Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas

release
devblog
official

(Killer Gandry) #1074

Incase you aren’t aware of it.
If you log off in an upwell then a locator agent can’t help you.


(Peter Yurgin) #1075

You are joking, right? It will tell you what system you are in. Let me clue you in again on the process of finding the structure.
You show up and hmmm he’s not here… locate him again, no it says he here he must be logged off. Okay I’ll look around, ahhhhhhh here is an refinery belonging to the corp or alliance he’s from… Ah let me scan the structure and hack it for the timer and plan my next steps.
There you go. It just helped you and it is used all the time, even when you’re logged off. You’re not safe logged off.


(CAPT MADOG) #1076

I have been playing eve a long time this changes 2 the wd mechanics is the worst i have seen.So someone wardecs me then thinks its a bad idea deconstructs their own structure then the wd ends lol. Just to also inform you that me and all my accounts wont subscribe to EVE again while
this nonsense continue. 07


(Mr Schit) #1078

As a noob who get’s dunked on quit often, I’m a 1 man corp and was just wardecd for the first time. Here are my thoughts on the system. If this were actually a ‘war’ I could do more then just defend but I have 0 idea where any of the corps structures are. I spent 2 days looking. All around where their corp office was registered to where Zkill shows most of their major spots of activity, clicking every structure in every sector. I roamed those spots for another day looking for any activity from them. Nothing. Having to look around for someone who you’re at war with doesn’t seem like war, nor is it fun gameplay.

Wardecs seem to have little to no risk for the attackers in the current system. You can declare war on whoever you have advantage over with little chance of reprisal. Your structure location is probably hidden and unless players are online when you attack their structure (they’re attacking my Athanor) or they happen to run into you, the defender really can’t go to war.

I don’t have a lot of experience with the system but if CCP wanted to promote fights and put some actual risk into war for the attacker, the location of their nearest base or structure should be made known to the defender. Otherwise it’s just the defender waiting for the attack, knowing it’s probably coming sometime, by a much larger group. And from my perspective that makes it seem more like gate camping then war.

I understand that in playing Eve online people are going to come into my sandbox and kick sh*t around. If you’re going as far to declare war though it’d be nice to know where the other sandbox is so at least you have the option to do the same.


(Khan Wrenth) #1079

Who was it that said, “These changes won’t be enough, they’ll ask for more”?

Because that guy deserves a beer.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1080

No, that person doesn’t. Because there is always going to be someone who asks for more, on both sides, no matter which way a change goes.
It’s an old tired meme to say that, and it does nothing but draw divisive lines of “us vs them”


(Maekchu) #1081

Your error is thinking, that you somehow are able to defend your structure as a one man corp. Against any competent corp, you really have zero chance of fighting back or defending. It is working as intended.

You either write down the Athanor as a cost of operation and move somewhere else, or you start to recruit/join a bigger corp.


(Mr Schit) #1082

Blockquote Your error is thinking, that you somehow are able to defend your structure as a one man corp. Against any competent corp, you really have zero chance of fighting back or defending. It is working as intended. > Blockquote

Yes I understand that and it wasn’t my issue.

My issue was that the attacker should incur some actual risk in declaring war by having the location of their nearest structure revealed to the defender. That way both parties can engage in warfare instead of just one.


(Maekchu) #1083

Adding structures to locator agents has already been suggested many times.

The December changes where just the initial/bandaid rework of wardecs in general. So we should still expect more changes in this area.

However, it’s CCP. Changes are implemented very slow and there is no communication on the direction they wish to go. It being CCP, there is also the chance of no additional changes hitting the live server and the rebalance just being abandoned for some shinier features like skins or irrelevant events. Just look at what happened to module tiercide.


(Salt Foambreaker) #1085

Solo is one of the root problems with EVE.

People have unrealistic expectations. Can’t count the number of times someone suggested they somehow had a right to survive in a many versus one fight.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1086

After losing some ships to 1) being an idiot and 2) ganks, and being frustrated of not being able to wardec non-eligible corp-hopping folks, here’s an idea:

Force safety to green/yellow for people in non-wardec-eligible corporations (including NPC corps). You get red safety if and only if you are actually willing to fight.

Make war eligibility follow pilot: if someone in a war eligible corporation joins a non-eligible corporation, that second corporation becomes eligible for a certain amount of time (say, two weeks). (If they join an NPC corporation they are safe, but the effect only goes away after that same amount of time. Or just get rid of NPC corps for non-rookies now that wardec eligibility is a thing.)


(Tater-nuts) #1087

Setting safety to red allows me to gank in high sec, a very important tool in high sec mechanics. I only gank 1 or 2 days/month (for giggles) and wouldn’t be worth my time to set up a structure.

Ganking is the outlaw/wild west version of pvp and should not have many rules or structure to how or where it is performed.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1088

My suggestion was you should still be allowed to do that if you also allow people to wardec you. When your argument for ganking is wild west and safe nowhere, it becomes kind of lol you want to be able to do so from the safety of avoiding wardecs.


(Tater-nuts) #1089

Why would someone need to war dec me to still be able to gank in high sec? I spend 75% of my time in low sec, no war dec needed and come fight whenever you want. Making someone set up a structure just to protect high sec carebears from being popped a few days a month does not make sense. Unlike CODE my ganking is VERY unprofitable and setting up a structure would not make it worthwhile at all. Your suggestion leads us one step closer to a pvp free and a much, much safer high sec.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1090

Encouraging more people to be wardeccable leads to less pvp?

Ok.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1091

What evidence is there to suggest this would increase the number of people doing PvP and not decrease it via fewer gankers, and a higher barrier of entry to ganking. Since anyone -5 or worse can be shot first anyway and a lot of gankers end up there very fast.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1092

As much evidence as there is to the fact that access to ganking in the long term leads to more pvp, instead of just the occasional gank. Which is to say none for us. (CCP might have numbers about how the wardec changes have affected e.g. wardecs against gankers, but I do not have it, obvs.)

Personally, I do not really consider ganks the kind of “pvp” that EVE should primarily encourage. I am fine with ganking opportunities existing and I am not saying I haven’t ever done it myself either :wink: , but as a whole, it is a minor, and kind of boring part of pvp in general.

If it were the case (as it might be, though I cannot prove it) that the ability to always dec gankers back would lead to somewhat fewer ganks BUT more explosions in general from actions against the gankers who still had the guts to do it even if it required exposing themselves to consequences, I’d consider that a fair trade-off.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1093

We have clear evidence it doesn’t lead to more explosions. Code have been hanging out in citadels in alliance for months at least. (what a surprise there were just some ganking exploits closed around citadels). There have not been explosions happening around those structures.

What it will do is close off things for smaller groups and newer players who just want to have a try. Exactly the people who don’t cause systematic issues with their ganking are the ones who would get hit by it.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #1094

I am not sure you can use CODE as proof that there would not be more explosions between smaller groups if it was possible.

But it sounds to me that you think people should be able to gank because hisec should never be safe even for newbros, but they should not be wardeccable because newbros need to be safe when they gank. I find that logic kind of funny, to be honest.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1095

Except it’s not about them being safe. It’s about you putting several walls in front of them saying “if you want to gank in a 2 million isk ship you have to invest all this other effort”.

Why shouldn’t some guy in an npc corp be able to just jump in a destroyer and kill the other venture mining that bumped him or called him names. Why should he have to go and spend hundreds of millions and make a corp leaving all his friends in corp to do so.
These are the important questions.