Your idea for fuel does nothing to change any of this.
Now adding structures to locator agents might have a place. It would have to be ‘find the nearest’ otherwise if it found all structures it would be too good. That idea is worth following.
Your idea for fuel does nothing to change any of this.
I have no problem with being able to locate an aggressor’s structures, but I doubt this would actually change much. Carebears don’t want to impose risk, and therefore look to artificial systems to impose that risk rather than present it themselves. I do not believe that allowing the defender to know the location of their aggressor’s base would actually satisfy any defender who would raise a complaint in the first place, but I grant it should be knowable if structures are tied to war mechanics.
Ignoring for the moment that a wardec costs isk, it is impossible to wage war without committing, and thereby risking, some assets to a location occupied by your opponent. Attackers must risk assets to press the war they start if they want their reward, other than, I suppose, the intimidation factor of an active wardec.
Ok, take out the fuel idea and insert the “find nearest structure”
That way you increase the risk a bit more for the deccer and you give the decced one several options.
Fleet and gear up, move over and try to gank that structure.
Cash up, find a merc group that wants to go after the structure for a price.
Do some shop spinning in an NPC station while your structure get’s taken out.
“Carebears” is a quit relative expression.
Said carebears decide to fight.
The agressor however only has some alts online in NPC corps or unrelated corps and hopes for a juicy target. If not no real loss.
Now if the system of the nearest structure is known the carebears could decide to fleet up and move over there to hit them at said structure.
Table is now turned.
The agressor can choose to log in with characters in said wardeccing corp to defend their asset or they shipspin because the sheep bite too hard for their comfort.
Don’t think all carebears wont fight. Just that they have so limited options to fight back whereas the tools for wardeccers are far more extensive.
Can we please have disclosed the “changes of future iterations” already?
I would like to decide sooner than later whether any longer involvement in EVE can be justified after all those pay-to-skill, play-for-free, instantiated battles and now close-down-sandbox changes on wardecs and surely soon on ganking to prevent emerging gameplay. EVE’s future with those and planned changes sounds so dull that i really would like know if the sandbox will persist at all?
That would be nice, I’m interested to see what direction EVE is going in overall in regards to the war dec system.
I don’t mind the play-for-free aspect, that was smart in a way. I didn’t like the pay-to-skill, I felt that was a jab at the existing player base and a way to remove almost that elder feel of being in the game so long that you have crazy skill points.
I don’t see them doing much on the ganking side of things, that’s why they have the response times, everyone knows the risks based on security level they are mining or transporting goods in.
I also don’t see any issue with the new very basic corp level, which provides corps the ability to grow their corp without worrying about war decs. Allowing them to get to the point where they feel comfortable in taking that next step to allow for war decs. In the end I feel that it would provide more content because now when you war dec a corp technically they should feel more confident in fighting instead of logging for the length of the war dec as they have actively decided to open the door to wars. Those corps that like wars are going to be putting up structures so they can continue to do so, those that didn’t won’t, or won’t until they feel they are ready.
I like this first step, but I’d still like to see some more purpose to wars. Actual goals, and penalties for pointless wars. For instance if no one in one of the corps signs in for 48 hours the war automatically ends for being completely pointless with the in ability to restart the war within 30 days or something crazy.
Some people keep focusing on blowing up structures as a goal, but I don’t think so. Pirate and ransom corps will probably maintain multiple structures, because they don’t want to be pushed out of a war, so instantly trying to take out multiple structures by a defending corp isn’t going to work, they have to put up with the aggressor. Pirate and ransom corps aren’t going to blow up the single structure some corps may have because it is probably more costly for the defender if the attacking corp just keeps blowing up their ships, so they will want to keep the structure in place so they can continue to blow up their ships with gorilla warfare.
So structures I don’t see really as anything part of the war system apart from just being the toggle switch allowing you to go to declare war or to open your corp to war. Nothing else. So for me there needs to be other things that make war worth while for both sides, of course those types of goals again only make sense in high-sec, in low and null wars are generally about territory so their purpose is already naturally created by the game mechanics. High sec is a different story and I don’t know how CCP can create a system that works for both effectively.
