We had a case once in WM where we arrived and there were 7 Paladins parked outside the target station. I expected a battle. But the 7 Paladins all left and no defence was put up. I suspect because each Paladin was probably worth more than the station, so why lose one to defend it. The cheaper stations are not that cheap, but they are still cheaper than the cost of putting forward a defence fleet that could get wiped out along with the station too. I suspect that is why some simply don’t bother defending.
1 Like
Well, I’m not gonna engage too much with this because wardecs aren’t a key area of mine. But to respond to a few points:
This all happened while ally/neutral logi was still viable. Therefore CCP messing up ally logi isn’t the ‘cause’ of broken wardecs, and it won’t be the fix either. It’s better to have it done properly, sure. But it doesn’t address the core issue, which you pointed out: the lack of prey/targets that have a rational reason and process to fight back.
Um, no. That’s a bit like saying “When the mouse was attacked by the lion, all the mouse had to do was pin the lion down and he wins!”. Wardec corps are more than confident they’re not going to lose their HQ to a target. That’s a specious argument.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here (small rep benefits?). But the fact that something was done incorrectly before doesn’t preclude doing it more correctly next time. Isn’t that exactly what you’re trying for with ally logi? Doing it better next iteration?
Again, not sure your point? The entire point of a defence contract is that someone else will do the defending. Presumably a group that feels they’re capable of doing so. If they don’t, they lose their collateral and don’t get paid. You’re not acting as a small fleet, you’re hiring a bigger fleet that’s combat-ready.
I specifically stated the war bond would be paid by the aggressor. And it would increase according to their size. This means they’re putting actual resources at risk (unlike their HQ which in general is a fake risk). It means wardeccers have to weigh whether they should operate as a smaller more cost-effective group or a large powerful (but potentially expensive) one. And it puts war spoils in play that gives the defender incentive to fight for or to hire merc with.
Really not getting this point. You’ve proposed a hypothetical exploit of a process that doesn’t exist and struck it down as “too artificial”. I assume you’re referring to the War Objectives/points victory system? I’m pretty sure things like “how much ore did your corp mine while under the wardec” isn’t all that hard to track. And isn’t all that exploitable.
Except we had those mechanics before, and it didn’t work then either. A lot of people might have the desire to resist, but give up before actually resisting because they plot the scenario and come up with “yeah no matter how much we want to, we can’t win”. If they have the potential to win, they wouldn’t be wardecced in the first place. So either you except that 19 out of 20 wardecs are just going to be roflstomps that drive players out of the game, or you find ways to put tools in the hands of players so they can do other activities, or get someone else to fight for them, or at least win a bit of glory/rep for putting up a good fight.
1 Like
Previously there was nothing a defender could do to end a war, and the attacker had no skin in the game except the ships in space. Now at least they do, the issue is that CCP made it harder to take it out.
But quite a few war HQ’s have been taken down, of course the biggest wae deccers have suffered very few losses and that is down to the ally system being broken as I described.
I think it is a good idea to add this, but often the rewards were meaningless or too small to entice people out at least in my view, but I could be wrong.
Now I understand the point you are making, the problem is that no merc will do this, they all demand payment up front for defending a structure and it is always way more than the structure is worth. Maybe your idea will work, but I doubt it.
I missed that, sorry at that is the important point, silly me. In which case it is a good idea.
Fair enough based on the aggressor paying the bond.
I found a fair number of people within smaller entities that wanted to fight, but had no means to do so and no experience. I would estimate that around 30% of players in small entities were like that. Which is why the ally system and the ability to rep allies could have created decent content for them with people that could help and develop them. I know these players exist, I have helped some like that in the past. Because of that I was hoping it to happen a few times and then snowball, I was going to try to do that with selected war deccers, but when they screwed RR, I knew it was a not going to happen. If CCP had enabled allies to create a proper fleet in hisec with the defender things would not be so bleak in my opinion.
Sorry I missed the important point on aggressor paying, that was bad on my part, thanks for being patient with my omission.
1 Like
It seems like some kind of limited warfare/skirmish beyond the current destroying the enemy HQ might be an interesting idea.
Smaller high-sec corporations that lack a structure could engage in limited engagements with like-minded corporations.
ie: <20-capsuleeer corporations could “opt in” to a FFA where they can engage (or be engaged) by other like-minded corporations. No fixed timeframe - just a 24-hour minimum cooldown once activated.
I was in the system when Blackflag lost their HQ last year.
Um, would that be the one where INIT slapped BF down? So yeah, a coalition including INIT/Goonswarm can take a war HQ down. Not exactly ‘mouse’ territory.
Thanks for confirming you’re incapable of understanding any points but your own, and you even make a hash of those.
Hmmm, sounds like effectively a “corp duel”. Not sure too many folks would make use of it and I’d wouldn’t be surprised if it was something you could already simulate with a couple fleets. Except for the 24-hour part.
