I honestly don’t even know what can flipping is.
All I know is bashing structures is boring.
The link to structure needs to go , not only because it’s boring . It’s just a bad mechanic
What’s funny about this , both sides loved the battles Bjornbee even said high sec wars are so much fun , fighting ships you never see in other places and it all ends with a war HQ going down and they all went home
Yes. I’ve posted this sort of idea before:
All corporations and alliances need to have a “combat rating” that’s determined by a proprietary formula (I’m willing to develop this formula for CCP for a very affordable $200,000). This would be based on various factors like the amount of combat-centric SP available in the organization’s characters’ entire SP pool, the combined ages of all characters, etc., and would essentially function like “gear score” in other MMOs.
When one group declares war on another, their combat ratings are compared, and a handicap ratio is created. The party that declares war pays a fee. They can decide how high that fee will be (let’s say with some kind of reasonable minimum/maximum amount). The defending party can end the war and win the fee if they cause enough damage to the attackers, determined by their handicap ratio. Let’s do a quick example:
Group A, consisting of a bunch of high-sec mercs declares war on group B, a high-sec mining corporation. After their combat ratings are compared, a handicap ratio of 7:1 is calculated. Group A fronts 700 million ISK for the war fee. If group B causes more than 1/7 of the war fee’s amount in destruction by the period’s end, they win the war, get the war fee paid out to them, and a peace period is enforced. If they don’t manage to do this, then group A can pay another war bill and keep the war going, thus putting pressure on group B to negotiate, pay a ransom, etc.
This would really incentivize defending parties to put up some kind of resistance. The lower the war fee an attacking force pays, the easier it would be for the defenders to achieve their objective (in the example above, if group A pays only a 100M ISK war fee, the defenders would need to do less than 15M worth of damage to end the war). This would push mercenary groups to operate in smaller groups. At the same time, blanket wars against large, powerful entities would still be possible. And structures would become strategic objectives instead of the primary focus, as you’d still need to own structures to be able to declare wars, but wouldn’t need to designate them as HQs.
This idea would need a lot of work to flesh out, but it would set the game on the path toward actually interesting gameplay as opposed to bland N+1 spamming.
4 Likes
That is the best idea I have seen about wars in a long time . Even with all the crap you give me I have to say your on the right line here.
Forget our differences for a moment.
How would it work if the defender had help why at war , would that change the combat rating and so the winning criteria
Ok, but how do I profit from this?
Ffs your the Pirate Princess you will find a way as always
As a ganker? There probably wouldn’t be any direct benefits (because wars and ganking are so detached from each other), but you might have more targets in general if the game becomes less ■■■■ to play, and also since it wouldn’t be just all losses for the carebears anymore, they might fly around in more expensive ships.
Hypothetically, mercs would fly much more expensive setups to minimize the risk of losing a ship to the carebears operating under a very favorable handicap ratio, giving you the chance for much more expensive ganks.
I want direct benefits.
How about if you gank someone who’s at war (either side), you get paid directly out of the war fee pool proportionally to the damage you do, with the fee pool being reduced by that amount?
I honestly think the best solution is to delete Highsec. Change all Highsec systems to lowsec, all lowsec systems to nullsec, and all nullsec systems to wormholes.
That would be a better EvE.
2 Likes
Yes, but it’s too late to do something like that without having a bunch of CCP devs winding up floating in the bay outside their corporate HQ after a bunch of aggrieved farmers take a rage flight to Iceland.
Maybe EVE 2 can be like that?
1 Like
CCP did that because for them it was a good enough reason to fight in a war as a defender, however the majority of people have no intention of defending their structures, it is treated like ammo, or a sunk cost. And the majority of them have no intention to defend a war, and never will, no matter how fancy the algorithm is…
CCP has made it worse by making structures more and more vulnerable and now making the medium ones so obviously throw away structures and with chicken shite defences. So that those that did want to defend, now see no point in them at all, the serious players have already moved to Large structures.
So in affect CCP will have to untie the link to structures, it is only a question of time.
The key thing CCP needs to do is to link the war to a war HQ if more than 3 war decs are declared. This is to create risk for blanket war deccers that the people they war decced would combine and attack it, but this did not happen because they could not ally and fleet up together. The war HQ for war deccers is needed because otherwise they have no real risk, and definitely nothing that forces a fight. Let’s take RIOT for example. Danfamm and Ursha Khan were attacking their war HQ, Test had tried and failed several weeks before. This is the risk of war deccing the wrong people and it is good to have it in there. Only weak war deccers complain about this aspect. Though this is why I want to allow three war dec’s without a war HQ. If you hear any war deccer talk about there being risk with out a war HQ laugh at them, they are being disingenuous.
