I mean it depends how you describe pvp so yea in a way we all have our own version of it, in my mind pvp is about making choices and your enemies making theirs and it becomes a battle of strategy and tactic’s.
If the fleet commander is making all the choices then who ever is just following orders is not really participating in that strategy and tactics they are basically playing press the button when told to, its a mindless activity with little stimulation that hardly classifies as player vs player.
Can they really say “I influenced the outcome with my experience and quick decision making” or where they more like a module that the fc is pressing?
Lol…actually Altara has only 531 of my total of 1107 kills ( and just 25 losses ) …and 2.6 Trillion worth of destruction across my 6 main chars.
I have a mere 2.25% loss rate…compared with your 44% loss rate, which is pretty good given that I’m often in fleets where a lot of ships get destroyed.
What people forget about fleet activity is that sure, you are one of 100 ships doing the damage, but equally, you can end up with 100 enemy ships all aimed at you. That is where skill at keeping anchored, having a clue what is going on, knowing when to call for logi or operate ASD, and so on all come into play. It makes all the difference between who survives and who doesn’t. My 2.25% loss rate is not accidental.
Why would you stay anchored when 100 enemy ships aim at you? That is the perfect time to abuse transversal and reduce the enemy damage through manual piloting while still keeping range of your logi.
Nah…the enemy generally targets the weaker pilots, who by definition will be those who don’t have the skills to keep anchored. I reality what I do is keep an eye on the entire situation and act accordingly…even if it means disobeying the FC. The FC doesn’t decide if or when I apply ASD, or if I simply decide to flee to the star and then warp back, and I quite often disobey which ammo to use and even which target to carry on firing at. I’m one of the pilots who claims SRP the least…precisely as a result of not always doing what the FC says.
Nah…I could simply introduce my pilots that are now getting only solo kills. But I keep them largely secret for various reasons. Altara is no longer really even my ‘main’ char and has less than half of all my kills. My personal preference is to be my own FC, and that is the way things are heading.
EVE Online is a game, it should offer fun for those playing it. I can’t see any reason why more people should forcefully be thrown into this crappy mess that the HS wardec system is. Tbh, it should be completely removed until someone comes up with a better solution than the current nonsense.
How would they suffer? Tell me? Having to spend some ISK to maintain an alliance seems like a pretty great thing to me. Non functional/ghost alliances would vanish, stupid alliances like Safety. would be obligated to hold their own structures and be at risk of retaliation instead of functioning with pure impunity… Connect the dots my guy.
When you look at things beyond face value, things just kinda fall into place. Who’d thunk?
Wouldn’t that go against the whole ethos of a sandbox though where everyone can do what they want, when they want and where they want?
Various attempts have happened in the past, and now the present to herd players into certain play styles, they’ve all failed, as this idea will, and should.
I don’t get it, how does this affect career paths for people?
The only thing this does is add a slight limitation to having an alliance. You want an alliance, you have structures. That’s it. This limits nothing. This doesn’t go against any ethos of any kind.
CCP already limits a bunch of things within the game and has constantly added limitations over the years, but somehow, dead alliances just seem to persist.
And to those with reading deficiencies, this would ONLY apply to alliances, not corps.
But if an alliance has to hold a structure, who owns it?
Which corp in that alliance, because as we know an alliance is just a collection of corps.
My way of looking at it is that you want to force alliances to have structures so they’re war eligible no other reason, when they might just be a loose collection of corps with a couple of dozen members concentrating on mining and Indy and have zero interest in pvp.
This is the issue, you and others like you can’t deal with the fact that some of us have absolutely no interest in the parts of the game that interest you. So you come up with ideas to try and force parts of the game on us, it won’t work.
If you need targets there’s LS, NS, WH’s, targets galore for you.
A few small alliances are not hurting or affecting the game or you or anyone else.
But you can’t just pretend that miners, haulers, and those who manufacture ships, are in some separate reality totally dissociated from PvP pew pew in the rest of Eve. Those miners, etc, are the very source and supply chain for that PvP activity, and the supply chain in war has always been a legitimate target.