Before I go down this road, I want to make clear that I’m against the idea of requiring those declaring war to have a structure at all, so I doubt we will see eye to eye in this matter.
The thing you can’t change about the wardec system is that the aggressor gets to choose to go to war or not, and this sole advantage will see people complain in perpetuity about a lack of balance.
Whoever is starting the fight is going to be fairly confident they can win, and thus a perceived inequality likely exists for nearly all wars when they are declared.
The mechanics of war, though, favor the defender. If there are two equal sides before war is declared, then after the declaration, the aggressor is down 50 million isk. The aggressor is stuck with whoever is in his corporation or alliance. The defender may call in one alliance or corporation to join the war as an ally for free, and several more for an increasing fee. In this battle of equals, the defender has a strong advantage, thus I think the tools favor the defender as things stand today.
If the aggressor can commit any hardware to threaten the defender, the defender can threaten that hardware, if they so choose. If the defender decides to field a juicy target during the war, well… That might not have been the best idea if they didn’t have the force to secure that asset.
In my experience, a force that can’t think of anything to do but throw up it’s hands for a week under the old system probably won’t have the instinct to create a fleet to fight the enemy on their home turf, either, even if they know where it is. Those who can endure for a week of war tend to refrain from complaints. Those are the general trends I observe.
I grant you there are exceptions, and that you may be exceptional, but when designing systems, we should pay attention to the general state of affairs instead of the outliers that exist within that state. People who are dissatisfied now will remain dissatisfied so long as a war can be declared on them by someone who thinks they can win.
You are stuck in symmetric thinking.
I’m not sure what you’re alluding to. If you believe the suggestion that knowing where an attacker’s structure is, contrary to my assertion, will actually satisfy wardec defenders who are dissatisfied today, you’re free to make whatever case you like to support that point.
I was referring to your second half. Where you basically say people will be unhappy at being at war.
The problem is not that they are targeted by war, but that to win they have to play their enemies game. And stop doing what they like.
Attackers will almost always like PvP, Defenders will almost always like PvE. So any war system needs to be asymmetrical in potential win conditions. If the defender can win by doing PvE but evading the attacker, then a lot fewer people will complain.
Yes there are always the perpetual whiners who certain people will point at constantly, but the reality is it’s the silent majority we are designing for.
I am skeptical, and I’m not sure I would be willing to elect this type of solution for a game like Eve, but you’re right. I had not considered it.
Think of it like this, if you declare war on me, it’s likely you have 1 of 3 objectives if I am a PvE corp.
- For Lolz & lutz. Trade hub camping or Uedema/Niarja gate camping. While trade hub interdiction is valid I don’t see that we need to make it easy to interdict a corp from trade hubs for weeks, especially high sec corps that probably don’t use alts yet (Last time CCP released any figures on alts it was about 1.5 accounts per player, which means that since most null players seem to have lots, that basically all the highsec players have to be single account).
- To kill my structure.
- To drive me away from an area for competition purposes.
For number 2, obviously there needs to be enough time that a well times war dec can destroy my structure. Personally I’m an advocate for high sec having the same structure timing as Null, but getting closer/same bonuses to go with it. High Sec doesn’t need the longer timers and it just adds tedium into killing structures in high sec. If that’s what you want it should be a short sharp war, with 2 reinforce timers not weeks apart. However…
My ‘win condition’ is not having my structure blown up.
For number 3, my ‘win condition’ is not getting driven away from the area.
I clearly don’t care about blowing your structure up or driving you away, or I would have declared war on you.
What this means is that insisting I blow your structure up to ‘win’ is going above and beyond the objectives I actually care about in the war as the defender, while you are only having to meet the objectives you actually care about. Which puts far more of a burden on the defender if they want to be able to ‘win’ rather than force a draw through boredom and you withdrawing the war/letting it expire.
So there obviously needs to be a mechanic where by if I can keep doing my PvE, I have achieved a ‘win’ because you have been unable to prosecute the war in a reasonable manner.
Unfortunately, several years too late. If only CCP had listened to players 4-5 years ago EVE would be in a much healthier place today…
They should increase the NPC corporation tax rate to at least 25% and implement a 12.5% tax on corporations under 25 players as well if they want to continue to encourage interaction.