In terms of nullsec entities operating in hisec, the biggest reason is that nullsec entities fight differently, and it really goes back to interdiction via bubbles, if you see how much they rely on them to pin down the enemy and control the battlefield, you will then understand why most big bloc FC’s do not want to bother with hisec or even lowsec fights.
So the real question is how can CCP make it so those that want to defend wars will defend wars, and to me one major road block is the inability to repair allies, it makes it pointless to ally in to help defend something because you cannot actually really help, you just add more easy kill targets. When the decision was made to make it a criminal act rather than a suspect act I was pretty despondent as I knew that they had screwed up this change to tying wars to structures, if they had created the link to enable RR then they might have had seen a different outcome.
It was at that point that I pretty much decided that CCP were beyond a joke in terms of development of hisec wars, because if you want unwilling defenders to defend you have to make them see it was possible and make it grow from there, but to handicap defenders who are dispersed into small entities so they can be blapped piecemeal by organised attackers was just crazy.
If RR was enabled for allies, you could have seen the development of people working together against war deccers. With this being used as a development and training of hisec players into more interesting PvP, rather than just being turkey’s in a turkey shoot…
At this point most hisec wars are turkey shoots…, which is a real shame.
1 Like
I forget which Dostoevsky character quipped the phrase ’ what we need is a real war, but we are so easily deceived '…but it was ultimately the context of ‘lesser’ wars never really resolving anything. Which in a sense is true, but it also belittled every war ever fought, compared with ‘the’ imagined grand war of wars.
I think one can get jaded, like that Dostoevsky character, and fail to grasp that for some…their tiny little skirmish is itself a grand event. Of course one can and should aspire for more and greater things…but to diminish what is left behind on the route is to end up like that Dostoevsky character…always looking for ‘the’ ultimate war and thus negating every lesser one. And you know that ultimate war will never arise…for it too will be belittled in turn.
1 Like
So after dipping my toes into HiSec wars to see how they are these days (I used to do them years ago, before citadels), these are my findings:
- Almost every HiSec group has their structures in a 1 man “holding corp”. This leaves all their pilots virtually immune from legal PvP in HiSec (suicide ganking doesn’t count, since there’s no “fight” and CONCORD puts a hard cap on the engagement duration, and suspect baiting also doesn’t count since that’s a solo endeavour and doesn’t allow for a real group vs group engagement). This is an anti-content mechanic. These groups typically write off their structures and don’t even bother to defend them. And when they do defend it typically goes 1 way: having another entity just come blap war HQs to prematurely end the wars.
- Requring the attacker to have a Citadel, and 1 “war HQ” that when destroyed ends the war prematurely, is a bad mechanic. This seems to have resulted in the domination of the HiSec war meta by just a couple of groups. That is anti-content.
- Using 2 toons, 1 in a Rookie ship and 1 in a DST, to roach cores via fleet hangar, is also a wonky mechanic that should be patched. There is no real counterplay to this. The DST receiving loot from a suspect should itself also go suspect. Ninja looting is fine, however, these players should have to put something on the line in order to do so.
Despite it’s flaws, the older system was honestly better than what we’ve been left with. A good compromise would be: any corp/alliance that has a structure can be wardec’d, period. Groups that can get together, coordinate, and form defenses equal to the task of repelling attackers will survive. Other groups unable or unwilling to do so will not. This is just.
Because of the mechanics, all the risk goes to the attackers: at least 700mil for a core + whatever the structure itself costs, + 100mil for the dec. Their loot can be ninja’d by random nobody roaches at only the cost of a Rookie ship. As a result of the war HQ mechanic, the current meta is dominated by just a few conglomerated groups that can N+1, instead of the myriad of small groups and even solo pilots that it used to be. So for the small time wardeccers, they put over 1bil on the line (which one of the big N+1 groups can just steamroll) and risk having their loot stolen. And this risk has nothing to do with the defenders - that’s the problem. The defenders can just sit there in their 1 man holding corp and not even log in the entire time.
The risk should come from the defenders, not random people who aren’t even involved.
WarDec mechanics need a serious overhaul.
4 Likes
This would be a significant nerf to freighter ganking.
Maybe the rookie ship shouldn’t be able to loot a core in the first place?
Then they’d just use an unfit Atron which costs like 200k. It’d be a distinction without a difference.
So make the core large enough that an Atron can’t loot it either.
They could still drag it directly from the wreck to the DST.
Make the quantum core sufficiently large that they can’t drag it into a DST, because it doesn’t fit into a smaller ship. Problem solved.
Like freighter sized.
1 Like