I immediately regret even glancing at this crap.
The stink of vested self-interest is overwhelming.
I expected no less.
the irony
:oof:
1 Like
They could implement a mechanic where one can do the âstop, drop and rollâ in a press of one button (as in stop bothering, drop corp and roll on). Now it still takes like three or four clicks.
The argument to tie wardecs to structures isnât as far fetched as it may seem actually. When one looks at how simple it is to avoid a wardec (stop, drop and roll) and what one has to give up for it in return, then it might as well be implemented as such. Meaning, you click a button and as long you have no structures anchored will it turn a corporation into a mini-NPC corp with the 10% tax, no alliance membership and no ability to anchor stuff. Only when one has a structure anchored or is in an alliance then it can no longer work. Perhaps throw in a member count limit, too, and the majority of players might actually be happy about it.
It wonât make everyone happy of course. But when one can use Marmite as an example then one can see at their history how many wardecs are actually effective and how many are a waste of time and ISKs.
I just donât think this will stop the complaints at all. Also structure warfare is just shite an no one with a RL has time to fight a station with three timers which will drop nothing at all.
And I donât think it is good for player retention to gate people even more off from actually interesting gameplay.
1 Like
Thatâs exactly what it is.
And bravo, that roles off the tongue perfectly.
Youâre like a vulgar poet.
3 Likes
You are such a negative person, a lot of people shoot structures for reasons other than loot, for example we had a big clean out of all the stuff in Legacy space even before they changed the mechanics to make it easier.
Strategic objectives will cause people to fight and does produce fairly decent battles, it has been proven again and again.
https://zkillboard.com/related/30003735/201805290900/
That was over a Fortizar which was blown up to.
All I have suggested is adding a CONCORD office to a citadel which allows the owner to do more than 4 war decs, it makes it important in terms of the war decs and the destruction of that citadel has an impact on their war decs.
So instead of the free pass they have now there are strategic consequences of war decking the wrong people who have the attitude to go after them.
The complaints will never stop. Itâs how people process certain situations. All Iâm saying is that it doesnât have to be some silly structure mini-game, but that it can also be a simple modification of the corp mechanics while leaving the wardec mechanic as is.
I donât like the structure mini-game idea either. It sounds to me as if it destroys too much of EVEâs culture.
While I agree that gating or isolating people off isnât good, are wardecs of 100 versus 3 also not very desirable, yet they happen everyday and we accept it. This is the reason why some people are still sitting in NPC corporations in the first place.
Therefore having some intermediate state for player corporations, which resembles a mini version of an NPC corporation, cannot be much of a tragedy. Rather the gain may be for a few players to grow in size before theyâre daring to enter into the larger corporation and alliance warfare. All without limiting anything else in the game, or changing something that isnât already happening or altering other, existing mechanics and without giving any unfair privileges.
1 Like
This thread needs more NC.
If you surrender your corp gets a 10% flat tax that goes to the winner for 14 days-days wardecâd.
hahaha, that would be horrible, all of highsec indentured to each other due to instant surrender
1 Like
The real problem with the war system is cost, 50 million is too cheap for a 1000 man corp to war a 5 man corp.
There needs to a punishing multiplier to encourage somewhat fair play, of course it will never be fair, but at least it can be pushed to somewhat fair.
10x cost multiplier for every 100 players more the initiating war dec corp has more at the time then the defending corp. (yes this should include alliances)
Another 10x cost multiplier for every 50 capital pilots in your corp that the opposing corp does not have.
The only things people understand clearly in EvE is cost and wars are simply too cheap and isk is too easy to get to major corps.
1 Like
Dude, cap pilots play no roles in Hisec wardecs.
The proposal to have a much deeper contract system is good. It could be used for a lot of different things and could certainly motivate groups with new approaches to become mercinaries. Trade-lane campers would not take up this profession, because gate camping is just too lucrative.
Trade-lane camping is cool if it happens in Lowsec or Null. In Highsec it is okay if done by gankers or by wardeccers if looking for specific targets. Being able to run infinite concurrent wardecs is weird because it inevitably leads to less meaningful decisions. A limit on concurrent wardecs should be introduced. On the other hand, a limit alone would make things similarily weird for the wardeccers. That means in exchange for more meaningful choices the target of a wardec needs to feel a certain amount of pressure by mechanics.
