Good, thanks for replying, exactly what I was hoping for. o7
1 Like
Good job ignoring the part of his reply that doesnāt fit your narrative.
Good job in ignoring these people and making out that they donāt exist and you have the cheek to talk about narrative to me.
CCP and the CSM are in a good place with this.
You are right, but how many people are there of that kind compared to āI donāt want to PvPā? Does it rectify a substantial investment?
Player social corps would build social ties mainly, not titans. That is acceptable for me. People united in helping each other with missions and exploration for example, why alts when there are other people? Bunch of noobies could even choose to join FW later, when they would feel strong together.
Iāve been trying to articulate this for the past couple days!
Seems because there are some who donāt want to fight then some people are trying to argue that no one will.
I think any changes should increase the cost and the risk considerably for the attacker.
Iām so glad CCP and the CSM are finally fixing this.
2 Likes
iām waiting for the day when a t1 destroyer blows up titans soloā¦its coming. i canāt believe that dragon had the huevos to mention karmafleet as an injured small corpā¦those grievers have been doing that since inception. taking out barges, exhumers and even orcaās by suigank.
when goons/test attacked the keepstar in x47, there was a massive dc event exactly at that time. it was determined that in order to save fleets that nc would dock and pay the extortion for getting their stuff( that they already paid for} out of asset safety and concede the loss of that keepstar. it seems that goons/test have adopted this manuver in the last 4 or 5 keepstar takedowns. if you donāt want these large scale fights to occur, STOP PUSHING FOR THEM!! honestlyā¦unless this is the new game mechanic that you wantā¦for goons/test to have unlimited power throughout eve simply because they can crash your nodes. also on an unrelated topic, that new deal stated that goons would pull out of nc territoryā¦and to their credit they did for the most part, however now test has moved in bots to spoil systems instead. i personally have turned in bot reprots on test hotdroppers in vodf, mji3 and m-0ā¦to no avail. this was my first time in null and the first time in pvp at all and i gotta sayā¦you folks allowing 1 ahat to spoil an entire system and all connecting systems reflects poorly on you.
I think giving something more concrete for the defenders to do a great design goal. The problem is finding something for the defenders to go after that doesnāt make wars impossible for everyone but the largest groups to use, and not exploitable through collusion. Forcing the aggressors to have a structure or put up a small war bounty might be an answer.
However wars are already so costly and risky for the aggressors that they are rarely used by the little guys or a ānormalā corp. Wardec fees were raised 25-times in 2012, and the addition of the free ally mechanic made it riskier to declare war on others. All that seems to have done is discourage normal corps from declaring war, and pushed the aggressors into a handful of mega mercenary corps to share these costs and risks, which further makes wars when they happen unbalanced.
Itās not an easy problem to solve, but I donāt think cost, nor even risk is the best balancing point for a new war system, at least if you donāt want just more of this lopsided aggressor/defender meta. Ideally you want some mechanics that pits similarly sized groups against one another, fighting over real objectives, but it is hard for me to get there in my head without an incredible amount of game design effort.
Iām glad too that CCP appear almost ready to give it a go though. Hopefully this will be a good test of their game design chops!
Concord was always part of the game. After the Yulai incident (see Zombies, Inc) Concord got significantly beefed up to be unbeatable.
Iāll take issue with this statement. People change, they may not want to fight now or even next year, but the longer they remain in EvE, there always exists the possibility they will change. For example if you have 200 mil to your name, PvPing in a battleship is not wise as you canāt replace it. However once you have 200 billion, then using that battleship becomes much less of an issue. Sure some people will never change, but a huge majority of people do.
People who want to fight, leave highsec. Highsec is ganks only area, be it legal or āIllegalā, if it comes to PvP.
I have characters in Highsec and wormholes. The ones in highsec stay there most of the time, the ones in wormholes go all over. The only problem I have with wars is actually getting fights, but thatās not what the problem is that CCP is upset about.
In my opinion Ganking has gone too far. Much more than HS Wars.
If CCP avoids drops of ganked ships it would be much āsaferā there 
I want to see a war dec system that works - that allows for high sec PvP without CONCORD but that has a purpose for both sides - victory conditions so that defenders have a way to win, not just wait until the war runs out. I also want something meaningful for them to win if they do - something like Malcanisās war bond idea - so they have a reason to want to fight back if decced.
I also want social corporations for newer players who are looking to get out of the noob corps but may not be ready for nullsec/lowsec or dealing with highsec war decs. Social corps would be barred from owning structures and cap in terms of numbers.
All of that together I think fixes this problem. Regardless, I do think the numbers are still bad enough to justify turning wars off until thatās coded, but I know thatās going to make the literal handful of groups who do this stuff unhappy.
5 Likes
The current wardec mechanics are most detrimental to the small or small medium PvE corps that represent the player who may or may not turn to PvP as a facet of their EVE gameplay. Larger corp members and more veteran players understand the cost/risk of playing EVE and usually accept it, while newer players just see an example of (to them) unfair game mechanics and playground bully attitude. These newer players may, given time, evolve and enter PvP at a later date, but EVE has been driving them from the game at a far higher rate than is healthy for EVEās long term survivability. No one major change is going to accomplish the needed evolution to change EVEās current trajectory; it will take a coordinated and well planned game blueprint in all aspects of play. However, CCP needs to step up and do that themselves and, with the manpower/resources being cut as bad as they were, Iām not sure they can do that in their current position.
Donāt want to spend too much time tapping on a small tablet, but if wardec fees represent ābribing CONCORDā, why canāt they establish a damage deposit fee that the attacker puts in escrow and is based on the ratio of attacker size vs. defender corp size. Establish a CONCORD messageboard/system where other pilots can join the war on the defenderās side up to an equal number with the attackers. Award points based on damage dealt to the other side. If the attacker wins the war, the damage deposit is returned. If the defender and any people joining his side win, the damage deposit pool is split up among their sideās pilots based on their contribution. This would encourage fewer wars, but far more likely to be active and even in nature. Might develope mercenary groups going from war to war helping out the defenderās to gain access to the damage deposit pot. Combine with limiting the number of consecutive weeks a corp can maintain a wardeck (guaranteed to drive the PvE player out), mechanics to prevent awoxing an easily used merc board, tweaking if Alphas can participate so that the other side doesnāt fill the defenderās roster with non participating alts (also auto kick off defenderās roster if no damage done over x amount of days), ect.
The bottom line is that if we want EVE to continue to stick around for awhile, the current gameplay has to evolve in several areas. Yes, we want to keep as much of the old EVEās intent/environment, but to do so we have to be willing to take a hard,honest look on what is driving the player population/participation down. Hopefully, we are all here in the forum because we want EVE to continue.
1 Like
Thanks for the reply, I liked the reply, but this:
I was in the war dec discord for a period of time and a lot of war deckers there are very committed Eve players, I would advise against turning it off. It would be a big mistake.
If you only switch it off until you have āfixedā it you will create a ā ā ā ā storm like ā ā ā ā in EvE
That also means that everybody is not able to gain his targets and that could not be the right way in a sandbox gameā¦
again i say for the record. if ccp wants to promote (if not cause) huge fights, they better make their servers and nodes CAPABLE of handleing said fights without dcāing every other person on grid! till that occurs, ccp should stick to the low brow fights that their servers and nodes can actually handle.
If commited then will not leave easily. Could just adapt.