Hi Dracvlad, we don’t see eye to eye on many things but there’s a lot of common sense in what you outlined, above.
There were many issues with the previous iteration of the wardec mechanics, but the current flavour just leaves me cold. You know, I half suspect it was a bodge-job, and that CCP knew very well that it was so.
As you have stated before, it was the change to remote repping which, for you and others, made anti-ganking an unattractive, unviable proposition. But since that particular mechanic had wider applications, it adversely affected the attractiveness of many potential Highsec player-versus-player encounters.
I don’t have the answers myself, so it was good to read possible solutions from you and Altara.
I believe that if they had allowed RR in terms of allies, we might have seen a much better situation then we have now. I came across quite a few people that wanted to fight. And do you know what got me most of all about the war dec discord, they only wanted the view points of people who did aggressive war decs, not the people who opposed them, that I had opposed some war decs and had organised a couple of groups to fight was something that they sneered at, but they were sneering at people taht were up to giving them the content they appeared to want. I must admit that when I left that discord, my opinion of war deccers hit rock bottom.
PS I did actually join a war deccer in Kador for a while, I was in fleet with Kane a few times too, not with Dracvlad, but with Lucas and Darin.
Hi again, just to be clear - do you mean RR for the allied defenders, or for both defenders and aggressors?
I believe that all contributors to a discussion have the right to be heard. If their arguments stand up and their proposers are able successfully to defend them, then it doesn’t matter to me who says what.
As you quite rightly pointed out most war deccers are damn good at what they do, have bling ships and bling pods. Most don’t need allies unless a null sec bloc decides to start going after them, they are fine with separate fleets. But not smalll groups and less war focussed entities, they need people to take them by the scruff of the neck and show them that wars can be fun. This was the shame of it all, if only CCP had enabled RR for allies.
The ‘problem’ with highsec wardecs is fundamentally unsolvable. What you have is a system where someone who believes they are stronger can attack someone they believe they can beat. Tinker with it all you like and it will still be people choosing to fight only when they think they can win and the people who are 'decced will continue, forever, to complain it is unfair. The equalizer is that the defender can call in allies, but this is a cold comfort.
Structure mechanics favor the aggressor, who is ostensibly the stronger of the two by enforcing one big knock down drag out fight and thus the player base consolidates around the strongest corporations since only they are capable of waging it. Destiny Corrupted has commented on how structures impact guerilla warfare, which is the tactic used by the underdog to assail or subvert a superior force.
Structures were introduced because the underdogs clamored for a way to end the war when declared upon, but I think this reasoning falls flat on its face when, if they were capable of this feat, they would not really need a structure mechanic. I suppose one could think that the defender would call in allies to sink the war HQ, but this is what people who want to engage with a war will do. The defenders do not want to defend or counter so the option to do this solves nothing.
Wars were fine. They could be handled. None of the large wardec groups would go out of their way to find me. Small groups would find me, but they were small enough that they could be dealt with. There was no reward for “winning” the war, thus people would only declare on me if they thought there was something of subjective value to obtain, or someone else paid them to do so. It was not a constant problem for me. For people who did have it as a constant problem, they were constantly motivating someone to shoot them by shooting off their mouth or acting like a tough-guy. People don’t spend money on wars for nothing, but the satisfaction of pissing off some people who let their mouths write checks their PvP skill can’t cash isn’t nothing. It’s the angsty dirty universe Eve was created to be, but is moving away from.
Just allowing a corporation to choose to be war elligible and allowing corporations to ally without a structure would be at least a start. Probably few people would do this willingly, but I would have and I knew people who would ally for a fight if they didn’t have to set up a loot pinata. The person who declares war can end it whenever they want so I don’t see why having structures to attack is a necessity other than to present some illusion of fairness.
We have actually destroyed some war HQ’s. And there is a cost, they lose those war decs and cannot war dec them for several weeks at least in the entity that did the war dec.
Thanks for this well-argued post, Qia. I’ve learned more about how wardecs actually work (as opposed to what was intended) in this one day than since the new mechanics were introduced!
If the feature is tied to structures - I’m just not interested.
I agree with much of your post, but not this part. Wars were fine for some people and corps, and they could be handled by some people and corps, but CCP already showed the data that the vast majority of wars were not part of this.
They pretty much always did that, under whatever war mechanics we’ve had. Loot for the aggressor is only part of the equation.
The reason was different, Done25, but the effect was exactly the same in the previous iteration.
Because there is no ‘sov’ in Highsec, perhaps the existence of Upwell structures is the only solution that might work. But it doesn’t seem to be a particularly comprehensive or popular solution in this small sub-forum thread.
