Good thing they do. Otherwise CCP might take direction from people like you. Xenuria was a better CSM.
My take on this
Iâm just a humble member of one of the dominant Highsec mercenary groups, so Iâm not the end-all of knowledge and my opinions definitely arenât fact.
ââ
I like these changes!
Neutral Logi:
- Neutral logi is definitely handy, but good players know how to live and survive without it.
- I personally donât think it was a huge issue beforehand, but Iâm sure others saw it as a brick wall.
- There exists a work around to preserve the previous effectiveness of neutral logi, so if I wanted to continue using it I could.
Neutral Boosts:
- I think this is a good change. Require pilots to put their cards on the table and risk loss. Bad players and group will hate this while the good ones will adapt properly.
100m Wardec Cost:
- meh, 100m is better than 500m
- I can see the benefit in cost savings if youâre a small group, so thatâs great!
WarHQ:
- Very excited about this as it gives us proper opportunity to have meaningful interaction with other mercenary groups. A chance for everyone to put up or shut up instead of this endless blue balling and evading.
- I admit that smaller groups will be oppressed which further incentivizes being in a big group.
- This totally favors N+1 and I totally foresee us getting smashed by the mega coalitions
Things to work towards and improve:
-
Group A and Group B are both at war with Group C. Group A and B should be able to rep each other.
-
Improved locator agents and some form of watchlist. Have it be tied to the WarHQ. Until any of you have tried hunting and staking a specific entity or person you just donât know how unnecessarily difficult and cumbersome it is. Iâm not asking for full unadultered intel, but we need a bone here. It would help stretch out legs and change the meta from almost purely hub and pipe camping.
-
Booshing in highsec! Have it be a conditional statement that evaluates if a target is free and clear for open engagement, then yes you can boosh him! This would help counter cancerous station gaming and provide further depth to fleet engagements. Letâs see some spice added to our highsec fights on structures!
Just my 2iskâŚ
3 Likes
Why? We really donât care about you guys.
Itâs still a possibility. Iâm aware you donât care, and it doesnât bother me. There have been LARGE groups attempt to bring a fleet to kill us before. Now this is a surefire way to get a fight, lest we forfeit our position as mercs.
Oh, weâll definitely shoot at you when thereâs an opportunity⌠but structure bashes are boring.
Confirmed. If you are the last one in the ship and no one else boarded it, you can re-board the ship if locked. But if someone boards it leaves it and locks it, no you canât. I got that all worked out now⌠my bad.
Right, because when they successfully board it, they become the âlast ownerâ.
If you kill it while itâs unpiloted, itâs a loss on their killboard.
Sorry, Iâve heard this from null entities for over 6 years yet most of the complaining about wars comes from null entities.
1 Like
But they are not allies in the war. So no, they shouldnât be able to rep each other. Just Cause A and B have separate wars with C, doesnât mean A and B are allies.
the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I forget who said that⌠But its legit.
1 Like
Well, for clarity, as a Goon, none of these changes are going to mean a damned thing to me.
As an RPer, this is going to horribly screw up cooperation between empire loyalist groups during wars like what just happened 2 months ago in Thebeka, where small groups combined for a 130-man fight, with multiple alliances on the Amarr side flying as a single fleet.
Now? Theyâre screwed. Thereâs no way they can prevent a larger group from taking one group apart at a time, because the other alliance canât rep the targets being shot. Even if theyâre in the same fleet, they can only watch as their fleet gets shredded and they canât rep half the people they fly with.
7 Likes
Theyâre not allies in the sense of âyou joined this war as an allyâ⌠but thatâs because they canât be. Attackers canât join as allies. They can only declare their own war.
And really isnât that the potential fix right there? Just add a check for âARE YOU IN THE SAME FLEET?â and then donât CONCORD them. @whee!
Ok. Letâs give you a crash course on highsec âconflictâ.
-
Most of the time, itâs a PVP group that is well-funded, experienced, and high-SP taking on a PvE corp. This isnât going to drive conflict, itâs just seal-clubbing.
-
Some of the above, and some just pruning dead corps, but there are refinery and POCO-focused wars. The defender usually is outgunned because the person who wants the location is either an alt in the aggressor, or paying for the service, but a defense is in theory possible. Youâre still not going to see a counterpunch thrown here.
-
Wars to score easy gatecamp kills. Again, low chance of conflict here.
Thereâs very little Horde-TEST style conflicts to control a region. In most of the systems Iâve seen razed, the dead structures arenât even replaced. Itâs just destruction to destroy, waged against an opponent you KNOW doesnât have the knowledge or wherewithal to fight back. If it were more like the Perimeter Wars, then it would be a vastly different story.
Pre-December, the meta was to log off and play on an alt. This generally prompted less playing overall and declining activities.
Now, the meta is generally shifting to 1-2 person alt-corps holding structures so that the player can move around and PvE freely, which might help retention a bit.
These upcoming changes arenât going to help, precisely because fighting back is largely ineffective in the context of what happens. See, when war is declared, any and all targeted structures are already scouted. The wardeccer knows which structures to hit at what times to minimize the take-down times. You can even hire people to get the information for you. Once the war starts, the owner typically just writes off the structure and puts another one up somewhere else when the wardec is over, or on a new alt-corp.
The ONLY incentive I see that might cause someone to think about fighting back is if they can end the war AND save a few billion by saving the structure. Just ending the war WILL NOT WORK, as the current meta shows.
Nope, because that doesnât remove neutal logi. The issue is people can have neutral (not at war) logi that can just start repping someone at war with the only penalty being a suspect flag. CCP want to get rid of that.
You can just set a different structure as HQ for those large groups though, so if you wardec say⌠Grr Goons, and they blow up the HQ for that war it doesnât impact on any other wars.
This seems like a lazy response. Maybe take the time to do the change right before pushing the change out. Because something is difficult to do doesnât mean it isnât worth doing. This should be done before they change comes out. Maybe as little as letting the war corp defenders accept logi from other corps.
Do you not see potential for small groups to band together to try and blow up the aggressors structure? This is a sandbox⌠what should be a viable option⌠and it is an option!
1 Like
Hrm⌠no, youâre right, there needs to be the check on âwho are you fighting?â
But theyâre overhauling the wardec system. So why not supplement the capsuleer logoff timer with âactive warfighting timerâ that checks which wars the interaction comes under?
I mean, the really complicated issue is:
Alliance A and Alliance B are at war with Alliance C.
Alliance A is also at war with Alliance D.
A and B are in a fleet together, C and D are in a fleet together.
A and B shoot C. D goes to rep. Should they be able to, or no? Theyâre a legit part to one of the wars⌠but not the other.
I was in agreement with you, but as I think about it⌠look at the example above.
Now instead of 2 alliances on each side, make it 10 alliances on each side: ABCDEFGHIJ vs 0123456789. Because that happens. The fight is massive. Itâs tidi.
Now think of all of the checks that fightâs already putting Crimewatch through. And for each âFleet Red shoots Fleet Blueâ Crimewatch has to check 100 different combinations.
For every shot. Which means if itâs 200 v 200, w/75% dps, then every shot is 15,000 calls to Crimewatch.
Small groups probably arenât in an alliance.
So they could form a âdefenders allianceâ for the duration of the war which would then keep them as defenders right? But allow cross repping?