Executing a vendetta against a particular person is not any more or less legitimate than doing it with an entire corp as the target. Nor is “this person killed me a bunch” harassment. And the current mechanic makes it far too easy to drop/switch corps to evade a war, costing effectively nothing because making a new corp is so cheap and you can swap between corps at will. The group of players is still the exact same corp in all but name, but magically the war ceases to apply.
I could grudgingly accept the idea that a person should be able to escape into an NPC corp, but jumping right back into a replacement corp needs to have a very high cost. Unless you are permanently leaving the group to escape a particular player/group leaving a corp mid-war should never be an appealing option, and forfeiting the war in that manner should involve true destruction of the corp.
Player corp socializing has been shown to be important. Making gameplay that either strands people in a war, or only gives them the option of living in an npc corp for a month is not desirable.
And while if they sit in the same system killing them again isn’t harassment following them across new eden if they drop or change corp does meet the basic ccp test for harassment. Obviously every case is unique so I am not speaking about every single possibility of circumstances.
Now… I am not against a system where there are desirable aspects of corp membership that can only be used if you have been a member for over a month or two, which means you can’t corp hop constantly and use the benefits, which then imposes an opportunity cost. But you need to massively increase the carrot of sticking with a corp, not the stick for leaving one.
WARDECKS NEED TO REMAIN PART OF THE GAME use your minds adapt your Methods find ways to achieve your goals even under such situations as wardecks fly fast fly smart fly safe and if you wish to fight fly Fearless as it’s just a game and rule 1 don’t fly something you can’t afford to loose if your afraid to loose a type of ship wait till you have ten and then fly each out and get it destroyed by going against what ever it takes to destroy it your fear of losing said ship will disappear I beleave never forget you always have the chance to test something on singularity first before ever doing it on eve properly trained
Now explain to me what the benefit to the defender of being wardecced is.
The problem is we have a lopsided system that only gives benefit to the attacker.
The defender obviously doesn’t want to engage in PvP at the moment or they would be the attacker.
The attacker however gains targets and their choice of activity, while limiting or denying the defender the defenders choice of activity. The only way to get it back for the defender at present is to engage in the attackers choice of activity.
Now ask yourself if this seems a fair situation.
And realise this is the core of the problem with wardecs, that only one side can ever be rewarded for being at war.
And that this is the bit we need to change somehow, so that defenders also stand to gain from being at war.
And no, ‘They might get kills on the attacker and loot’ is not the defenders gaining, because that isn’t what the defenders wanted to do at the moment, or they would be attacking someone.
Well done missing the point.
The point is risk reward. There needs to be suitable reward to make logging in while under a wardec worth it.
Now you could argue this reward is structures… if high sec structures weren’t so nerfed.
And yet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of structures in hi-sec. People obviously think it’s worth it. They even thought it was worth being in a corp at all.
Wardecs aren’t the mechanic, they are the balance. And if the defenders don’t log in under a dec they’re going to lose their stuff and their earnings. Fair right?
We just need to stop moddycoddling people in hisec. All it’s done is create a culture of snowflakes and made wardec groups bigger and more organised than ever before.
Making the structure carrot bigger is just going to feed big groups and make them bigger. Who are going to control all the important structures? Not the little guy. What are you going to have to do to be able to use the important structures? Join the blue doughnut. Who are going to have more money to extort? The big carebears.
Yeah you don’t want a huge structure buff that makes anyone who doesn’t own one irrelevant. You want war eligibility to apply to corps in general, social corps to be equivalent to npc corps and wardecs to be something smaller newer groups can afford.
You mean the people who already have better structures… and therefore under the current system are getting fed to get bigger as a result.
Giving highsec less/non nerfed structures will not hand the keys to the mega coalitions, they already have the keys in this case, it will hand keys out to other people as well.
Because Wardecs are not the balance, because high sec structures do not give any significant bonuses that need balancing. People put them all up under the old scheme where it didn’t make a difference if you had one or not, you were still a target.
Pretending that giving out a good bonus is mollycoddling highsec is a joke. You know when the game was healthiest, it was when Highsec actually had it’s own unique advantages, that it was the best place to do industry, while null was the best place to get raw materials and isk. CCP utterly gutted highsec with how they changed that, I mean yes Null did need some equality in the area of industry, but they did not need to be given blatant superiority.
And no the need for a wardec is not an advantage in terms of player thinking, which is what matters.
Social corps being equiv to NPC corps, well shrug, that’s what I was always on board with them being anyway, so I don’t care if they get the NPC tax rate or not really.
