Getting it coded, tested, and balanced would be fairly time-consuming, yes. But ‘quick and easy’ fixes… don’t work. We’ve seen that. We’ve seen it again and again over the last fifteen years. Quick and easy fixes, ‘just twisting some knobs’ by changing a few values in a database someplace… they just create a massive web of unintended consequences that end up causing more problems down the line.
As far as that goes in relation to the highsec narratives (which, remember, can also potentially include PvP and tie into FW)… yeah. It’d mean undoing a lot of the staffing cuts they made last year when they were trying to make the company more appealing to buyers. And they should undo those staffing cuts, as best they can. Everything we hear is ‘that takes too much time’, but… you know, they’ve got the time and resources to branch out into other games, right?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be branching out. They absolutely should. But they should also recognize that reinvesting in the cash cow is essential to their business.
Actually the Loki is the only T3 now which fulfills the role of a highly flexible platform. The number of options is enormous (I operate 4 different and working fits). The problem with the other T3s is, that only a few options work, and that they are stuck in their niche.
By implementing a structure that the offender has to take care off, you will disincentivize all the “I am just deccing you for lulsies and will wait on Jita 4-4 for you to show up”. Aka wars that aren’t wars and only an excuse for ganking. These are, imho, non-legitimate wars. Where no fighting ever happens.
Wars that weren’t meant to provoke fights to begin with. With these structures, you will add a big burden on offenders that try to have as much of these non legitimate wars as possible just to have more gank targets.
A lot of the decs aren’t for a personal grief, they are simply made to farm newbs. These decs have to go away while sustaining the option to have legitimate wars over significant beefs. A structure would do just that. Only being placed for real wars and if someone tries to abuse them for non legitimate stuff, the defender can end it quickly. You don’t need to have much skills for an uncontested structure.
I think this idea would work, but it needs some refinement against possible exploits. Because we all know it will be exploited if possible. Me personally, I would make the costs quite high for such a structure. Wars should be declared if you have unsolvable differences. Not just for a “oh, you bumped me on undock, WAR!” type of thing. But that’s just me.
Not sure what you didn’t like about it. Though I wasn’t a part of it I think they made Very sound decisions and you can Learn more about the process they went though at:
They did an excellent job in communicating and hats off them and what they did was very reasonable. Just it is time to bring them all in line as it has been a couple years and skill injectors.
Focus Groups ran to date I can’t find a fault with yet to date. It has always been the iteration.
The main percentage of killed by wd. It’s a big null_sec alliances like fraternity etc. check zkb stats. If ccp link all wd mechanic to structures, nothing changes. Lol
In terms of wardecs: I understand effectively bribing CONCORD to look the other way, but the Empire navies certainly shouldn’t. As far as they are concerned any aggression in their space should be dealt with by Empire police. That would mean no aggression on gates or stations in hisec without police intervention.
This would allow those under wardec to still move around and haul, but we’d need to bring back watchlists so hunters can actually hunt.
The whole wardec system needs an overhaul I would say.
So Frat comes in blows up the structure and ends the war dec. Nothing changes… LMAO
Oh and thanks for confirming that most people killed by WD’s are passing nullsec pilots in hisec, for some reason forum dwellers seemed to refute that.
This statement is incorrect, I’ve killed players of all ages and experience. We don’t look through someone’s history before killing them.
Some players actually put up a decent fight but then there is some that die in retrievers. [quote=“Mingja, post:504, topic:110726”]
the defender can end it quickly
[/quote]
Johnny with his 20 man corporation of miners will end it quickly? Doubtful.
Structures even if introduced would have to have a suitable time frame for reinforcing such as POCOs, considering the lengthy time it takes to kill a structure in high sec it would be ridiculous to have a weak war module without suitable defence windows. Thus taking away the “defender ending it quickly”
Consequences mate, are you up to it? It does not look like it. I can feel your fear, the same fear I saw in the war dec discord when I suggested my idea, you reek of it.
And just to continue this, @Brisc_Rubal - that chart you linked is absolute #s. The Loki retained some balance. The Legion, as an offensive tool, was beaten down as bad as the Proteus. And the Tengu’s biggest problem is that with the removal of the Sneaky Pete, it’s either a super-expensive Ferox (in which case, just use a Ferox or an Eagle), or :missiles:. And missiles have flight times. You’ve used missile doctrines with Init, you know it’s not too difficult to just bounce around a grid to avoid incoming missiles.
Add PvE damage back into that, you’ll see the Tengu spike upward, mostly HM/HAM-fit. Hitting the other 3 too hard doesn’t mean they didn’t hit the Loki hard enough.
So you don’t have any reason for the wardecc other than “they become targets”. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that I think is wrong.
Well, if Johnny and his 20 man corp pissed you off enough to declare war on them or hire some guns to blow them away, then he pretty much deserved it. If that’s how it happens, it’s perfectly fine. Solve quarrels with wardecs, more power to you.
You will think twice to declare war upon them for arbitrary reasons though. After all, they might hire a gun to end it quickly so they can get back to mining asap. In which case, your structure is dead and you have losses. If the structure is expensive enough ofc.
Nope, you’re looking at it backwards. It’s not ‘this is the most common effect wardecs have’, but rather ‘this is the effect of wardecs on a particular segment of the populace’. Newbies need to be cultivated, not driven off.
Did you read the CSM minutes? Maybe you don’t, but that’s exactly what CCP Larrikin pointed out:
“CCP Larrikin pulls up activity data for players of corporations that have wars declared against them and it shows considerable activity drops in all activities during the war. They also show that the low activity continues after the war ends. Brisc Rubal noted that the numbers here were so stark, it would justify immediately removing war decs as a mechanic and promising a fix after the fact. The CSM in general were surprised at how stark the numbers were and noted it was clear this mechanic was having a significant impact on player recruitment and retention.”
Wardecing 0.0 corps isn’t the issue. That last sentence is where the problem lies. Argue whatever other points you want, that last sentence is what must be addressed.
I don’t know how you worked out that I have it backwards from what I said? Stop projecting on me.
Is also an issue in that there was no consequences, now there will be and this in itself will reduce the size of war deckers as they scrabble around for targets that don’t bite back.
There we go with the quickly again, nothing in high sec to do woth structures ends quickly. I know as I felt like my life got drained away shooting structures the last 6 months.
1 ops to destroy the structure vs 7 days minimum (if not extended) for the dec. You can argue about semantics if you like, but I call that quickly.
If 1 day is to little, give it a ref timer.
Can be adjusted if needed.
the idea is to keep ganking in place but reduce the ammount of wardecs that are thrown without any reason other than boredom.
There should be a reason why you declare war. A legitimate reason. If there is no legitimate reason necessary, it is the equivalent to unsanctioned ganking. That is a problem.
