I’m not having a fit. I outlined problems with the proposal, you two got all indignant about it. As for the rest… ask around, I’m an arrogant, pedantic jerk. Arguing minutiae in a battle of wits against the unarmed is my idea of fun.
Yep, and it hasn’t happened yet.
You disagree with timer set by defender in regards to a wardec structure.
We get it.
No timer has been set. Relax.
CSM and CCP stated this is a priority now.
I started outlining problems with the idea of ‘slap a structure on the war’ quite some distance before the issue of the timer itself and who gets to set the vulnerability window came up. But don’t worry, I don’t expect you to be able to keep track of details. Hey, by the way, do you mind if I label you ‘Kruger’ in my head? I know I should go back and see which of you posted your idea that this would get people to do things they don’t like doing before the other did, but his name starts with ‘D’, so I’m leaning toward ‘Dunning’ for him already.
They’ve stated addressing wardecs is a priority. Not a structure. That’s just the leading idea right now because they don’t have any other ideas. Personally, I think Miz’s idea of a more detailed, granular wardec system that includes objectives the attackers have to meet, and which the defenders can deny, is a much better idea. It won’t immediately stop people from docking up, but it would disincentivize the war-dec corps from going after them. And if you want to incentivize the targets coming back after the wardec… pay a percentage of the costs of a war the aggressor doesn’t win get paid into the target’s corp wallet. If you want, double the percentage if they hit activity targets (fighting back and getting kills, or maintaining a certain percentage of mining or other income during the wardec), so they’ve a reason to undock, even if they don’t PvP when they do it.
Then you are kidding yourself then, because I am not arguing with you, I am merely pointing out the mechanics and their impacts and being surprised by your reaction which is what you described yourself as. But I would only agree with you seeing as you said that about yourself.
No, it’s true. I really am an arrogant, pedantic jerk. I can provide references.
Ive not said anything yet regarding timers.
I will now though.
I dont see how defender defining vulnerability windows would work, if multiple wardecs are issued through the same structure.
If each defender gets to determine its vuln windows, the structure would be vulnerable 24/7, via acculamation of defender determined timers.
Even if each timer is specific only to that defender, the wardec initiator would have to defend the structure around the clock and the week, which is unreasonable.
No, you hadn’t. What I was referring to there was your insistence that just slapping a structure on it would get people who don’t want to PvP… to PvP. It’s a voluntary activity. If they don’t want to do it, they’re not gonna do it. And I get that you think if they’re being given a definite, ‘easy’ target, they’ll go for it… but I think if they don’t want to PvP, they don’t want to PvP. And they don’t have to PvP. They can go play another game. They have been. I think it’d be more effective to try to figure out how to get them to come back after the wardec ends. And a cash incentive might help with that. I don’t think getting told ‘you don’t like to do X, so just do X’ will.
Currently, a defender can:
The addition of a wardec structure mechanic would add a specific target which defenders can aggress to end the bothersome war, and a specific target to join with others against, or hire mercs against.
Its an additional opportunity to remain pro-active in a war situation, to end the war, and a more specific target to mobilise against.
It also forces the wardeccer onto the defensive, themselves.
We dont know how many will avail themselves of this option, but it is reasonable to expect some will, rather than logging out as they otherwise would.
It should render a net positive regarding the total of players leaving during wardec,and not returning. By how much, we dont knoe, but should be an improvement compared to now.
Wait…
What?!
Explain.
Not if it’s something they already don’t want to do. And that’s the people who are leaving and not coming back over this. The ones who want to PvP, there’s a lot of ways they can find PvP. They can just move corps. Here, let me give you an analogy. We’ll pretend for a moment that Dunning won’t think I mean all this as literal in-game mechanics (but we all know he will).
You go into a place to get a meal. It’s a social club type thing, where there’s music, and even dancing sometimes. You don’t like to dance, so you’re not going to dance. You just want your meal.
Someone tries to force you to dance. Well, you don’t want to dance, so you don’t.
Then they tell you ‘look, it’s really simple, we’ll make it easy and just do a two-step’. Only, you know… you don’t want to dance.
Meanwhile, there’s another place right next door where nobody’s going to try to force you to dance.
So. Do you dance? Or do you go eat in the place where they’re not trying to force you to do something you don’t want to do?
ISK. I’m referring to ISK. If there’s a wardec system in place where the aggressor has to define certain goals for the war, then failing to meet those goals means defeat. If the aggressor does not win the war, then give their target a % of the ISK they paid to declare war.
So, as an example (numbers totally made up to keep the math easy):
Let’s say it cost Corp A 1 billion ISK to declare war on Corp B.
Corp A has to define ‘victory conditions’ like 20 ships destroyed.
Corp A fails to destroy 20 of Corp B’s ships.
Corp A loses the war.
Corp B receives 250 million ISK from CONCORD.
NOTE: This is not expected to get people active during the war… but it might convince them to come back after, if they know they’ve got some reward money waiting. Heck, if they do get active, and fight back, or manage to make even half as much money at PvE as they would without the war, double it as a ‘thanks for staying active’.
There would need to be a counterweighted objective for B to achieve and then victory is rated on who gets closest to their objectives. Otherwise any non structure war could be won by the defenders not undocking.
If the defenders however select “We must mine X cubic m of ore and if we do we get y isk as a reward as well” then suddenly there is a reason to be in space despite the war. Or they can wait it out and let it expire with a null result for both sides (ala current content).
Yes, it could. And that’s ok. Look, right now, if I invade Canada, I’m doing that for a reason, right? Maybe I want to take some land. Maybe I want to kill some moose. Whatever the reason is, the aggressor already has things they want to achieve. If the defender doesn’t let them do that, the aggressor did not win. And since they’re putting the money down, and committing at least fiscal resources, if they didn’t win… they lost.
Let’s remember something here: the issue is NOT that people dock up.
CCP Larrikin pulls up activity data for players of corporations that have wars declared against them and it shows considerable activity drops in all activities during the war. They also show that the low activity continues after the war ends.
It’s that once they dock up, they don’t come back.
Mmmmm, While it might slightly up the returning to the game, which is a good thing, I don’t believe a system which rewards people for not engaging with the game is a good one.
I suppose you could set it to say, 5-10% of the wardec fee is a null result, to create that log back in effect.
Then potential for more if they can meet their own objectives (which as various people have pointed out should be based on the activities they already do, rather than having to do PvP if they don’t do it). Because if we stop them docking up & logging out to begin with because of shiny reward potential we don’t need to worry about them not coming back because they never left.
Intriguing.
Would Goons and Miniluv riot over this?
Why would we? We don’t wardec people. We don’t give a crap about wardec mechanics. We (and the rest of the game that has to put up with TZ-tanking) would be pissed off if highsec got special ‘you don’t have to put up with this crappy-but-unavoidable game mechanic’.
Right. That’s gravy. That’s the ‘it’d be nice if…’ but the big thing is get them to come back.
And this is what we’re saying, the ones that will or would, already do, the ones that don’t will log out and leave the game therefore nothing has been solved.
The more you post the more it seems this fix is more about what you guys want (so you yourself can fight mercs as dracs already laid out many times) and less about what is good for the player base and communtities affected by it, attackers or defenders.
I like it.
Do you agree your isk reward idea can be implemented alongside a wardec structure implementation?
It could be. I definitely think that as a general idea, forcing the aggressors to have some skin in the game in the form of an asset that can’t just run away is a good idea. I just don’t think the structure would change the fact that people who don’t want to PvP just don’t want to PvP.
Of course it could, but a wardec structure is still a terrible idea. For all the aforementioned reasons, and won’t really create any significant content.