclination to fight.

So to address this issue CCP just puts a massive target on any of these industrialists, by diluting the ‘war-pool’.

That is not a solution to either of the problems stated at the outset. namely 1) generating interaction or 2) avoiding war being thrust on people.

Fix the cause, not the symptoms. The cause is the enduring PVP versus the carebear attitude and mechanics.

(Winston Onzo) #187

You do realize there is actually a “graveyard” in eve. There is one spot where cans will not be removed from the game.

(safira jomita) #188

I agree on you, plus I say the cause is experienced people with high end resources smashing 5-10 players corps just because it’s easy… Don’t get me wrong, it happened to me few times, and no tears where thrown, I’m aware eve is brutal, I don’t believe in safe spaces also. Just need to say that those “farmers” do that for easy cash, and yet they claim to be creating content, teaching them how to survive, but in the end it’s all about their ego. I think theese changes are not the solution , but some change where needed.

(Dunk Dinkle) #189

A good first step to help keep players from simply logging out of EVE in frustration.

What is still lacking is a significant upside for defenders to defend or a significant downside for attackers if they “lose”. Everything is still tilted in the attackers favor, with no downside.

(Samira Kernher) #190

The problem isn’t in having to put up your own structure, it’s the inability to dec someone else because they choose not to have a structure. The inability to impose consequences on people without needing them to first agree to be open to consequences. Putting up my own structure is quite easy and is something I intend to do due to this patch. But if person X does something to give me cause to fight them over, but has no structure, then I no longer have a means to impose consequences on them. That is a problem.

And yes, it isn’t a bad thing that someone can be knocked out. As I have said in every one of my posts on this topic, the issue with war decs has never been in the declaration part of it, it’s been in the lack of counterplay. War decs don’t need restrictions on who you can dec, they need objectives you can work towards, in space, in order to end an undesired war. The only immunity that should exist is temporary immunity upon the conclusion of a war so you can avoid being chain warred.

(Rivr Luzade) #191

A very delayed knee-jerk, considering that people have been complaining about wars for more than 10 years. As said. Wars have been mentioned in a couple of CSM minutes in the past and don’t forget about the countless forum threads on the old forum.

(safira jomita) #192

Yup , and they say they have the downside of paying a HUGE fee for wardec… C’mon its not that huge… if they want to decc 10 Corps at once it’s they choice, right?

(Sugar Smacks) #193

How can you call anything delayed or knee-jerk when the person in charge changes hands.

You cant expect different leaders to all follow the same philosophy of what is good for EvE and what is what priority.

(Mala Zvitorepka) #194

Eh to everyone complaining - this is essentially the same as RL war rules too. If you want to steal some land, it is fair game. But if you “wardec” a particular group of people that doesn’t have a country, it is called genocide.
In EVE, there is sov null as the only “real” land, but elsewhere structures are the closest, so it does make sense to have war tied to that.

As for “can’t wardec someone stealing my ore”, well, people in NPC corps have been always able to steal without any wars. It is pointless to even consider keeping current way of things as long as this isn’t changed - otherwise you aren’t really solving anything. Sure, you now have a tiny little chance to now have a pirate corp that steals ore and you can’t do anything - a corp that wouldn’t exist if people had to be in NPC corps or after its first war. But this is a gain for CCP and game - more people playing plus aren’t we supposed to be bad guys and girls as well?
Furthermore, there might be few such pirate corps and at least 10 times as many industrial ones that would also disband after the first war and that are intended to be shielded by this change.

(Ali Riss Gal) #195

May I request upping the limit of structures needed to flip War Eligible status, perhaps with the additional constraint of applying only to the smallest structures? Say from 1 to 3 of the smallest structures.

I’m in a micro-corp of 4 characters, each with different specialisations, which is clearly not enough to defend a structure with any likelihood of success against a hostile corp. Yet my corp mates and I would like to invest in, experience and operate a couple of Upwell structures to support our small-scale, hi-sec industry efforts and to enrich our in-game adventures. I’m not looking for a no-risk experience. I have an alt that operates in null-sec and I subject it to plenty of risk. I am looking for the opportunity to build what is in effect a small, engaging, hi-sec business that possesses limited yet enabling assets and so delivers a richer player experience.

