He profile does does seem to support your theory.
That’s more or less irrelevant.
The only way to return wars to the smaller-scale conflicts they were before is to detach them from citadels/war HQs. While war HQs are a requirement, the trend will always be to ball up into groups as big as possible in order to secure their survival. If this wouldn’t be the primary driving factor, war groups would lean toward the smaller size, because most players engaging in that sort of gameplay don’t really want to share their kills and loot with big gangs. You’d see a lot of smaller 5-10 member outfits fighting over hunting rights in lucrative areas.
CCP created war HQs as a means for large null-sec entities to opt out of wars. This was pushed through via CSM lobbying effort (it was even admitted as such by well-known CSM members like a certain real-life politician we know). They made a point of rubbing these changes in our faces whenever they came up for discussion; they were a total win for the null bloc lobby. And you can easily see the effects. For example, I (basically a solo player) declared war on The Initiative. So they came with a 100-man gang (after taking out Bully Brigade’s war HQ with a similar gang) and reinforced it.
In a few hours, they will come with another 100-man gang, and finish the job. There’s literally nothing I can do, because I’m just a single person. All avenues for asymmetric warfare have been closed to me by CCP. I could hypothetically be the best PvPer in the game, but there’s no clever strategy or series of maneuvers I can employ to beat a 100-man blob with 50,000 HP/second of available remote assistance capacity. The only thing I can do is cause as much damage as possible before the war ends (which I did), so at least I can statistically/financially win the conflict. Without the war HQ, they’d have to try to kill enough of my ships in order to deter me from maintaining the war, and considering the competence level of the average null-sec drone, that wouldn’t bode well for them, as the previous PH war record shows.
And that’s why we have BLACKFLAG. Because being able to put two hundred high-end battleships on the field is the only way to defend against this (and sometimes even that doesn’t work).
2 Likes
Have you considered hiring mercs to defend your war HQ leaving you free to go on the rampage?
It’s too cost-prohibitive. A defense would cost like 5-10 billion, while an empty Raitaru is just 600 million. And they’d just siege it again the next day, forcing me to pay for defense ops repeatedly. It’s much cheaper to simply put down a new war HQ and launch another 2-3 wars (as a solo player, I don’t need like 30 different wars up at a time), less than a billion ISK total.
I consider the HQs to be a cost. The most significant cost, in fact, so I agree with you, but think it’s less the mecanics and more the expense.
For your 600 million you cost them 4 billion so far.
It’s really not the cost that’s the issue, but that they’re able to forcibly terminate the war through the employment of N+100 mechanics. If I had to have a war HQ, but the war would continue to stay up even if the war HQ was lost, then it would be a somewhat equitable system.
But as is, it’s just a convenient mechanic gifted to null blocs by CCP to allow them to opt out of non-consensual PvP.
If I wasn’t busy during the first 3 days that I missed, it would’ve probably been 15 billion by now.
1 Like
Mutual wars still a thing? If so dare them to make it mutual or declare them cowards.
1 Like
LOL
They are, but obviously none of these null-sec groups will never accept that challenge.
1 Like
You won’t know till you try
And I’ve seen many null blocks do this in the past. Like you said given more time you may have got the isk count up.
Maybe planning and support are the thing here, all null groups have rivals, giving you 5 structures to drop to help with war cost could be way cheaper than paying mercs.
You could even make one man war dec corps, so you can act as allies for each structure, which also means others could join you. Time would be under your control making them react to your actions.
At the same time you have options to run black ops into their null space and hit them why they kill a structure. ( just an option for more content)
Of course these actions need a reason i think to be viable and sustainable, why did you go to war with initiative, sorry if i missed that part, not trying to be just here but any reason is acceptable other than oh why not because i can. Its not hard to make our actions interesting so others take note, like you have been doing in your post.
Been thinking about mutual wars a bit of late, maybe these could be use as training wars, to brush up on high sec war fighting tactics, without people like black flag shutting your war down. Not that Destiny needs training but others might who like the idea.
I’ve always said theres always away to do a think in eve, you just need to give it a go and find it.
You can’t join as an ally on the aggressor’s side, only the defender’s side. So that wouldn’t really work. Putting up many HQs with 1 war on each has drawbacks just like putting up 1 HQ with many wars on it. It would allow a committed enemy to cause a lot of damage all at once. And finally, null groups have zero concern with helping someone defend from their enemies in high-sec. It’s just not worth the hassle for them.
This is at least medium-sized group content. I don’t have a medium group (and don’t really want one anyway). Which isn’t to say I wouldn’t let people join me; just that I have no intent on setting up and leading fleet engagements.
The better question is why not? It’s fun content.
I should have another story up later tonight if things go the way I expect them to.
Sorry good point, wasn’t thinking
No not openly, your right but so much of null is back stabbing politics, just thought that could be used.