The changes to the null vs high economy all happened after subs started falling. They were an attempt to stimulate the game (well null, but back then devs and csm thought null was the game).
I don’t think thats what instigated the fall in subs. I don’t even think it helped it along all that much. The only rival to high-sec industry is the most organised group in the game. And hi-sec still has trade supremacy.
Who said anything about amplifying null structures. I’m talking about high sec structures getting somewhere near parity.
Yes this should also come with sensible timers, that don’t require over a week in the best case scenarios and near two weeks in the worst to chew through. I’m quite happy to see high sec and low sec get the same timers if they get bonus parity as well.
And when you consider numbers of players in each sector of space… on a per capita basis null is mining at a 10 to 1 ratio, and producing even more I believe.
The fact there is parity despite the number imbalance should be indicating there is a serious issue.
That 10:1 thing is because of the rorqual (and indirectly skill injectors) more than structures I’d say. And isk is because of carriers (and indirectly skill injectors).
I don’t think null would meet the 10:1 ration if they didn’t have capitals (and especially capitals you can train in a day)
The reward is getting to continue playing the game. The problem is not that the rewards for war are one-sided, it’s that certain people don’t like acknowledging that EVE is a PvP sandbox where the threat of PvP is supposed to be the default state and feel entitled to some kind of compensation for being exposed to it and suffering any disruption of their risk-free PvE farming.
No? So what the wardecced corp earns by being hunted, and camped ( maybe station camped too) for 2 weeks? Content? PvP? They can have that without being wardecced. Fact is wardec corps want kills, and the easy ones. They don’t wardec a prepared and alert corp even being the same size as them .it should be named farmdec
Continuing to exist is the reward. It’s a PvP sandbox and someone wants to destroy your corp, you aren’t entitled to some kind of reward for being killed. And you certainly don’t have to offer your consent to the fight for it to happen. Either fight back, defend your corp, and earn your right to exist or ragequit and die. Or go back to an NPC corp, where there should be a high tax rate and alpha-style penalties to make opting out of (most) PvP an unappealing choice in a PvP sandbox game.
And yes, weak and incompetent corps are targeted because easy kills are fun. Weak corps deserve to fail and die, that’s how the PvP sandbox works. There is no problem whatsoever with the strong succeeding and the weak being purged from existence.
Also, JFC don’t fly obliviously into Jita in the middle of a war. War dec corps succeed because idiots keep feeding them killmails, if you avoid hub systems and use some sense the risk of attack goes down considerably.
Not what I said. I said for being wardecced, and that was not my words, I agree that there should be no reward from being killed or decced. don’t put words in my mouth.[quote=“Merin_Ryskin, post:942, topic:117189”]
you certainly don’t have to offer your consent to the fight for it to happen
[/quote]
Good, I agree with you , the ganks are there , and no consent is needed . Don’t drift away from the subject, that is deccers claiming they are big warriors etc, and in the end are just noob farmers( Wich I don’t have a problem either,just want the truth to be spoken)
Not a problem with that too, the thing is Dec corps claim to be experts, veterans, hundreds of kills, etc, but most of them are ventures and t1 haulers ( bad fitted I know) , so why people just don’t admit: " we are a corp that farm new players(or dumb old ones )"?
Good, now maybe they pick a good fight with a corp of same size( or bigger if have the balls) instead of hub/gate camping. Maybe now they will hunt corps that are threatening their business.
What if they are hired by rivals who feel they are “threatening their business”? I mean, that is a predictable of creating a mercenary marketplace: large specialist corps hire themselves out to prevent your rivals from having free access to trade lanes and trade hubs.
Just like the mechanics of an open world push players, into corps, then into alliances, and then into massive coalitions in nullsec, the same is going to happen in highsec (and has already happened) with mercenaries. They are going to group together for power and then can extort, or sell protection to those weaker than them.
This isn’t going to change. No matter what war system CCP designs, more powerful groups are going to push around weaker ones. That’s Eve. At best CCP can create objectives and reasons for groups to fight, but there is always going to be a power imbalance that favours the bigger and stronger, and there are always going to be groups attempting trade hub control or denial.
We have a proto-social corp that can allow conflict-averse players to form a social group now safe from wars which is a great start. With some iteration, CCP can create some risk vs. reward in the highsec so that corporations that are willing to take on more risk can do so in the pursuit of more reward or valuable objectives, while there is still a social structure available to those who don’t want to, or can’t fight, including newer players and groups, but for which that safety comes with less profit. It’s a tall order, but I think CCP will get closer to that with the upcoming changes and the game will be in a better place.