(cMo McCloud) #196

I’m glad you guys are looking at this, but its just not enough and highlights why the game mechanics in this area are broken. This makes it so that only the biggest corporations/alliances are able to have stations. It restricts content so much so that high sec is useless unless you are in an NPC corp. This is not even addressing all the other broken game mechanics that are abused to no end in high sec. I have always been a firm believer that if you make high sec a place where people can go from playing solo, to small corps/small gangs, and grow, you will have more subscriptions. Problem is people find out real quick you can’t do much in high sec unless you join a big corp/alliance or stay in an NPC corp. While I enjoy null you are forcing all of the players out of high sec or into content they don’t want to be part of. And While some may say “this is eve” and I agree to a point, we need to look forward to how the game gets new players and keeps them.

(commander aze) #197

This literally creates a way to shell corp your strucutres and not go to war if you dont want to. Like this gives everything you are looking for. Also I think people are overestimating the amount of people willing to burn strucutres for possibly no fight.

Best case get 10 riatru each in their own corp unless you post off someone with a lot of time they wont touch them

(Rivr Luzade) #198

Hilmar has been CCP leader since the beginning, and other people like Fozzie, Falcon, Larrikin and so on have been working at CCP for a very long time as well now. No leaders change at all.

(Winston Onzo) #199

Hilmar is still in charge.

(Anima Vendo) #200

I’ve always wanted the first change to be making the cost to war deck’ing grow with each new dec, 50 mill for first war then 100 mill for second war, 200, 400 etc. This would at least honor the mechanics original purpose which was a way to remove a high sec POS. This will still allow groups to remove space trash and actively “take over” a high sec systems structures.

The exponential cost curve will eliminate these snakes in the grass war deck’ing everything that visits a trade hub. Good or bad, not really sure but if enough people complain about being “oppressed” in what they thought was a “safe space” people will speak with their dollars and their business models need to adapt if they want to grow.

As with all things in life things change and we do the best we can to confront them and the “elite pvp” station camping is a tired annoying and borderline exploitive career.

Ideally the end goal state of the war dec mechanic should be, Exponential cost per war. AND if you want to kill a structure you need to anchor a small forward operating base in the high sec system by the attacker which gives a clear victory condition to the defender.

So you can still war dec anyone, maybe even NPC corps, just not that many at once, AND you can still take out high sec structures.

(commander aze) #201

Lost me entirely at war deccing npc corps for any price at all

(John Wicksz) #202

You do understand EVE Online is one of the few (perhaps the only) MMO where a democratically elected council advises it’s game developers on matters of gameplay.
Secondly, why would you assume it’s NOT run by intelligent game designers ? For a niche game that has endured, against the odds, for 15 years, your basic premise should be it’s game designers are wizards. You (and anyone else up in here for that matter) don’t have to agree with the decisions, and the direction CCP wants to take this game to. Believe it or not, the devs want what’s best for the game. They wanna see it endure and be enjoyed by many for many more years. But the lack of confidence in these people that provide you, me, and everyone else playing this wonderful, interesting game is astonishing.
Bottom line is this game is whatever it’s makers want it to be, and like it or not, they know better that the large majority of you. If you’re not OK with that write a complaint to your local CSM representative, or find yourselves another game who’s devs will put up with you constantly second-guessing every choice or decision they make.

(twoflower Secret) #203

I honoustly can’t see much change in the new wardec mechanism for hi-sec: still the 4-5 major wardec alliances will wardec whatever they can no matter the small size (smaller is cheaper).

A small corporation with a single structure like an athanor will still not fight back against a big alliance with deep pockets and seasoned players with bling ships. It’s a matter of balancing the loss of a small structure against the billion ISK bribes you have to pay to get of their shortlist (if that works at all). The gain of a loss of a 1B structure is not getting wardecced anymore !!

The result will be a loss of structures and people fleeing into stations again. Only ‘positive’ about that is that the hunting grounds will become less populated.

And finally worse of all there is still no major risk for these serial warmongers. So why not let Concord randomly end wars prematurely by hitting those who start it in their well know (hit hard, ask questions later or never) style. Concord intervention can be modelled after their actions in high/low and lack of action in null.