There are currently no ways to fight back that matter or put a dent in the attacker or enable the defender to control their own situation, they have to rely on the war decker getting bored and ending the war dec. The propaganda structure which when blown up will end the war dec will do just that. Then it will matter…
The failure of anyone to understand this is rather awe inspiring, it is not difficult to understand and is at the core of why people give up, give up with the war and give up with the game.
Seriously if CCP and the forum mob can’t get this then there is no hope for them!
Which is exactly why the Social Corp idea needs restrictions like I listed earlier, or it will be gamed and abused in ways it is not intended to be.
As to the NPE idea, it should always be optional to participate in. They should not be forced to jump through hoops to play EVE if they dont want to. If they want to do it, fine. If they dont, also fine. Some people do tutorials, read instructions etc. Some dont and want to jump right in.
Except it won’t, because people will try it and get eaten alive, and realise they are feeding the wardec corps and encouraging them. Because it will have a reinforce timer, it has to.
Unless you are a giant null entity, then you can just shut down the 200-500 size alliances any time you want.
As for Salvos, LOL, no, it doesn’t need those restrictions, it can’t be gamed in any way the NPC corps can already be gamed and the game hasn’t ended with those, so those ways don’t matter.
Prove it! That is just your opinion, I have a different opinion.
I have already detailed this issue in this thread, it has to be set to the prime time of the defender in the war dec if there are any timers, my preference is to make them easy enough for a 3 man corp to destroy, so no timers and vulnerable all the time, otherwise it does not do anything.
Not sure what you are saying here, seems unimportant.
Prove that they will be able to beat the Wardec corp at a known timer.
We already know the current state of nearly all defenders that try fighting the attacker is simply feeding the attacker kills.
The onus is on you to prove that a structure will magically change this balance.
Never going to happen.
Structures have to have a timer or you have to have defenders camping them 24/7 to use them, which is an utter joke. And that timer will always be set by the structure owner. Otherwise you again have to have 24/7 coverage with your fleets, which would incidentally force everyone who wanted to wardec regularly into a single monster alliance. And forget about ever declaring a wardec if you are anyone else.
If a structure exists which shooting it turns your war off, then Null can just drop a 1000 person fleet on it for the timer if they care about the war. Now they may not care enough to do so but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
The sum of all these points makes a wardec structure a terrible idea that will not benefit the defenders who need benefiting.
No, I don’t like it because it’s a terrible mechanic that CCP aren’t blind enough to implement. And spamming requests for terrible mechanics is likely to result in no work getting done because CCP see that people are being unreasonable in their expectations so are in a no win situation.
The only reason your suggestion ‘allows defenders to end the wardec’ is because you are making the odds so unreasonably stacked in the ‘defenders’ favour. Which CCP have shown they aren’t dumb enough to do with Upwell structures already.
The more time spent on stupid ideas, and the less visible support for ideas like Tora posted about allowing cross wardec reps not turning you suspect, the less actual useful content will come from this.
Of course I want it stacked in favour of the defender, you had it stacked in favour of the attacker for so long. This is all about changing attitude, do keep up.
And if I am being flippant, it is because I am sick and tired of you whining crying warbears and your smug superiority.
No, it’s because you assume anyone who disagrees with a war structure is a wardeccer, and labeling any opposition as such allows you to dehumanise the opposition and then disregard it. And have no actual logical defence of your proposed mechanics, hence why they fall apart so fast. Also nice going trying to claim credit for Tora’s post.
I’m totally the opposite. I’m normally the target of said wardec alliances, I just don’t want terrible mechanics put in the game regardless of if I am on the giving or receiving end of them. And your proposal is one of those.
Dracvlad. The lengths you are going to try to skew the mechanic in favour of the defender should show you how not useful this idea is. If the only way you can see it being “balanced” is to have 24/7 vulnerability or in the defenders time zone so that a potential attacker as to continually babysit a beacon or the war ends, it should show you how little chance there is a defender will actually undock and fight.
Maybe, under such a system a handful of players might undock that wouldn’t have, but still, the vast majority will still not engage with the mechanic, or try once and run into the newly merged PIRAT/Marmite perma-camp and get destroyed. And now any small group who may consider starting a war will quickly realize there is no point deploying a structure they can’t try defend because they don’t have 24/7 coverage.
There is no point making wars useless or tedious to those that want to fight. All that is needed is someway for corps that don’t want to fight, or can’t fight a particular opponent to keep playing the game. A lower-tier corp ticks most of those boxes, although I am sure there are other changes possible.
You cannot balance a war between 3 guys who just started the game, and a hundred hardened mercenaries with orders of magnitude more assets and experience in the game in any meaningful way. The best you can do is keep the little guy out of the conflict, until they have more power, or more friends, and are ready to compete.
I have been completely de-humanised by the forum mob, and I don’t cry about it.
I have already suggested that change myself, it is logical and numerous people have suggested it. But that on its own will not work, to change attitude you need to put the balance in favour of the defender. This is easy to understand, why are you missing it?
As if I care, I want to change the attitude of the defenders, now here is the rub, did I actually say I want to keep it like this forever?
Maybe, lol… Well it all depends on your targets, if you war dec someone outside of your TZ then lose your war. Tough…
The corp does nothing because it creates a ceiling, already explained. It does not solve the war dec issue at all. You lot have tried to adjust it towards new players, it affects more than them.