I would say that people in NPC corps interact more than most people in player corps. Even bigger corps only have a handful of active people.
Speaking of interaction: How do you define that term? I have a couple of alt corps and I interact a lot with people though chats and in the areas where the alts operate to, for instance, warn about approaching hunters. Why should I pay 12.5% tax just because I do not follow your or CCP’s warped definition of interaction.
Yawn… It’s really time for NPC corporations to bite the dust.
Why? To stifle interaction? I thought you wanted the opposite? In an NPC corp you have at least active people chatting and helping out even though you did not have access to a larger group of people to hang out with. That was one of the benefits of wars in the past. People got access to more people and potentially learned about other groups, more organized groups or groups with similar interests in other areas.
NPC corps offer a lot of benefits that user created corps do not.
As it stands, it doesn’t seem that Eve has any mechanic for determining the victor or loser in a war. Each party decides by their own values whether or not they’ve won. If the aggressor is unable to prosecute the war, then they’re down the wardec fee, and in such a case I do consider that a victory for me by virtue of my own fiat, and this is my preference. Players deciding for themselves according to their own values and interpretation of events.
That being the case, I suppose the benefit of winning by some condition the game can arbitrate means… ending the war with the same promise of temporary peace afforded by an accepted surrender? A feel good tick mark in the corp war history? Forcing them to redeclare or renew the war early if they want to continue?
Experienced and wealthy players will find some way to press a wardec for as long as they wish to do so. Mechanics tied to corporations or alliances can be circumvented by creating new corporations or alliances. Financial cost mainly affects poorer, newer, or smaller groups who would probably drop a war that was unprofitable or uninteresting because of financial necessity.
I think, and this is purely my opinion I understand, that the bulk of the solution to the wardec problems is a combination of deregulation and social outreach to educate players on ways to endure and thrive while at war.
I’m not dissin’ you or your ideas, mind. I just have different ones I prefer.
If the attackers actually liked PvP in general, they’d dec other PvP corps over pure or mostly PvE corps. This situation you describe rises not when attackers like PvP, but when attackers like easy kills with little risk, which is a very limited subset of PvP.
The problem is that without any win condition, the best way to play for the defender is to log off.
Because any other behaviour gives the attackers a win pretty much, since it presents them with content while you are facing reduced content.
Now imagine the following. In simple form, not addressing some obvious loopholes and obvious ways to close them.
Wardec fee is determined by attackers size. This is to create a pressure towards smaller corps doing wardecs, to counter the pressure of being bigger to N+1.
Wardec fee is held by Concord (SCC) as a War Bond, which is all/nearly all up for grabs.
Win Conditions are based on defenders activity over the last month, so defenders have to maintain say a 75% ratio of their average activity, maybe even in the same constellation they were doing it in before so they are known targets. Win Condition of all structures destroyed always exists for both sides.
At the end of a week, or if a specific threshold of defenders activity is reached (Say 125% of their average activity in less than 1 week), the win conditions are assessed. The more stuff the attackers blew up the more war bond they get back, the closer the defenders got to their win condition, the more bond they get paid to them instead.
Sure, any kind of enforced peace wouldn’t work because you just move to a new alt corp, but you could have a short cease fire of no wars in place for those wars which are two corps fighting over resources or space in highsec, and the record of X corp beat Y corp 5 times probably isn’t one you want your PvP corp getting anyway. Mainly the feel good tick and the pay out from the initial fees is all I’m proposing though. Plus obviously the usual war end & then war start cool-downs if you want to renew
The idea is to create a drive for the defender to log in and do stuff. A corp of miners? Well log in with a mining fleet and you might blow the wardec off in 2 days of hard mining with Procs, and get a pile of isk to go with it.
Also for the attacker to actively hunt a specific corp as a target, because is they shotgun approach most corps they won’t get any war bond back, and the defenders probably will even get some of it paid out to them.
P.S. @Elsebeth_Rhiannon Easy kills with little risk is still PvP in the context I am talking. Even if it is more on the farming/ganking side of the equation.
War Dec Roundtable - Saturday, January 5 at 1900 EVE For anyone who was not yet aware of this yet