Okay, time to drop a small stick in a C1.
Being someone from the amicable side of things, even I find this a disturbing comment in the blog. The whole non consensual thing, just took a lurching step to the edge a cliff. Whatever you have planned for this temporary solution better come fast and better be good.
better yet how about this to add lets say keep it as it is but as talked about change the deck price as well
So dec cots 500mil 1-20 corp 20-40 corp 400 mil 40-60 300 mil 60-80 200 mil 80-100 100 mil plus 100 man corporation 50 mil per dec funds transferred to concord as added inventive if the defenders kill a ship from opposing corporation concord pays out xxx amount of the value of ship kill to make it a little more interesting.
Now if only they would put this kind of effort into Faction Warfare. But I guess not enough Faction Warfare members are on the CSM to make a difference.
Oh well I guess it will go the way of WiS.
If u put up a moon drill in hisec u donât own the moon or the belt. If u want to enforce ownership then do it in lowsec or null. This is not a problem except for those not prepared to operate in low/null or prepared to use the counterplays that already exist in hisec.
- Whilst they are elected. They are not a ruling body.
Even if they were, thatâs a Republic. Not democracy.
- Never did i suggest ccpâs game designers arenât intelligent. Just that intelligent game designers are preferred as decision makers to giving the masses whatever they shout about loudest.
All I was trying to get across was the code is already designed in a way that if CCP chose to create some moon ownership system in HS, it shouldnât take too much dev effort to institute crime watch mechanics into it.
bty is MTU and that deployable mobile depot cased as a structure so would deploying them in space make a corporation then a suited for war?
Currently there are only 3 FLEX structures in game. Cyno beacon, Cyno Jammer, and Jump Gates. MTUâs and Mobile depots are not classified as FLEX structures, at least according to https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/213021829-Upwell-Structures
Yes, when it comes to wardecs one should really listen to the nullsec lobby CSM.
It only took you 10 freaking years
any how good night all
I can finally flex in jita in my Machariel in peace.
Why is the picture used clearly not high sec?
so, 6 months of Falcon and Brisc in the War Dec community is not enough data???
@Ehrenrh_Holst Because Wardec will affect the entire game, not just hisec⌠doesnât matter where a structure is.
No, they werenât. The fact that theyâre going to iterate on this over months indicates that they listen to reasonable ideas. So far, at least. The most reasonable thing to do is changing the system towards retaining players and then changing it over time into something better.
Most ideas Iâve came across are silly at best, or â â â â â â â â and not actually addressing the problems at worst. Any idea that tries to fix this mess in a single pass was, is and will always be a bad idea. The current step is necessary. Not perfect, but better than the status quo. Itâs a good change as a start.
3 Likes
Well if either were even remotely competent, then still no. âWar Dec Communityâ my entire arse. What we havenât got any real useful data on is what exactly is causing the poor player retention. Brisc is just riding his pet cause, furiously wanking his CSM tag without actually providing anything but that very first initial data point âplayers donât come back after wars are overâ, and Falcon/CCP has time and time again shown that they have about as much understanding of their own datasets as concussed marmots, because they donât actually look at the totality in the game, looking for the core causes of concern. Examples would include some of the more disastrous balancing choices and how theyâve repeatedly ruined ships and gameplay because they didnât understand what the real problems were.
In this case, they jumped the gun. If wardecs were the actual cause for poor player retention, a week of going offline would not be enough to make people stay out of the game permanently. Thereâs something else, far more fundamental and problematic. at play when so many can just log off for a bit and then find no reason to return when the danger is over. My money is on the simple fact that highsec gameplay is frankly not good enough to keep people invested. Who the hell has ever come back from a hiatus in Eve going âOh I really missed running L4s and mining in a Retriever guys. I tell you what.â The core problem isnât that wardecs push people out of the game for a week (although that is something that needs addressing, donât get me wrong), itâs that the gameplay is so â â â â that they donât come back afterwards.
Donât get me wrong, wardecs need drastic changes, but it needs changes towards providing the defenders counterplay and options, not towards making people immune to them. That is counter to everything Eve ever has been about, and it runs counter to player interaction in its most Eve Online form: Conflict.
The fact that there are people who refuse to fight back needed to be addressed. There is no point in providing counter-play for those who do not wish to counter-play, and NO, providing what people call incentives is NOT a solution to this problem at all. The coming change addresses the people who do not wish to fight. Everything else comes afterwards. Calm your tits, Miz.
3 Likes
Useless.
Proper solutions are:
- increased cost over time
- cooldown on repeated war decc
A pirate Corp would stick a Poco with 0 tax somewhere, and gl finding it.
Pff
PS. and start addressing the issue when a non war player RR the agresding player without consequences.
Too many ppl lots their ships because aggressor was under few nestors w/o aggro at all. Gl with that.
Just take it out. Remove it completely until you have a good and fully developed system to replace it.