That’s what I’m here for. Happy cake day btw
1 Like
7 Likes
All I can see happening in this situation is that hisec mercs would have 20-25 corporations that all have 3 wars. Then whenever they have find a high value target, they switch to that corp to attack.
Any changes to the way that changing corps works to counter this would have wider implications than just hisec wars so is unlikely.
It might stop the undock blapping or pipe camping, but wouldn’t bring back the “golden age” you yearn for. Also, why would a wardec group waste one of their 3 wars on another wardec corp? If I wanted to do that, I’d join RvB. What is more likely is that you’ll have those three wars being against the biggest groups in the game.
I’ll be honest, biased though I am, I’ve yet to see a proposal for the future of wardecs that doesn’t create more problems than it solves, or destroys the gameplay of several hisec groups. I know this isn’t a problem for a lot of you, but it’s a lot of omega accounts unsubbing if the players leave the game over it. It should be a problem for CCP. And I’ve yet to see evidence that new players are leaving the game directly due to wardec mechanics so don’t say that CCP are losing more players over wardecs than they’d lose if they got rid of them.
I’ve also yet to hear a solution for how you deal with the citadel spam in hisec if you mess around with wardecs.
FAIL:
Once you leave a corp at war. You cannot join it again until there are no more outgoing wars.
I also mentioned that once a corp like is wardecced. No other entity can wardec it. However I can also see that being abused since all you need to do is create and alt corp dec your main corp just pay the 2 mil everytime. Although I think for each consecutive week that a war is active the bill to keep it going increases exponentially. Even that can be gamed though with recycling alt corps. But i would like to see something that atleast gives the defending corp a chance instead of being pummeled by 5 wardecced corps.
I am old and long time wardeccer. I also mentioned that the wardecced corp can get allies… small pvp corps can then again… JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE PAST get paid to stop attackers and join as allies. Now the functionality is just about useless when PVP corps are forced to join each other and create large wardec entities.
As players leaving the game due to wardecs. Data already showed posted before on these forums that wars account for about 6% of player less than 90days dying. Lowsec being the at over 80%.
And yeah… I would prefer that to be addressed. Even something as simple as 50% less everything when structures get deployed in high but I will get flak from most saying that.
3 Likes
I suggested that each corp or alliance can do three war decs only, but if they want to do more then they have a Citadel in which they have a CONCORD agent, this agent will enable them to do more than 3 wars and he will give the online status and the location of war targets if you ask him in person at the citadel. If the Citadel gets destroyed then the war dec corp or alliance loses all but three wars. This develops consequences for war decking the wrong target.
I am in favour of this approach because I think at this point players will then sort out the blanket war deckers by actually playing the game and shooting stuff.
I like Kannibal Kanes suggestion and this:
But I prefer mine.
3 Likes
Sorry Drac,
Added to my post. 
This wouldn’t solve the issue I’m talking about. I could leave one corp and join another and go back later that week just before the new wars go in - This mechanic already exists though to an extent. As I said though, changing corp movement mechanics would have wider implications than just for hisec wardec corps. You have to look at how it would break other areas of the game.
You’re ignoring the main target of wardecs - Massive nullsec groups. Are you saying that Goons, TEST or PH should only be able to be decced by a single group?
What makes you think that the wardec groups will be small? Are you trying to force them to break up into smaller entities? That seems like a very draconian thing to do in a sandbox game that, lets face it, is very social focused - particularly in the wardec communities. Small (and large) wardec groups still do take contracts to protect citadels and other structures.
This is all well and good, but doesn’t say anywhere whether players are leaving the game because of wardecs, just that they have lost ships. If losing a ship makes you quit EVE, then it probably isn’t the game for you.
It seems like you just want to get rid of the large wardec groups to be honest, but anything that forces that would be plain draconian on the part of CCP and go against the idea of a sandbox game
I’m not sure whether this would change a great deal to be honest. It would take a large group to be able to take down a fortizar owned by Marmite or PIRAT for example.
You’re most likely talking about nullsec entities or the very large WH groups. These groups have very little interest in hisec so why would that change? You might get the odd case where groups will band together to form a resistance to try and take the Fort down, but it’s not going to be a frequent occurrence.
I’m not necessarily against this idea, but I don’t think it will stop the blanket wardec groups who already exist. They’re large enough to be able to support multiple citadels at once and be able to afford to replace them.
Actually no, they are rather easy to kill in hisec and remember they lose all but three of their declared wars.
Yes it would be large WH groups or nullsec alliances that would mostly come in and do this and the reason they do not currently do anything at this point is that there is very little to actually shoot at the moment, and that is why they do not, but an important strategic objective which has consequences changes the game somewhat.
And it might be worth doing it just to see if that could develop.
It will impact them as there will be consequences to decking the wrong people. My base plan is that only one agent per entity and it will take a couple of days to get the agent back in place.
This will change mentality due to a reduction in possible targets due to their own fear, which will impact them over time. I much prefer mechanics changing player behavior because of player behavior…
I can’t see the big null sec groups being able to drag their line members all the way to hisec to bash a citadel that often even if they wanted to. They’d much prefer to rat or roam.
Killing a citadel in hisec is easy without resistance. It doesn’t take much to force a group off if you’re organised and nullsec groups tend to have a lot of killrights so neutral groups can often intervene.
