Of course it is.
Ok, Social Corps are out. The idea is no good. What would you suggest CCP does now to keep players from just logging out after receiving a wardec?
1 Like
Agreed and demonstrated.
Arrendis suggested an isk incentive for players to return, paid out of the wardec cost, post wardec, to encourage them to return.
A wardec structure and victory condition system has been suggested by many, including CSM, as a means to offer more options for a defender to stay in a war, not log off, and fight back either themselves, with others together, or hire mercs to take out the wardec issuing structure to end the war.
I recommended a 3+ stage process.
First issue an isk incentive to return after wardec.
Second issue victory condition system.
Third implement wardec structure system into the above.
[
These are all (well maybe not the first one) ideas floated by the CSM as well. I think they all have associated challenges with them but you arenât alone in thinking they might help the situation. Giving players a reason to undock sounds good, although it is I think easier said than done, but Iâll agree that there should be some structure owned by any corp who declares war that is in space and can be counter-attacked.
Letâs see what CCP can come up with!
1 Like
The structure is not a good idea. Its n+1 warfare and basically says you need permission from the big boys to ever declare war.
1 Like
Thatâs not going to work. It only introduces more ISKs into the game and increases the overall pool of ISKs, which leads to inflation and everything simply gets more expensive and the loser ends up with just as many bills as before. Only difference is theâre being tricked into staying, but it will only last until they figure this out on their own and likely hate the game only more for it. How are you going to stop this from happening?
Wardec structures only create hurdles for warfare and arenât actually seen by many as fun. Itâs most commonly referred to as âstructure bashingâ and players already avoid it when they can. How will you make structure bashes fun again?
Tying the war to the structure I agree is a terrible, terrible idea.
But I still am in favour of there being something in space that can be counter-attacked and used to inflict damage on an aggressor who docks up. Not just an aggressor, I think everyone should be encouraged, or even forced to have more things in space as a way to increase interactions in this game.
1 Like
Lets say we can return even 10% of players lost after wardec, whom return to use their isk incentive, as paid by the aggressor, thats significant and worth it.
Wardecs arguably have always needed rationalisation as âvictory conditionsâ, rather than being ad hoc thrown around. This is long overdue.
The specifics of a wardec structure(s) will be the most development intensive, and hence come last, to allow the previous stages to settle and observe results, and time to work on it.
This cant be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed incrementally in stages.
First you have to prove that theyâre leaving because of a lack of ISKs.
And are you really suggesting that an aggressor would have to pay the defender ISKs?!? One could create hundreds of fake corps just to farm wardecs for ISKs!
CODE. is an alliance not a corp, so I guess that wouldnât even work. We also have structures and we welcome everyone to wardec us. You can shoot us without one, but if you insist that we can shoot first without CONCORD response, itâs your money.
2 Likes
I dont agree.
It means all the defenders of wardecs issued through that structure can join together to destroy it, to end the wars issued on each of them from it. Instead of chasing the aggressor through space, or on their own turf, they can attack the aggressor at the structure, and force them to the defensive.
They can also pool isk/resources to hire mercs to fight alongside them, harass that structure forcing the aggressor to defend it, or outright destroy it.
The problem is some people seem to want it fixed overnight, and CCP has done nothing on the war file for years.
Wars arenât going away as some people are hoping for, but they do need attention. A social corp is easy to add and might make a difference so I think that is why so many people are for it although you have identified some possible problems. Ideally there would be a total revamp of the system, but the more complicated a system or fix is, the more resources it will take.
I donât think ISK is going to bring many people back, and it kinda makes little sense to me bribe people that way, but maybe there is a more nuanced solution along these lines. Ideally though, you donât want them to log off at all, not treat a symptom like this.
But sure, letâs hope CCP starts fixing things and gets to stage 1 of that process sometime soon!
1 Like
What could you suggest that would prevent players leaving in the first place?
From a business perspective, losing any percentage needlessly is bad business. This is a business.
Some self-interested, agenda posters have been trying to argue it needs to be a one time, complete, 100% efficient and perfect fix, and calling suggestions insufficient against that standard.
You know, and I know, why they did that.
As Ive said before, first stick a finger in this leak in the dam, asap, and it can be reinforced later.
We also cant expect, or demand, a 100% efficient and perfect result, nothing in EVE ever has been.
We just need to to do enough to make attrition sustainable.
No solution, ever, will cut it to 0âŚ
There is no way to prevent players leaving.
All we can hope for, is offer them incentive to stay and/or return.
In terms of wardecs? There is no way at all?
Please read thread.
In the end it will still be an organized fleet that knows what they are doing vs. a bunch of carebears who donât know WTH they are doing. You forget that the aggressors will adapt to this changes and use it to their advantage as they always do and we will be back on the forums hearing the carebears cry about it as always.
A real improvement adds tools to the current system so both sides have their gameplay improved. It should not protect the ignorant and stupid but help the player who invests effort to overcome the struggle no matter if he wants to hide or hunt, there has to be a balance.
Some stupid structure mini game is lazy and stupid and will be gamed from day one.
4 Likes
Nobody learns PvP overnight, and without losing repeatedly.
Success in PvP is built on a huge stack of failures.
You know that.
I know that.
We all know that.
Thanks captain obvious. But that addresses not a single relevant thing about my post
I read that players need to leave first and be incentivized to return.
Iâm asking, what are your suggestions to keep them playing, rather than feeling the need to leave in the first place?