Meh. The cash reward over an entire year does not even cover a third of the cost of the 3.5bn or so worth of doctrine ships I’m required to use. Nobody is bashing stations just for cash. The cash certainly helps a little, but you under-estimate the costs that are incurred as well.
But surely with your trillions you can hire some N+1…call in a few favours…etc, etc. Or has your mercenary style made you too many enemies for that ?
Everyone has lost war HQs to N+1 or just bad timing of shield/armour repair timers. Parabellum did not lose their Sotiyo to N+1…but to a disastrous mistake of people changing corp half way through the battle. On top of that, our FCs employed some brilliant tactics to deal with Parabellum’s wave after wave of Typhoons, Catalysts, Tristans, etc.
There are parts of the current mechanics I do not agree with. Particularly those that give an enemy all the time in the world to prepare. The whole concept of a sneak attack simply doesn’t exist…with exact timers for when war starts, when the shields repair, and so on. This mechanic also lets looters know exactly when to come loot. Of course…in a real war there are surprise attacks and not a ’ we are coming to attack you at 16.07 on April 24th ’ . I find the whole thing of having to wear down shields, armour, etc, at exact times often days apart, a bit incomprehensible. But that’s the way it is.
I think it is the timing system, rather than any N+1, that prevents smaller corps or mercs from taking on stations and war HQs. With the element of surprise, a single person could take down a station if they chose an opportunistic moment.
Actually that is how it works in the real world. Ukraine for example keep announcing they will launch a spring offensive and what weapons they want for it
Just because I can afford something, doesn’t mean that I don’t also want to get value for my money. The shield timer is a joke, so any group can come in and take it down at any time with just a handful of ships. Which means it’s possible to put the uncertainty of the second, final attack over me on a daily basis. As such it makes no financial sense to pay someone 10 billion ISK every day to form up for a defense op, when I could pay less than 1.5 billion ISK (assuming core recovery at least some of the time) for at the minimum 2 days of war. And that’s if the shield timer is taken down the moment that shooting can start, which is highly unlikely. Usually there will be at least one extra day as the enemy group schedules an op.
You’re saying this because you’re usually the attacker. But consider how unfair it would be from the defender’s perspective. They’d have to maintain a 24/7 presence just to defend their structure. The timers were created specifically to address this issue, and allow players to actually live their lives outside of the game.
2 Likes
Now if you paid your friends, RAID protection money of what is it , 1 billion per core, are they not supposed to protect it? I mean that’s lost business for them if your structure gets popped, and why pay protection if you get no protection? I mean that would make them an extortion racket , now wouldn’t it?
It used to be a much bigger issue back when there were a lot more mercenary groups in the game. Some were secretly friends with each other, and would pull off this sort of racket (one group “attacks” a target while the other offers protection, but no fighting would actually take place because the latter would “scare off” the former).
There days, we have like…two total groups that offer protection services (BF and SRS). I doubt they’d need to go for this angle, because they already get more business than they need.
With war HQs, the problem becomes targets (if your targets are big null-sec alliances) repeatedly reinforcing your war HQ. Since you have to pay for each form-up, this could lead costs snowballing out of control.
Well, let’s ask an expert for a more detailed picture of the costs involved:
@God_Emperor_Kane how much would it cost to protect a medium structure (let’s say the location is close to you, and the timer is convenient), and what would happen if the attackers never show up for the second timer (or show up but refuse to attack), but show up a day after to take down the shields again (creating the element of uncertainty for a repeated follow-up attack)?
There are different cost.
We will always be there every time if it is a monthly payer and we go after the warhq so there will not be a second time. And then there are those that just want a defense for a timer. So charge is per timer. And if they want to have the warhq removed than there is a different charge. So it is always cheaper to pay monthly then once of timer or warhq. It is actually cheaper to pay one structure for a year than asking to have a warhq removed.
But to your point about null coming… They don’t. Those that shoot at a structure or warhq is normally small and single minded. At most you will see Null guys comes in numbers if it is a final timer and they are bored. Or you made the error of dropping a structure that competes with TTT. I mean we have 2-4 null pilots regularly shoot at our warhq. Depending on the time it will be defended because I have a permanent alt with max station skills to man it. Just be being present in system makes them go away. And even when they do reinforce, nobody has actually shown up to escalate it. But we are always ready. It helps to have your structure close to where you operate. Then you can just use an alt to keep eyes while you continue with whatever you are doing.
Shield is shield. Shield timers are rarely defended anyway unless you just so happen to be there and online. What matters is the armor timer.
Also, what do you mean by “Since you have to pay for each form-up, this could lead costs snowballing out of control.”
EDIT: Also take care… because you came from an alliance that was on receiving end of CCP ire for doing exactly what you did with your WarHQ. Among other questionable mechanics which got some guys banned for 2 weeks.
1 Like