This has always been a false metric.
When you leave a game, most people will not honestly put, someone Ganked/Owned me I’m rage quitting. They’ll list another reason.
Always has been and always will be this way.
2 Likes
then maybe remove wars and evolve it around criminal-enforcer scenario. Leave HS concord protection around gates and HS stations only (so ganks still may occur) and made rest of space fire free. Those who want shoot other players would become criminals with security status going down, those who want hunt those criminal would become enforcers with benefits from empires.
CCP now thinking about what to say to everyone at EVE Vegas.
7 Likes
We already have criminals in highsec and I don’t think they should go anywhere.
But if you are going to allow players control of the space - like structures and services - then there needs to be ways to fight over them. This is literally the core idea of the game. It doesn’t have to be via formal wardecs, but there needs to be ways for players to interact. Plus, highsec players need to be able to access fleet fights or large sections of the game are walled off to them so imagine there will always be at least mutual wars.
Either CCP changes tack and makes highsec a real NPC zone where the players can’t influence the space (not going to happen as the work to do so would be incredible) or they find a way to improve or replace the war mechanic so the player driven stories that are at the core of the game can continue to be told via spaceship violence.
The simplest by far to me is just give players more tools to tune their risk as a group with a social corp, and dangle more carrots out there that come with risk of PvP to induce the braver ones to go after and become content. But I feel like a broken record at this point.
Coming up with a war system replacement/improvement would be much easier if CCP started by defining what they want highsec and wars to be.
Now that would be easy to solve:
Don’t give it two timers like Citadels. Just one, like a low Power Citadel.
If the defending corp has a Powered up structure they have a longer timeframe to defend than the attacking corp.
Also let the wardecc structure drop nice loot, and the defending corp could go out isk positiv with just destroying it, even if the attacked destroy quite a few ships.
If you are the attacking corp you have to make sure you can defend it on the structure timer. Could be hard if you are waging 20+ wars at the same time and you have a big fleet of the combined enemy corps in front of you.
You lose the structure, you lose all current wars.
2 Likes
Problem with tying wars to structures is that it will always favor N+1 behavior. This will ensure that smaller groups always lose and then we’re right back where we started.
If players don’t feel like they have something worth fighting over and that there’s a shot of winning, then you won’t see proportionate engagement in the system.
The problem with balancing the “shot of winning” part is that you have groups that are higher skilled, more focused, and are generally better prepared to dominate the space. There will always be an imbalance here because there’s not a lot of pvp groups that are at each other’s throats. Take proper steps to improve highsec pvp and you will see competition step up.
4 Likes
+1.
Adding a structure that gives no benefit to shoot isn’t going to induce players to undock.
Further, if the numbers being whispered are to be believed, there are only a few hundred character initiating wars. There is no point wasting dev time on nerfing a mechanic already too risky/costly to be used by the bulk of the players. Likely all that will happen is even less people will declare wars and the mechanic will exclusively be used by the apex group and the same atrocious participation rate and logging off behavior will persist.
The nerf cycle has run its course and wars have been pushed into the niche domain of a few dozen players. Time to reset and come up with something else more useful for your average highsec player.
We have a lot of “open” wars where every corp can jump in with an assist. Should I tell you who uses this? Nobody expect RIOT and some corps with a low player base who think they can have a war for free. That is all.
No new targets, no defenders.
Your opinion about “everybody” can join the war and then everything is fine: So it is vital that we should not deceive ourselves.
Player enforcement for this is a very bad idea.
Because it will not be enforced to a suitable degree.
Why?
We would have scenario: corp A (criminals) want to destroy corp B citadel (HS manufacturing group), corp B don’t want to fight so they called for help. This when “enforcers” come to play (high security status players). This is self-winding mechanism. Player generated. We have conflict drivers from both sides. Mosh pit idea in play and incentive for corp B to undock because they won’t be left alone.
It’s truism to say if we lift concord protection HS will burn (at start sure), but for the victim it doesn’t matter if ship was ganked or killed in war, it’s a loss. People need to organize not only at the level of corporation but also among them.
Current security status values are insignificant in game play. I would like to see something done with them instead unplayable bounty system.
No, not that mechanic. Join on a individual basis, instant, like joining FW, but not bound to any corp. Also having all wars public and announced with timers, etc. Everything you need to pick for a third party event.
Maybe this will not bring PvPers back to highsec, but it’s the best we can do IMO.
Numbers do not mean much when its 20 people flying industry ships vs 20 that can fly logistics and battleships.
The more I look at this thread the more sense Brisc’s idea of just shutting the war declaration system down makes. All structures in high security space get unanchored and returned to the nearest NPC station, the assets put into assets safety and all industry jobs transferred as is, including POCO’s.
You all want to fight with each other so bad? Go to low security space or null.
No. Their hands are what is choking out the EVE body. The rest of EVE will survive just fine without them.
This is libel
Regardless, We have used the mechanics like anyone else can in a sandbox game.
Shall we also remove skill injectors, microtransactions, ganking, bumping and numerous other reasons people have left the game. I’m sure Eve would survive without them.
I would gladly trade the loss of skill injectors and microtransactions if it meant no more ganking, bumping. There are plenty of corporations in Low Security and 0.0 who would love all the bumpers and gankers they can get.
It kind of does matter because decs have to work inside the crime watch system.
If shooting a structure starts a corp-to-corp war without delay then I will use it to gank people.
If there is a delay, like the current 24hrs from declaration, the I get a free timer on your structure. To counter that you need to make me go, functionally, suspect. And we are off to the races,
You forget, that there are easy ways to avoid ganks and other individual losses. So you can learn from mistakes. This is not the case with wardecs. It’s basically the execution of a successful gank on a much bigger scale and for prolonged time. As with most other ganks, the result is pre-determined the moment it starts.