So the whole notion of ’ I’m just chilling out mining some rocks and everyone should leave me alone ’ is just pure nonsense. If a person is mining then that very activity leads to pew pew ships…and it is thus poetic justice and karma if a bunch of pew pew ships show up and blap him.
The corp that put it up. Doesn’t have to be that complicated…
It really isn’t rocket science. If you want to form an alliance, you should be required to have a structure. DONE. Jesus…
This is the issue, you and others like you can’t deal with the fact that some of us have absolutely no interest in the parts of the game that interest you. So you come up with ideas to try and force parts of the game on us, it won’t work.
Pot calling the kettle black. Yikes.
A few small alliances are not hurting or affecting the game
So why not operate as a corporation? Why does it HAVE to be an alliance? Corps wouldn’t require structures, you’d be doing the exact same thing you’ve done before. Just under a single banner.
So far, you’ve failed to give one good reason why structures for alliances are a bad idea.
So far, you’ve failed to give one good reason why forced structures for alliances are a good idea.
I mean, be realistic, the wardec system is hated by roughly 99% of Highsec inhabitants and enjoyed by 1% of wannabe PvPers who do nothing else but seeking curbstomp targets, bashing defenseless stations (and in case someone shows up to defend them, they wipe him away with overwhelming force as additional snack as well). So the whole system causes a lot more frustration than enjoyment amongst the players of this game and you will have a hard time to explain how it would make EVE a better game for the majority of the players if you enforce that crappy nonsense on more people than absolutely nessessary.
Tbh, I bet the only reason why CCP does keep the wardec system in the game isn’t because it is so crazy good, it’s because they don’t know how to actually make it better and at least use it as counterbalance to structure spam. Thats basically it’s sole purpose, but besides that it adds little to no good for the game at all. And in case you forgot: they removed the old system where you could wardec anyone and stomp him into the ground for your own personal fun because it actually did them cost players, lots of. Your “suggestion” would just do the same. Let people form an “Alliance” for whatever reason they like, be it roleplay, be it they came from the same outside-community, be it because they first want to grow an own community with shared ingame-orga-tools before they make the step towards a more risky structure-owning gameplay.
You “PvP Groups” always forget that the main reason you can’t find targets any more is your own behaviour. You blob all the time, you only punch down, you only look for weak targets and in the process you simply cut the grass before it is green. Give the small and/or new groups some breathing space, let them grow and at some point they will begin dropping stations all by themselves. And then you can wardec them. Should be more than enough.
So far, you’ve failed to give one good reason why forced structures for alliances are a good idea.
This would force people to actually maintain and sustain the alliance past a single click of a button. There’s one. Remove dead alliances that predate on newbies
There’s two. Remove zombie alliances that simply should not exist. An alliance with 2 active players might as well be a corp.
There’s three.
Alliances right now are nothing but a mediocre formal agreement to not kill each other. Why not formalize it? Why not make it so that everyone has to pitch in so that there might actually be some incentive to work together?
Going back to your sob story about wardecs. My guy, CCP already made wardecs harder than ever. To the point that simply not having a structure, already makes you immune, whether in a corp or alliance. And even with all that, structure spam is very much alive, but immunity for everyone in highsec is stupid, has been and will be. The only thing that breaks this immunity is ganking, and even then, ganking alliances and corps are completely immune to everything in highsec.
People always complain about ganking and how it’s become so rampant and their alliances so large. Want to know how to combat them? MAKE THEM VULNERABLE. Ganking groups will NEVER engage in ship to ship pvp. This is as true now as it was 10 years ago with CODE… Wardecced and they would simply hide for 7 days. Now, you can’t even wardec them because they operate off of neutral structures, so they basically run around with complete impunity.
Try to see the broader picture. It’s not all about you and your clique of miners.
Also, wardecs never drove anyone away, shitty alliances that never protected their newbies did.