If CCP was to introduce a limit, Iâd say this would need to mean that people canât leave wardecced corporations from the second the corp has been decced. Furthermore it would also need to mean that if they donât fight back, we need a mechanic that automatically transfers wealth from the attacked to the attacker.
My plan is:
- Limit concurrent wardecs per Corp/Alliance to 5-10, based on Skill of leader
- Make leaving corp after wardec impossible until it is resolved
- Forced payment of ISK âescrowâ for every Corp/Alliance with introduction of the mechanic/on creation (amount depends on number of members). If the attacked donât log in, undock or fight back, a part or all of the escrow goes to the attacker/wardeccer
- Corp has 1 week to renew the escrow after it has been emptied, otherwise corp is forcefully dissolved by CONCORD and all assets are taken away
- Same Corp cannot be wardecced twice in a row, they are given a âprotective breakâ of two weeks (to reorganize themselves etc)
How about that? 
No more trade-lane lame camping, but more impactful wardecs in general?
Iâm not sure why people are hating so much on the trade lane campers. They are the easiest to avoid. If you get wardeced by one of them this days, just stay out of jita and the usual corridors for a week and you are fine doing whatever you want.
So gameplay wise they are easily countered and not an issue at all, yet somehow people think they should be nerfed. Why should we change a game mechanic to specifically nerf something which is easily avoided?
I think the ONLY problem with trade lane camping is that it is currently the only game in town that makes sense because the watchlist was removed. This is why I try to come up with something that may incentivise other activities. So changing the wardec mechanics to try to force them to do something else seems to me is the completely wrong approach as it just addresses the symptom in a weird way and not the cause.
Thatâs exactly the issue here. For me it is not about nerfing camping, but to create mechanics that are more interesting and meaningful. The fact that current mechanics force wardeccers into this boring camping while allowing targets multiple ways to avoid consequences or sit it out by staying logged off, is plain and simple a stale meta.
I like your proposal and I think it can add a lot of interesting options to the game. Regarding wardecs specfically however, it doesnât tackle some of the underlying issues like the possibility of avoidance and thus I see it as something that should be implemented, but doesnât supersede the need for different wardec mechanics.
I donât hate campers, but I hate the fact that camping is often (not only in highsec) one of the few ways to actually force people into fights.
1 Like
You donât actually consider this serious advice, do you? Thatâs only a very silly assumption, to think an aggressor might not come looking for you. Thatâs about as unrealistic as believing one could fly through low-sec on a Sunday, because of people going to Church.
1 Like
If the aggressor wardecs only a handfull of other corporations then sure they will probably track people down.
But I was talking about the trade lane campers who wardecs hundreds of corps and just wait at some gates until some of them stuble in with a freighter or whatever. They will not come looking for you. They donât even know you exist or that you are online.
It is something completely different if the wardecs is a targeted one. And even then you just run away 30 jumps and most people will not bother coming after you.
Itâs obviously still a good idea to stay vigilant and maybe use t2 fitted and insured t1 hulls so if you lose something itâs just a couple millions. But there is no reason to stay docked.
How exactly do you determine who is who? Do they tell you this in advance or do they have some honour code in their bios or is there a registry of sorts where one can find out? Or is this more a trail-and-error thing?
Iâm trying hard to pick up the logic of yours here.
Check their wardecs. If they have 50 concurrent wardecs it is highly likely the will not come for you but just camp the lanes
1 Like
Yeah⌠no. I donât see the connection.
A war dec that is targeted the aggressor will probably not have 138 other war decs.
If you are being targeted specifically chances are you pissed someone off and they hired a group to come looking for you. The person you pissed off may even have an alt or even his main in your corp/alliance or the war dec group hired to come after you has a mole in your group.
Right now tracking people down is a PITA. A group that decs a large number of corporations is doing it so that there is a chance some unwitting target will come bumbling into Jita, Amarr, or some other trade hub. They might roam the trade lanes periodically, but they are looking for targets of opportunity. They are not hunting specific targets.