Pandemic Horde already did that, furthermore many nullsec people are not bothered about hisec wars because they work around them and have no way to get back at them for making their logistics more of a pain, however my suggestion does just that. As an option it certainly would get a fair few people up for it during lulls in null sec war.
Very true.
Lets see what happens in such a battle.
Now you are seeing it in content terms, great!
Hah
No
Get out
Also I hear that if a defender kills an attacker they get a floating Nyx by mail
As for limiting wars
Yes, but not to only 3…
Big merc groups are still needed in the ecosystem, what is currently lacking is smaller groups to do more specific wars like we once had…
Yeah, no.
A real corporation takes about $100 to make in my state, and zero dollars to close.
Real companies shift assets all the time. RL corps can open and close with impunity. Why should EvE’s corps lose this feature?
–Captain Gadget, Corporate Tool
PH did it to create their own market, not for any other reason. Their numbers rapidly dwindled throughout the campaign as well as they found it harder and harder to whip the line members into forming up. You can’t change a game mechanic on the basis that groups act in a way you hope they will. That’s dangerous and is a surefire way to break the game.
It happens all the time! In fact i was part of such a battle last night. This isnt theorycrafting, I’m talking from experience.
This is nothing new and is exploited by any group with sense when NS groups come en mass to hisec.
Why is it dangerous, if it does not work then no impact to the game, it continues as is.
Well I have been on rather a lot of Citadel kills, so yeah experience does count for me too…
Well if this was to happen then expect some content.
Every time this zombie of a horse rises to be beat down again, the one underlying truth that people agree on (even if they dislike it) is that wardecs exist to remove Concord intervention for PvP in highsec.
I’d always imagined that the wardec mechanic could only be improved by simplifying it, not complicating it. With that in mind, I don’t agree that wardecs should be related to structures since there’s a law about unintended consequences and EvE has survived something like 14 years without tying wardecs to POSes, so I don’t feel a need to change that now.
I’m not completely sold on restrictions on numbers of wardecs, although I do understand where such a desire comes from. People tend to have a heavy distaste for mass decs and trade hub campers. I get that. But I think this game really shines when there’s as few complications within a system as possible. And if possible, I’d rather not have an arbitrary limit on how many people you can wardec at a time.
Now with all that said about stuff I would not change, what about the stuff I would change?
Well, one thing I would like to change is the war duration. People can debate costs all day, but I’m not fond of the 7-day-at-a-time thing. I’d be in favor of splitting up the cost of the wardec and have it as a daily refresh thing (still keeping the 24-hour warmup and cooldown). That way you can dec exactly as long as you need to or want to. I feel this is especially relevant with structure vulnerability timers and I would think such a change would make wardecs slightly more accessible to those who have goals which may or may not need an entire week to see through.
The other thing I would change is the distinction between aggressor and defender. Regardless of who pays, I’d just have the wardec as “x verses y”, like a boxing match is just “dude in green shorts verses dude in yellow shorts”. Removing this distinction also helps with the next thing I’d change - allied help. Specifically, no more free help. Again, you can debate costs all day and that’s not the part I’m worried about myself. But I’d split the ally cost as half being burdened by the joining corp and half by the original corp on that side of the wardec equation.
.
In a more perfect world
If I had the power to do so or convince CCP to do this, I’d do one other thing with wardecs. I’d have wardecs enable something like the old watch lists - with one caveat. The one thing I never liked about watch lists was the only way to counter them was to stay logged in all the time. I would want to bring watch lists back, but only lighting up when someone is both online and undocked.
That way, random NPC alts in Jita can’t keep tabs on you for weeks or months prior to a wardec to learn your online habits. If you want that sort of info you still have to do it the hard way, or wardec and learn on the fly.
And with the game making no distinction between a docked and offline player, it makes docking up a viable alternative to logging off to counter the intel. On the plus side, for the people actively hunting other war targets, someone showing up as green means they are both logged in and undocked, meaning you spend less time running locates on people who are just ship spinning in a station. They still have the ability to undock and cloak up in a safe to counter the intel just as they always could, but now it’s an optional layer of skullduggery instead of a necessity.
The problem is that I don’t think the game can handle doing real-time updates to someone’s dock/undock status across the cluster. Something tells me that it’s probably impossible to do on any sort of large scale, and that’s probably why EvE originally went with the much easier to keep track of “logged on/logged off” status. But if i could be done, I think it’d be a great thing for the game at large. Perhaps if there were a 5-minute delay to ease the software workload. Or maybe if it didn’t work on delay and instead, it would check your status every five minutes. If the check came back as positive for undock, then your watch list would light up. Something like that.
1 Like
Why are you confusing real life with a video game?
In real life, if i shoot your cars tires it severely hampers its movement and handling. in EVE, shooting the rear of a ship does not damage the engines at all and the shipi flies at the same speed. Why should EVEs ships lose this feature? How many more of these comparisons can i make with real life and a video game?
wars are thought over things. right now theres nothing to fight over. just troops fighting in the vast openness of space. Wars need to be linked to citadels with a war HQ fortizar citadel in every constellation the antagonist wants to declare war in.
problem solved. end of grief wars
2 Likes