Depends how may Corps/Alliances you wardec out of it.
Suddenly hundreds of ships might show up tired of your crap to blow it up and end all your wardecs in favor of defenders.
It is about targeting one specific form of gameplay, while all the other contributors to reducing player retention is ignored.
Letās see all the data. Not cherry picking specifics that affect older players more than new.
The whole point is to stop defenders leaving wardec, and the game.
Giving them 1 structure to destroy per Corp/Alliance of wardeccers, does exactly that.
Finally they can man up, join up, and hire others, to go and end the war in favor of ALL defenders, by destroying a single structure which may or not be sufficiently defended by the wardeccers.
What then when a 100 person corporation war declares corporations with only 5? What reprieve is there in such a system for them?
Hiring others is already an option, judging by the data, its either not used much or not very effective.
A 5 man Corp vs a 100 man Corp will never have a reprieve.
But it the 100man wardeccing corp has declared on hundreds or thousands of players in various Corp/Alliances, they can join together, or pool resources to hire mercs, to destroy the wardeccers structure, thus ending all wars out of it, in favor of all defenders,
Interesting, your old group plays a combat game in WOT yet has no desire to engage in combat in EVE.
Do they exit the game and sit in the lobby for a week when someone shoots them in WOT?
1 Like
Building on several ideas mentioned in here:
Types of corporations
Current npc based corp with all the same restrictions
Tier 1 Social corp: corporate office, no corp structures,limit 30 members, non decable
Tier 2 Corp, 1 corp structure per constellation, wardecable at a rate of: war declaration + damage deposit cost, may have up to 2x times āpickup/mercsā join war for the defnder for free, limit of 60 members in corp.
Tier 3 Corp, unlimited structure restriction, wardecable at a rate of war declaration + damage deposit, may have up to equal " pickup/mercs" join for free, unlimited size.
This builds on the idea of introducing small social corps with severe restrictions, partially addresses some structure spamming that has been going on, allows for less frequent/but more even (fun for all) wars. Broad ideas that would allow a graduated growth into a full capability corporation, allow for a corp to try to increase its capabilities as well as fallback if it becomes too much (still preserves the corpās identity), and helps address some of the detrimental effect a handfull of corps are having on the retention rate in EVE.
While I don`t think a complete solution to EVEās player retention rate will be solved in the forums, I do think that some of the better idea presented in here might stimulate possible solutions that both CCP and the CSM might have overlooked. I do know that any solution that CCP decides on will have a loophole or 2 in it and that it wonāt take long for some EVE group to find and exploit (remember insurance fraud?), but any significant improvement to player retention would help us all.
1 Like
Hundreds or Thousands? If you war declared goons, pl, test, brave, youād be lucky to break 1,000 as null security organisations donāt need to go to empire for content and theyād laugh at the fools that wasted their ISK on such empty threats.
Even adjusting the numbers down to a practical amount, for how long would the wars stop? A day? A week? What if there are a web of wars between these corporations preventing cooperation? All the attacker has to loose is one sodding structure that will probably cost less than a machariel.
Read again.
1 Like
No, they wait for the next round where all their stuff respawns. In case you havenāt noticed, EVE isnāt as generous.
1 Like
A trifle too manyā¦
1 Like
Cost of structure is one thing.
Cost of wardecs, in number, per size of aggressor vs defender, are another.
Rationally, it should be cheaper to wardec a larger corp/alliance, than to wardec a smaller corp/alliance.
As to limits on wardecs limits per number, those are still on the table.
So basically, it has nothing to do with wardecs, just they prefer casual lobby games, got it.
Thatās damn right. CCP either accepts people donāt see the value in the current meta and makes changes, or CCP ignores the data and continues catering to one dimensional gameplay while the player base stagnates and expires.
This is an empty statement, and I read it 3 times.
Its been said, repeatedly, that wardec defenders falling out of EVE is the problem.
What do you have to say to that?
Whom do you hire to actually fight marmites or pirat ?
1 Like
Sure, there are, except if you own assets in space. But still too many people choose to quit rather than living in NPC corps forever or move out of highsec, create alt accounts, etc.
ā¦ and yes, you have to stay in NPC if you want to operate also in highsec using only one char.
1 Like
Look. Its not complicated.
Defenders, be they who they are, with whatever assets, DIDNT WANT THE WAR.
It is forced on them. Fine. Such is EVE.
But the problem is they have no way to win it against multiple aggressors, or one large one, without just logging out,
If all Cop/Alliance wardecs are linked to a structure, ALL defenders of wardecs from there can mobilize, join forces, and hire others, to take out that structure, to end the wars in favor of all defenders.
What is the problem with that?
1 Like
What you say if that those who donāt group and donāt fight do group and do fight, they will not have an issueā¦
What about getting right the part with they DO NOT GROUP and they DO NOT FIGHT?