Loot is part of the spoils of war, in addition to territory and bragging rights; I don’t think that’s likely to change. The problem seems to be the lack of any other credible motive.
Perhaps Highsec needs its own specific set of rules for wardecs. Another headache for the design team!
I’ll just say that I’m suspicious of that data for two reasons. One, I haven’t seen it to know exactly what it contains. I know they showed it to the CSM, but all I got was the conclusion that CCP came to, not the basis for it.
The second is that the charts are alledged show that a corporation’s activity would not recover or that wars would not result in kills, but this is something of a “no duh” when the defacto means of dealing with an unwanted wardec is to form the corporation anew and have everyone migrate to that to dodge the war. Without qualifying whether there was a significant and permanent drop in activity on an individual player basis I am suspicious that the data was chosen to support the outcome rather than the vice versa.
Now, I would grant you that rolling back to the old mechanics probably would not restore the situation back to the way it was on account of the players having already consolidated into more powerful groups.
I could be wrong, but I expect that at a minimum I could get most people to agree that allowing corporations to ally in a war if they choose without having a structure as a requirement would be fine. I think this would go some distance to restoring a more vibrant mercenary economy and let some people who enjoy fighting on a more limited opt-in basis cut their teeth and learn to toughen up on their own terms.
I hear ya. I’m suspicious of unseen data myself. However this particular issue has been kicking around for years, with very vested and experienced players on both sides of it. Despite my shall we say, “incomplete trust” in CCP’s words, I doubt they’d show slides like this:
kicking around for years without being refuted if the data didn’t actually back them up. (Players have been analyzing wardec/kill data in CCP’s monthly data logs for years.)
The plain and simple fact is that wardec aggressors for the most part, only declare wars that will be pushovers with little risk for them. And defenders have virtually no reason to participate in these wars. Both of these statements have been laregely true under every wardec mechanic EVE has ever had.
A small percentage of players will dodge wars, work around them, use various mechanics to remain in the game. But far too many players will simply find it a nuisance and harassment and will leave. The CSM aren’t dummies, and many of them are capable of checking data logs on their own or having someone in their circle check it. If the wardec stats hadn’t been pretty dire I can’t see any real benefit to CCP in making up excuses to change the whole system.
The core problem remains: wars will be declared by corps that are reasonably certain they’ll win, and they’ll be avoided (to the extreme of quitting EVE, in some cases) by the defender players and corps who have nothing to gain in the war and no reason to participate.
Suppose I should specify. I’m not asking for neutral rr to be a thing again. That was a real issue. Concord should still be the response to that. What I’m asking is for defenders and allies of defenders to be able to rr each other. It would give defenders a real chance against all these pirate and merc groups. Coalitions could legitimately form and work together in hs.
With the war mechanics how they are it heavily benefits the aggressor and that happens to mostly always be pirate or merc groups. People generally punching down. I feel the options I’ve listed balance the field a little in both ways so the aggressors still feel like they are getting something in this deal. I’ll explain a few.
Structures not being required allows them to pick other targets. But in turn they would only be allowed so many wars at once so they aren’t just smashing wardec on everyone in sight. This would prevent these mega corps from hiding from wars also. I’ve noticed people who talk the most crap in game seem to be in none wardecable corps . (Not always but usually)
A stasis on joining or leaving a corp in war seems important. This would allow the aggressor to feel a little more secure about the targets they are selecting as they can’t just jump ship. Sure they can just not log in but can’t really do anything about that. In return the defender can properly gage what would be needed to mount a defense without having to worry about a massive spike in members on the aggressor side.
Sorry, I think you meant to say “After over a year of guaranteed easy wins in nice safe high-sec, punching down from under the skirts of a merc corp against weak targets, I had a single fight in low sec. It was so risky that now I really just want to go back to fighting 100% sure wins in high sec again.”
At least, that’s what your killboard says.
As I said, it’s all about avoiding loss. War corps only declare wars they’re certain to win (and maybe gain some kills and loot), and defender corps avoid war or leave because they’re certain to lose (and gain nothing but additional losses).
People can adjust fantasy mechanics all they like, but until that basic imbalance changes, wardecs will have the same results they’ve always had.
Thats the entire point of the game. Sure risk is important for fun but the end goal is don’t lose stuff so you can do it again with a minimal isk loss for next time. Take away the threat of loss and the game becomes pointless. Just hand out free ships and ammo because loss no longer matters. Would defeat the entire point of the game to its core.
but there’s a lot of common sense in what you outlined, above.
. (Not always but usually)