You mean a challenge? Yea who would want that?
I just want to say so far I have watched my favorite streamer this week who operates a whole pile of athanors, lose around a bil this week from just one of his wars. This doesnât even mention the 4 bil ship that got suicide ganked on stream from non war targets. Point being, there are targets available that are fat and juicy and arenât 1 week old.
-
You love to equate non-equal things I have noted. A one-man corp is not an NPC corp. They are very different or I would not have created one in the first place.
-
What it does is allow people not interested in the Wardec system to opt out permanently so long as they dont want structures. There is no new disincentive to get into structures since the current wardec system already puts in place the very disincentive you are speaking about, which is being attacked by a wardec.
Honestly, i have no idea what point you are trying to make equating player structures with NPC structures, youâll have to clarify that one for me.
Can you explain to me how a cyno inhibitor is going to stop me from cloaky camping a system, I have no doubt that you are correct it is just im not seeing how this would work.
Thanks,
JA
The supply of fodder is endless.
But this has nothing to do with the change being tossed around. The change is that a corp / alliance not wanting to be wardecâd would be prohibited from owning structures and as such it is not in any way subject to n+1, since again, if i dont have a stucture no matter the number of people you bring you, will not be contesting me in a wardec if my one-man corp has no structure ownership.
Pretty sure the intent is so capitals cant just jump in a fight and it being your home system shouldnât be to scary what they bring if you know it wont be full of caps.
Sorry, this didnt clarify for me how a cyno inhibitor is going to stop me from cloaky camping a system. I donât need to understand the why, i need to understand the how it stops me from cloaky camping.
You can still coaky camp, but you wont be able to cyno a cap fleet in, which is the reason they are afraid of you to begin with.
I disagree with this, i was always troubled when a cloaky sat in my system since i always chose to be in a system only being used by myself and my assumption wasnt that i was going to be cynoâd in upon that day but that the cloaky was studing my habits and planning a future attack that might not even need a cyno jump in to make it work.
Then I guess he still wins.
Thanks for the clarifications and the pleasant chat.
As an honest question, what do you see as the differences between a one-man corp that cannot have any structures and an NPC corp?
With your idea for wars, you would both be war immune. You would loose the NPC tax. You would get a corp hanger, but I dont see how that is useful in a one-man corp. Is there anything significant that I am missing?
The current wardec is crazy. I had five accounts that were used for high sec mining and industry stuff. I actually enjoyed that part of eve and I used it to fund my pvp account. The five accounts had were used for PI as well. One good wardec made me realize that for what I spent on five accounts I could just buy plex so I cancelled those accounts and spend my time in low and null sec. Not really a big loss for CCP but there are now 15 less targets out there for all the easy kill mark hunters.
Seems reasonable considering the alternative is âleavingâ the game according to you. I assume the corp in question knows at least a bit about war dec evasionb?
PS: I agree war decs are broken beyond repair.
Cat is out of the bag, and it aint happy or going back in.
1 Like
1 Like
My suggestion on the whole wardec situation -
Transpose the current player engagement rules to a corporate level, with a little tuning where it may be needed.
Offensive action against a player or his assets will be resolved as per normal player level engagement, plus if both parties are in player corporations, a corporate hostility timer will be applied to the offenders corp which allows the victims corp to declare war.
You will need to bait your wardecs, or infiltrate where you can easily invoke the corporate hostility timer.
Structures may be attacked outside of wartime status as if they were MTUs / mobile depots etc. There may be the need of something such as a massive sec status hit to stop a huge fleet just rolling over hi sec wiping all the structures, as unsanctioned going around destroying things is blatantly criminal activity in a civilised society. Obviously, attacking an asset while in a state of war with the owner is allowed as normal without penalties.
Or something like that.
This will protect small corps minding their own business, and any corp wishing to anchor structures will still need to be able to defend or lose them.
As far as I can tell, the primary problem with WarDecâs is the same as PvP in mixed PvP/PvE games everywhere: there is a crowd who likes PvP, and a crowd who doesnât.
Unfortunately, decades of online gaming have shown that a large portion of the PvP crowd follow the concept âIf youâre in a fair fight, youâve done something wrongâ. The percentage of wardecs that is between entities of near-equal power is likely extremely small.
PvPers will form a PvP group/corp/fleet/whatever, and then go looking for someone to PvP against. Do they pick a target thatâs bigger and better than them? Not likely. They will pick an accessible, not-too-difficult target, hopefully profitable, and then bully that target as much as they can to get their PvP jollies. Of course there are wars and PvP that are less, shall we say, one-sided, but I doubt it makes up even 1/3 of the wardecs.
No matter how you position it, the party that declares war is ready, prepared in advance, fitted out for and actively seeking PvP. The victim, not so much. You get people who leave over a wardec and donât come back, not because they âwerenât encouraged to fightâ, but because it highlights the fact that EVE is set up in such fashion that the strong and well-established can bully the new and weak any time they feel like it.
You donât âencourage someone to show up for the fightâ when his 6-month-old pilot is likely to encounter blinged out ships with high-skilled pilots and players who actually know how to PvP. The PVP player has always been in the minority vs the PvE population, and wardecs just tell any potential EVE player who isnât fully into PVP that âthis is not the game for you, other people can screw with your game any time they feel like itâ.
I understand that to some people, that is the whole point of EVEâs design. And in general, those are the people who have been chasing off new blood in EVE for the past 15 years.
You either want the new players to stay, or you want to preserve EVEâs âdog eat dog, only the strong survive, my PvP-fitted 8 year old pilot doesnât care if the game has sufficient player base to support it, I have targets (for now) and thatâs all I needâ.
This is the whole point of Eveâs design - a single universe, full-time PvP game where the players make the content.
But I disagree that this incompatible with a game for newer players. There have been new players joining Eve since the beginning, and still do every day. You canât throw out the core concept that brought and kept most of the current players in some desperate attempt to appeal to more consumers. You might as well just make a new game at that point, and keep the players you do have happy instead of driving them away by trying to turn your game into something else.
That said, this is a false dichotomy. Itâs not wardecs or new players as so many people seem quick to set up the decisions as. It is already perfectly possible to play Eve today without ever worrying or being vulnerable to a wardec - you stay in the NPC corp. Now, this isnât ideal for many reasons, but there is no reason the rules around wars and groups canât be change to make space for a war-free player group in Eve.
Flat out removing one of the last remaining activity generators in highsec isnât going to end well if CCP were crazy enough to try. This isnât my first rodeo, and Iâve seen where such where such will lead. When CCP patched out highsec AWOXing, they claimed it would boost retention and get players in more social groups. At least as far as I can tell, this didnât happen at all, instead the highsec activity numbers continued their free-fall and I the only impact I saw was a bunch of people quitting for whom corporate infiltration was a large part of their game.
Sure, the number of people that left was tiny as that was such niche gameplay, but it still doesnât seem wise to me to make changes that actively remove the ability of players to generate content when player generated content is the basic premise of your game. Wars need iteration and change, but they need to exist, or an equivalent mechanic, or highsec is going to continue itâs slow descent into stagnation, boredom, and irrelevance.