One interesting possibility was when CCP was making Resource Wars intended as spawnable content. There was plenty of potential there for small fleet combat or for corp grudge fights if it had been implemented better. But for some reason CCP just trashed the whole concept after working on it by rushing a completely lame final implementation.
More along the lines of FFA for all corporations that opt-in. Resource wars would’ve been an interesting idea (if fully developed).
Bah…no, all you are doing is confirming you own inability to grasp that stronger things beating weaker things is part of the very fabric of Eve. Bleating about the plights of poor 10 man corps misses the fact that they don’t have to be poor 10 man corps. That is their choice.
When wardeccers set up HQ in a particular area, there’s really nothing preventing local corps banding together for a collective defence. But no…you want to present some ‘mouse’ vs lion situation of poor helpless corps powerless to do anything against the Goliath of what are actually often no more than 20 man wardec fleets including logi. Actually…I’ve seen cases of 2 or 3 man fleets ( for example Bully Brigade ) taking down stations.
And yet, over the course of a wardec season in a particular area there’s probably 30 ’ poor 10 man corps’ declared war on. Collectively 300 members that could wipe out a wardec fleet. Sometimes groups of them do act together…but apathy and resignation is not a game problem as you seem to want to present it. It is purely a collective tactical issue that can be resolved with existing game mechanics. The fact that these corps often don’t act does not mean that they can’t.
1 Like
There is, the current mechanics, you cannot create a proper fleet with your allies. You don’t seem to understand how important that is to all of this, or you are ignoring it in your rush to score points on Kezrai?
If allies can form a proper fleet with defenders then what you say could happen, but while they run around in disorganised small groups with no logi and the like because of terrible mechanics they are just turkeys waiting to be shot by people like Blackflag with no risk to Blackflag at all.
Oh well, no surprise that you’ve completely misunderstood basically every point made in this thread. Par for the course.
This is the key issue. Or at least, one of the key issues. Wardeccers don’t have to worry about ally fleets supporting each other. And @RGC_Godfather 's OP is about the issues that for the most part, are intended to limit the “blanket wardec steamroll megawar” corps. So more issues.
And my own ideas aren’t about protecting small corps or limiting wars against them. They’re about putting more options and motivations on the table to shift the balance away from steamrolls and avoidance and a bit more towards having practical means and reasons to fight back.
Of course, looking at the killboard, it’s pretty clear why some folks only want easy targets that don’t fight back…
3 Likes
Played Eve-Online for 15’ish years but never really gotten to research or be involved in anything related to structures in high-security war declaration meta side of things other than FC can i F1 now? Pleaseeee?
This topic is really eye opening and a good read! Like it.
1 Like
Au contraire…it’s precisely because I did understand your bleating that I made the comments I made.
I mean, this is only to be expected from someone who by their own admission does not understand wardecs and has practically no killboard…vs someone who has spent the entire past 2 years doing wardecs and amassed 1.5 Trillion ISK in destruction in the process.
Never heard of alliances ? I mean, Wrecking Machine is itself an alliance of multiple corps. The war is declared at the alliance level. I’m pretty sure that’s true of Blackflag too as one of my alts found themselves involuntarily in Blackflag via corps being move around.
That’s a corp problem…not a game mechanics problem. You and Kezrai keep bleating as if there is nothing the wardecced corps can do and the entire game mechanics are against them, when really it is more the case that the wardeccers understand the game mechanics and their targets could do something in response if they did too.
Cost is also a factor…as it should be. The defending corp has to decide if it is worth losing ships to defend their structure.
Don’t fight back is simply not the same as can’t fight back. That is the error you keep making.
2 Likes
Not when there are so many of these structures in high security islands. Wars aught to be limited to a region in which there is a War HQ, not the entire cluster.
The current minimum cost is a core for a small structure. Even with zero losses, its worth is not much incentive for the victim of a war declaration to fight.
Some wars never stopped.
Probably the largest segment of players who ‘won at eve’ fit into this category.
The condescending troll smug factor is on full display with that reply. Quoting for amusement:
Never heard of alliances? LMAO Is that supposed to make me angry, snide comments like that are just stupid.
Bleating, baaaa baaaaa, LMFAO
Unable to use logi on allies, Baaaaa Baaaaa, Defenders and allies can’t rep each other, let me repeat, defenders and allies can’t rep each other, to make sure you might get it, though I doubt it, defenders and allies can’t rep each other, and once more for luck, defenders and allies cannot rep each other…
You got the reply you deserved.
PS defenders and allies cannot rep each other…
2 Likes
So you’ve never heard of alliances.
Sigh. You clearly don’t get why I asked if you’ve ever heard of alliances. You know…like Wrecking Machine is an alliance of completely different corps, and we can all rep each other. Penny dropped yet ? Corps in an alliance can rep.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
PS Defenders and allies cannot rep each other…
PPS Dracvlad is trying to work out if you know that defenders and allies can be corps or alliances, decides that your odd question indicates that you did not know this.
I am going to block you, what a waste of space. Done, bye bye.
2 Likes
Nope…you are still too busy ranting to grasp the point.