Why are they in hisec then? Those so called hardened players? And surely they are hardened enough to baby sit a structure against noobs? Or is it more of a case that they don’t want to?
Because they choose a different play style that should still be supported. The system needs to change so that defenders have the option to stay in game during a war, albeit at a lower ISK potential or higher risk. The system also needs to change so that war corps can actually hunt targets again (and vice versa), rather than just sitting on hub entrances and travel pipes.
Why should it be made so easy? I am proposing something to make it a challenge for them. The defenders can get in space and end the war and if they get blown up they enjoy the game. You are just defending an entitled destructive playstyle.
Nope, it needs a mechanism for the defenders to be able to end the war, which is what I am proposing. There will still be wars, it will just not be easy farming wars.
So you want your easy kills, the watch list is not coming back, you have to get off your fat complacent butts and do proper intel gathering and target selection on your targets, rather than have it handed to you on a plate.
Did I say it should be easy, or that it should still be supported?
This only helps if the players stay in game rather than log off for a week and then never come back. Throwing a structure bash as a victory condition does not stop people simply logging out. Only those already willing to take risks and undock now will attack the structure. Those unwilling to fight still won’t. It may be a viable victory condition alongside other changes, but a structure won’t fix wars by itself.
I live in WH space, wars are irrelevant to me in that sense. However, according to those who do fight wars the shift to camping jita entrances and travel pipes was a result of not being able to hunt targets. This would also work both ways, with defenders being able to hunt attackers.
It is easy and watch lits made it really easy, just tag people and pretend that you are hunting.
There is something of value there, an end to the war dec on your own terms. There you go.
Do you have any idea what was going on, they had an automated system based on the watch-list. They had to do no work at all. Seriously, is that hunting, did they have to get to know their target, watch them and work out their approach and time of play in war and outside of war. It was war dec them and wait for them to do something and just go running over there once they got he locator mail. It was not hunting at all, hunting in name only.
The hardened players will have no problem babysitting the structure. Well, PL apparently did, but TEST or Goonswarm or even Marmite and PIRAT will have no problem shoving all the war structures into a a system and defending them. It’s all the other, smaller groups, including the newer ones, that might want to consider declaring a war that won’t be able to perma-defend it.
So if the only way to make wars work is to impose the requirement of always being active to allow a hypothetical defender to do a run-around of more powerful attacker in an off time zone, and guerilla-explode a war structure, you have to wonder why bother. No real fights will come of this, and most of the time the defender still won’t bother, and even if they succeed, the aggressor will just drop another structure the next day.
Time zone tanking is already unfun, but the alternative - weaponizing time-zone games for one side - is even worse. At a minimum, for a balanced mechanic, there needs to be one timer that each side can show up at and as you tacitly acknowledge, most defenders, at least the ones we are concerned about that logoff, aren’t going to be able to win in such a straight-up fight.
I’m all for giving some agency to defenders via a requirement for the aggressor to deploy a Propaganda structure or whatever, but you have to give the side that deployed it a chance to defend it when they are online. And in that case, we are no further ahead for the outclassed little guy who wants to fight you are invoking. Still, there is the possibility the little guy will get friends and turn the tables so I think it worthwhile to explore, but it can’t be considered a real solution to the problem of people not undocking which hurts social bonds and possibly even player retention.
For that, we need a mechanism for social groups to exist immune from the impact of wars for those that don’t want to, or can’t compete.
Again, I didn’t say it should be easy, I said it should still be supported, and proposed changes a way back that would allow this. Even if my ideas are useless, there needs to be a change that allows players to remain in game and functioning under wardec. This change would also need to keep wars viable as a tool to interdict someone elses hisec operations. Both sides would need to be able to affect the other, and someone else suggested a variety of victory conditions being available.
If players are not going to undock to fight now, why would they undock and throw themselves at a defended structure instead? They won’t, the situation will remain exactly the same as now. The system needs to change to allow players to remain active in the game, even whilst under wardec. Then they have time to consider if they can fight back, and if so how.
I know exactly how it used to work having been on the receiving end. However, for war to function as a mechanic both sides will need a means to find the enemy, otherwise we’re just back to station games and gate camps. If defneders have the same tools available as attackers, they can log in, check target locations, see the huge blob in Niarja, and avoid it like the plague. War corps would then have to actively move around to find targets.
There are plenty of ways lmao
Adding structures to the mix will only force defenders who don’t want to pvp to go try to pvp only to get absolutely molested by the “propaganda structure” owners
How people forget about that is insane lmao…
If your only option for people who don’t want the pvp to go pvp for their freedom, you missed the whole point
The social corp will only assist the very newest of players and if they want to move up to a structure then bang they hit the current war dec system. I would expect the shock of that to end their interest in the game really quickly. The social corp does nothing at all for the real issue.
The objective is to push the war decs to be more specific for smaller war deckers, they will have to be in the same TZ as the defenders. You do realise that these structures will have a minimum distance between them and I as a defender can shoot any of them.
Yes, and if they drop another then it can be ended again.
Well as the defender of the structure the aggressor can TZ tank, their objective is to get a war to shoot passing stuff, they don’t care about whether the target is in their TZ or not. So this makes them care.
The thing is that the TZ has to be set to the defender in the war dec.
They will TZ tank it as their objective is passing targets.
This is what I am aiming at. You are getting there.
