Excellent.
Lets do both.
Your isk reward helps return after wardec, and the wardec structure helps retention during wardec.
Eh, I wouldnât go that far. I mean, having âyou must have an Astrahus with the War Proclamation Module onlineâ as a requirement for declaring war? That at least guarantees that if the targets do group up, the aggressors canât avoid risking something, you know?
1 Like
Except then you have the downside of structure based wars, namely that the large null groups can shut down âanyoneâ they want (obviously only anyone without an equal sized null group sub cap umbrella duh).
And you arenât even using it for the claimed (if pretty unlikely) good point of all these non PvPers suddenly starting PvP.
Which makes it an even worse idea at that point.
I really donât think the structure will help with retention. I think the people who are already looking for a way to fight back may be leaving that corp⌠but theyâre not leaving the game.
But thereâs no reason that the presence of some kind of fixed emplacement asset canât be part and parcel of a tiered, âgoals and objectivesâ-focused war system in the first place. Defenders get bonus payout if they set/meet objectives of their own.
Only if âlarge null groupsâ bother driving into high sec to deal with it. Weâre not gonna do that. NCdot might, being in Tribute⌠if itâs sitting in Lonetrek. But theyâre not gonna schlep down to Metropolis to hit some merc corpâs structure, either. And for what? To avoid losing ships in highsec when all they have to do is use a neutral hauler alt?
Câmon. Weâve all got enough people on our lists of âmust kill you nowâ. Weâre not gonna care about the scavengers who cull our weak and sickly.
Also: we can shut down âanyone we wantâ? Or anyone who decides âhey, I think my 248-pilot wardec alliance can take on a nullsec alliance of 33,854 pilotsâ? I mean, yeah, it might stop the idiots from being idiots, but so what?
1 Like
You say that but itâs clear at least some of the null groups have high sec interests. Sure you may not though. But it still creates the environment where you can shut them down by a cta for a timer.
Why make a system which we know has a major flaw. If the defenders get isk the attackers already have skin in the game to not give the defenders a pay day.
The point of all this is that the people who want to fight back in hisec do not currently have anything to force a fight on their aggressors, and that is what needs to be changed.
A structure for the war dec in the time zone of the defender if it has to have vulnerability periods and reinforcement cycles, or single shot and no timer if you want to go all the way. If you want to protect hisec war deckers against nullsec alliances then you have a specific one that enables the war decker to war dec sov holders which is a lot tougher and more in line with existing structures.
The structures location will be known to the defender and has to be placed in hisec.
The objective is for hisec, so nullsec propaganda oepratives making threats and trying to get into arguments about it and being all smug about it is all fine and dandy and amusing to watch.
It is quite easy to make this change, CCP should just do it, war deckers can then adapt or die, people who donât like it can go and riot, adapt and die, and perhaps people in hisec will adapt and die but login and do stuff and during this the blanket war deckers will weaken and more focussed war decs between smaller groups will hopefully develop and flourish instead of the boring stale game we now have.
Over to CCP and the CSM. This is all you really need to do, be brave.
Ok, so, letâs look at Horde. Theyâve got a bunch of cits in Perimeter, so theyâre the ones most likely to bother. What does Marmite and PIRAT do to keep Horde from blowing them the hell up?
How about âMy alliance of 248 pilots just wonât wardec the second-largest alliance in the gameâ? How about that? Is that a reasonable way for PIRAT to not get shut down by Horde? I mean⌠is it really sane to say âhey, this group of over 15,000 pilots canât keep a group 1/60th of its size from shooting them with no consequences in Jitaâ?
I mean, seriously man, are you really going to tell me âMaybe you shouldnât go attacking nullsec groups that can squish youâ is a flaw?
Kruger, you wanna maybe point out to Dunning here that
I mean, since heâs the one who keeps making statements about how things âwillâ work.
If you do then I will petition you for personal harassment, are you that childish?
I have suggested how it should work IMO you get all upset about it and do personal attacks.
In fact I flagged your post for that pathetic insult.
If he points out that CCP hasnât even decided on doing a structure, let alone what the specifics of the structure will be, thatâs harassment?
OMG, you are just a gold mine, arenât you?
You are a gold mine. I have detailed here what should be done and you are throwing your toys around and getting personal, asking for people to gang up on me in the forums, threatening CCP with riots etc. This has been truly fascinating to see.
It is a pathetic insult.
How about this.
Stage 1: ISK Incentive.
Given the urgency of the problem, and little (as far as we know) existing development to solve it at this time, implement an ISK Incentive ASAP, paid out of the wardec, to Corps that avoid a wardec, to encourage them to return.
This should not be difficult or developer intensive to implement in short time/resources.
Stage 2: Victory Conditions.
Implement specific wargoals, which determine winner/loser of a war, costs and reward.
Stage 3: Wardec Structure.
Integrate a wardec structure into the mechanics, and that wardec structure to the Victory Conditions.
This gives CCP, CSM and community time to adapt between stages, observe results, discuss, develop them, to progressively try to dam up the loss of players during and after wardecs.
Hows that?
I donât think you can really establish the ISK incentive without the full system in place, as currently, the aggressors can just keep extending the war dec, which means the target would keep not getting that payout.
The extension can be considered a ânew warâ in accounting, and payouts set to the end of the existing dec.
If EVE has to wait for the entire system to be in place, it might be a year or more from now, meanwhile EVE is losing players.
Maybe. I mean, itâs better than nothing. @gnshadowninja what do you think of all this, since youâre here?
Off the subject of structures for a moment, Pearl Abyss will probably be the final word on war decs.
Considering the war system in BDO sounds very similar to our own they have it so that small guilds are protected from big guilds unless they own a node or have an active war dec which then makes them âwar readyâ. Only problem is this system has a flaw where big guilds have alt small groups that war dec allowing the bigger groups to do the same.
Although this system sounds silly for Eve it would work to dramtically reduce the number of wars against smaller entities as it would increase the costs and make it more difficult to do.
@Arrendis my thought train has headed off a different route, BDO have similar war system and complains yet have never changed it. They have protection for smaller corporations but not complete immunity. They also do not have an âobjectiveâ to be able to finish a war.
To add on : they also have a payment feature so there are rewards for participation in guild wars. May work along your idea of ISK incentives.
Interestingly, this also changes wardecs as a âbribeâ to CONCORD, to CONCORD as impartial arbitrator of a war, whom declares the winner, measures performance of each participant, and pays out accordingly.
Does BDO have places where you canât get attacked at all? I mean, EVE doesnât, after all. Iâm not sure something thatâs tolerable in a more traditional MMO (even one with a lot of PvP) would manage the retention in a game with less visceral and engaging direct gameplay.
No offence, but BDO or PA are not the issue here.
EVE and CCP development of it, is.
No, but looking at whatâs worked in other games can be helpful.