OMG, that’s awesome, right off the bat.
Oh look… you guys killed STRUCTURES. You had an objective, you killed it. Wars are one sided sometimes but are meaningless without an objective.
1 Like
Yeah, we had structures. They meant nothing. They were a victory lap. The vast majority of that war was spent in small fleets harassing ratters and miners and murdering anything that moved, while basing out of NPC stations, long before the main body of the coalition deployed. And yeah, we dropped structures for the people we were attacking to hit.
Bait structures. Exactly what I think the hisec war-dec structure proposal would end up as. And the more they had to form, instead of doing the things they wanted, the more their numbers bled and withered. And those were players who want to PvP.
2 Likes
Likewise for people who wouldn’t. This can go around in circles all day. Was kinda hoping my last big post would put this to rest with the “we have a difference of opinion, agree to disagree” approach. Yet people still need to try to pick at it to try and strengthen their own beliefs.
Only people that can truly answer these “assumptions” are people who are affected by the mechanics to the point of logging off and if adding objectives would change anything for them.
2 Likes
Based on minutes
- cost of war must scale, higher for smaller corp and lower otherwise also consecutive wardecc must be more expensive
- there must be victory condition - but what victory condition should be for attacking side?
- maybe there is supposed to be war time buddy list - for the time of war
- war lenght - how to avoid permadec?
- war tight to structures?
- mosh-pit-free-for-all mechanics - defender corp invite other corp (non alliance) to fight with them against attacker?
CCP Already changed asteroid anomalies respawn time to several hours because one particular region in EVE is quite good at running rorqual fleets nearing the hundreds. iHub upgrades are a one time cost, only super construction, jump bridges and cyno jammers add to the iHub periodic costs.
1 Like
This is next-to-impossible to achieve when players are freely allowed to leave and join corps. It is a good idea, but I can’t see how it can meaningfully be enforced.
The aggressors generally have their own ‘victory condition’ or they wouldn’t have declared war in the first place. This is a sandbox game, so it seems very hard to have some mechanical victory condition without reducing wars to a meaningless game of ‘capture the flag’ that won’t be used by anyone.
The best I can see is to force those declaring war to at least have something in space that can be counter-attacked. Then if the defenders want to inflict damage on their opponent, or try to force a fight, there is something in space they can target.
Intel tools are definitely lacking. They don’t have to be as instant and free as the buddy list used to be, but there needs to be something for wars, and other types of player interaction. Observatory Arrays are perfect for this, so let’s hope they are next on the list after the propaganda structures.
Given the extreme length of the reinforcement timers, and vulnerability window games, it can take up to three weeks to explode a structure in highsec. This in incompatible with short or limited wars, nor can you really artificially limit war length to particular targets for the same reasons as in point 1. The only solution I see is to allow players to opt-out of wars themselves when they have had enough by accepting the restrictions of a social corp.
Groups have multiple structures, each side may have their own structures, and operate in various places so spatially restricting wars seems too complicated to me. But using structure ownership as the definition, or part the definition of a social corp seems possible to me.
Tying the war themselves to a specific structure is a terrible idea though. It would give far too much power to the big highsec mercenary groups and the nullsec groups, and make highsec combat war metas all about re-earning CONCORD protection rather than actual fighting. It would be horrible.
I like this idea! We have social corps (immune to war), competitive corps (like now), and belligerent corps (Guard’s mosh pit). The belligerent corps are all at permanent war with each other in a giant free-for-all. Not sure how to balance that so it would be used, but would be a nice progression for a newer group looking to test their chops, or an older corp to roam around and fight people without the chance of getting caps dropped on them.
1 Like
from ‘instant’. Ratting anoms don’t instantly respawn already.
So they’re the FW militias?
Then you’ll have ( 100 Hulks / Social Corp Limit ) Social Corporations mining with 100 Hulks.
Something like that. More of a fight club though and being in a corp of this type would come with some benefit related to the corporation mechanic. Perhaps wars are capped at some number unless you become part of this tier.
But yes, your point is taken. Something very similar to Guard’s idea is already in the game.
right now it’s just blanket wardec for ISKs and easy targets. I mean most of the HS wars probably.
So why wouldn’t they have an option to drop the corp? What if they are decced for that long that they want to leave the corp? Some cooldown?
maybe it would be easier to reverse the buddy list?
it would be more for HS rather than other spaces because only HS have this problem with engagement. Also I don’t think we should have corps immune to war, wouldn’t it be easy to abuse?
Don’t be silly. You’ll have social corps banding together into social alliances to avoid that limit.
And widely held by the participants to need attention.
Now you understand the use of the word might in what I said 
And:
Reinforcing your ignorance about hisec war decs and their reasons. That you have no idea who they are indicates that whatever you say about reasons for hisec war decs is based on either hot air or your need to sprout Goon propaganda, or perhaps both. I am not going to educate you, I will however sit in wonderful bliss amazed at your lack of insight. Continue bait trolling though.
Sure. But why isn’t that a viable goal? Taking their stuff is a time-honoured reason to start a war with someone.
They do have the option to drop corp and join a new one. That is the core problem. If you limit or scale wars based on the past, the members can just hop to another corp.
I don’t think you should limit corp dropping at all - people should always be able to decide they have had enough and go to the NPC corp. I’m for some increased disincentive against corp hopping, both by the defenders and aggressors, but even with that I think it impossible to implement restriction on war numbers or cost scaling that won’t be abusable by just changing corps.
We already have this - the NPC corp. There is no functional difference between a group staying in the NPC corp and using a chat channel, and a social, war-immune corp. I think there is some advantage in allowing groups to move to the NPC corp together as a social corp as a way to stay together when they decide wars have gotten to be too much.
There needs to be limitation on these social corps of course, but I see no reason why social identity should be tied to increased risk of attack. It is the core problem these new groups face - to be a visible group in-game they have to accept being attacked by everyone. Just make it so, they can form a group and that not happen and the groups that don’t want to fight, or need a break from fighting, can go there.
When you live in a region where many systems will have 11 havens and 7 sanctums, there likely will be less queuing than in systems having only 4 havens and 1 sanctum.
Social Alliances does not sound like a place this needs to go, though regardless Social Alliances will likely just end up being enforced with out of game tools regardless, much like the large null security coalitions.
Believe me, I understand what it means when someone’s using qualifiers and conditionals to hedge their bets and avoid getting caught being full of crap.
Blowing people up and taking ther stuff is definitely a viable goal. However, the effect of the blanket wardec isn’t to promote fights, but—again, according to CCP Larrikin’s data—to drive people out of the game.
When you live in a region where many systems have 11 havens, 7 sanctums, and 30 ratting supers… you might be surprised.
I’m confused, the way I just read this is you quoted me and repeated what I said would be the issue.
Just to add, as stated it wouldn’t be much different from the current mechanics of 100 hulks sitting in a NPC corp but with a social corp it may let new players feel like they’re building something.