They are boring. That doesn’t change the fact that Mizhara is a highsec merc who’s willing to take on structures.
ogodwat? Don’t you put that evil on me, bitch.
I am not a highsec “merc” and never have been. I was an actual mercenary, thank you very much.
We just occasionally had to come stomp the highsec “Mercs” while certain people were securing tradehubs.
That’s why I suggested a ‘Waaaagh! tower’ lump of raw unrepairable EHP. Tear it down over time and win the war.
No timers, just a target.
I’m not convinced that would make a difference, but keeping it as simple as possible may help.
You’re a troll and have daddy issues.
You can’t disprove otherwise, i win the internets! \o/
And if the aggressors wanted to “win” the war? Your solution basically means the defenders could just suicide run a bunch of cheapass T1 ships at it and grind it down. Not having any kind of repair or regen options guarantees the defender an eventual win if they put any effort whatsoever into this, while there’s no way for the aggressor to win the war.
The war mechanic can’t be solved by throwing a structure at it. As we’ve covered many times already, the defenders ain’t going to put up the proper fight it’d take to destroy it anyway, and even if they did that’d play right into the aggressors’ hands anyway.
The solution most likely lies within getting granularity into the wardec system. Different types of wardecs, to start with. Introduce war goals for the aggressor, which in turn affects the defensive wargoals and the costs involved. This is just very quick and dirty, and blatantly open to abuse, but it’s a start:
Declare War, be given the choice of War Goals: Certain specific structures destroyed/Taken down perhaps? Or just a certain amount of them. A certain amount of kills or isk destroyed. X amount of loot gained from defenders’ ships and structures perhaps. Sliders setting the various goals to X, Y and Z values. This affects a few things: The cost of the war, the length/timeframe of it, and the defenders’ War Goals.
Depending on the variables the attacker set up, the defender gets its own war goals, like War Target Structure not reinforced for two weeks? Victory. X amount of Aggressor Ships destroyed (or isk value, etc etc), victory. Trade for X amount of ISK in two or more tradehubs? Victory (although this one is blatantly unbalanced and needs work). Mine Y amount of Ore in Z amount of days under the wardec? Victory! Etc.
Basically, let the bears have a chance to “win” the war by doing what they do anyway. If they successfully do the things they do anyway, while dodging or destroying aggressors, they can ‘win’ and the war can end for so and so long. They won’t have to ‘fight’ directly, but they do have to be active. Rewards activity as they’re under the dec.
A war goal system with goals for both attackers and defenders, achievable by activity in space (and with a maximum amount of kills etc per side before one side wins) combined with a campaign to promote hardier bears through the NPE preparing them better for it, mentally more than skillwise, is the only thing I can see that could help in this particular regard.
More importantly, by far, is the quite clear implication that the wars on their own are not the main issue. If they were, people would come back after wars. That they stay away can only be explained by them not really missing the game, which kind of implies there’s a gameplay dullardry issue in highsec to begin with. I don’t think this can be fixed by tweaking the gameplay. The only real fix is to somehow promote the rest of the sandbox to these bears, and get them engaged in that.
It’s the only thing I know that makes for longevity in Eve players: Interaction with other Eve players. No one came back from a break from Eve and said “I just missed doing L4s so much” or “I missed mining in a Retriever.”
Agreed, it needs a lot of thought put into it, but the defenders need very simple achievable goals ot they simply won’t engage.
They also need to be able to do it in less than a week otherwise they will still just dock up and wait just as now. Which is why I’m not convinced there is an answer for wardecs.
Wow, I bow my head, you do indeed win. That logic is flawless.
I have to confess. I stole your idea of ‘good posting’
Any business model that argues that people will be willing to pay to be forced to do an activity they don’t want to do so that their money supports other people enjoying their discomfort is doomed to fail. Saying that adding a structure in wardeccing is going to cause a significant increase in HS corp logging on to do an activity they don’t want, joining other strange corps to form a adhoc fleet (in a game they say to “trust no one”), to battle a singular,organized PvP entity that makes their bankroll destroying other players assets, is just plain illogical. As a business decision, CCP and Pearl Abyss must make a significant change to maintain EVE’s long term viability. While adding a structure may (only may) cause a very small decrease in losing customers, it isn’t significant enough in itself to make a difference.
Well I am not sure I ever attacked you, I might have attacked an idea in a previous post. And I did question the validity of checking your corp since it is well known you could have endless accounts.
Now don’t get me wrong, you still win. But good posting is good posting
Meanwhile CCP will think about applying some sort of band aid because that is all they are able to do in fear of completely screwing it up, because CCP is not fearless despite them stating this on their site. That is just their wish. I hope I am wrong.
And this thread will end up like the rest about wardecks thru years.
You cook like I do. Serve over rice while runny and once its thick throw on tortillas with smoked papaya salsa
Why don’t we make it so that a Wardec can only be declared on Corps that have killed one of your Corpies in the last 30 days?
That way, a wardec can only ever happen over legitimate beef and you would need to resort to ganks if you want to force people into non consentual PvP in Highsec. Wouldn’t matter much for Lol- and null-sec.
Make those free of charge (or only a small fee), 4 weeks duration and renew themselves automatically aslong as there has been a loss on either side in those 4 weeks. (i.e. it only continues if war actually happens).
We just need to find a solution for structures! Maybe this rule could only apply to Corps without structures?
Just get rid of wardec already, how much time
And metrics and pzoome leaving the game
Because of it do you need???
Also, no love for wormholes ? Get fcked
Also, not a single word on anything “intel bot / chat parsing software” that are cancer to pvp hunting ?? Good job guys, long live near2
If that wardec would be for free and having structures would not matter, I dont have anything against. CODE would be really happy about that too. At last they could prove themselves as the best PvP group in New Eden.
Cap on how many war at the time, maybe? 3? 5?
Why do you feel there should be a cap on wars?
More importantly, how do you think you can even cap wars? Corps can be made and hopped between so easily, any cap or scaling on wars is meaningless.
Because what we have now is blanket wardecc on everything and just camp routes and hubs. It’s no brainer gameplay. This shouldn’t work as certified ganks.