And that’s why I feel sorry for you, trapped in that brain.
1 Like
No, you don’t.
It doesn’t matter that it was CODE : It matters that his corp had 6 members and the attacker had 65 with the option to call in 600+ as backup
The fact that he was not knowledgeable enough to hide his assets shouldn’t matter : There should be a limit as to how many get destroyed - dependent on numbers involved, ISK paid to concord and a hard limit.
- If you have about the same number of members and equal number of structure then have at it
- If you have an unequal number of structures there should be limits as to how many you can destroy - Like victory conditions.
- If you outnumber them by too many you are simply not allow a non consensual war
The issue is that both sides should have to have some risk when engaging a behavior. That’s not the case right now.
I’m not assuming there is no way for certain players to mitigate risk. I’m saying that when the risk/reward profile is so skewed in one direction or the other, it means something needs to be done to fix it.
This is the same argument all the high sec guys make bitching about null sec miners, and why we need to nerf Rorqs and caps so they can’t make that space completely risk free.
I agree. This is obviously an edge case and not what we’re trying to specifically address. There’s always going to be some guy who takes a loss his ego/wallet can’t take and then decides to walk away. That’s not really who I’m concerned with here.
You’re missing the point. Ignore the guy with the Athanor right now. Look at at the war deccer. They are going to get lots of things they want in this case - they will get salvage from the athanors, they’ll get loot from this guy’s wrecks, and they’ll get killmails. What did they risk to get those benefits? Nothing.
When somebody is in nullsec ratting with a super, they’re still taking a chance that they’ll get hot dropped. They put a lot of isk on the line to make a lot of risk. Same happens with Rorqs.
What have the war deccers risked to get their reward? Nothing. That needs to be addressed.
Malcanis had a war bond idea - the attacker puts up a war bond, and whoever wins the war gets the pot. Create victory conditions for both sides, and make them meaningful - attackers need to kill a structure or X isk value of ships, defenders need to do something similar, and make it scale based on the size (potentially age, or some similar skill metric equivalent) so that it’s achievable for both sides.
There you go. Something the defenders can do to not only get the war shut off besides waiting it out, but also something that makes it attractive for them to participate.
Okay.
I’d say there also needs to be something they can do whilst at war, since there are a large number of players who don’t want to engage in war, but want to be in a player corp.
Hell, we could even set a victory condition for the miners - mine x amount and refine x amount to win the war. Like I said, something achievable to keep people logging in.
Every action in Eve has repercussions.
He made a corporation opening himself to wars, he anchored assets opening them to be destroyed, he smack talked guys in a big alliance expecting no downfall.
Did you not watch that amazing Eve trailer?
3 Likes
Risk is to large extent down to player actions. If Player A takes on a huge amount of risk and Player B wants to take advantage of that why should B face risk? Why are you out to punish prudent and reasonable players for the sake of the imprudent and foolish?
But again this is a behavioral issue. If you walk into a casino and put all of your wealth on red at the roulette table and lose…should we blame you or the casino for you foolishness?
Wait are we ignoring him or not?
I get that a 500 man war dec alliance presents a lop sided threat to just about anyone they war dec. But when you say war deccers need to have more on the line when players are being foolish and imprudent…I just can’t agree to that. Fitting a blinged out ship and then having it blown up is something we all look at and chuckle over. But it is the exact same thing as the 6 athanor guy. He didn’t bling fit a ship, but he put what…6-8 billion at risk with no real hope of defending it.
What is the first rule of EVE? Do not risk what you cannot afford to lose. When players violate that rule then quite…yeah, that’s not good. I’d rather they stayed. But to achieve that somehow these players need to be informed of the actual nature of the game. And overcoming rational ignorance is hard.
That was not a suggestion. It was a thought experiment to highlight the nature of the “war dec problem”. The gist of the thought experiment is that both sides hate it.
It’s not a proposal, it’s a thought experiment designed to illustrate the problem with war decs in the first place. War deccers generally don’t like the idea beause it allows industrial corps to spend ISK to protect themselves. The Defending corps generally don’t like it because it allows them to protect themselves by spending ISK.
The experiment therefore illustrates the motivations behind both sides. in general , hi-sec war deccers are in it for low commitment, easy kill farming, with any profit being something of a bonus. So a system that requires them to commit ISK and which also allows the defender any agency in determining the terms of conflict is not popular with them.
Likewise, the defenders in general don’t want non-consensual PvP at all, and they want CCP to just stop it (see the post directly after the one I made above, for example.) So to them, the war-bond is a regressive step that they see as one more way of putting the responsibility for defending their ships and assets on them, rather than on CONCORD.
In short, the issue with war-decs is that they are non-consensual PvP in a way that, for example, a war between two 0.0 alliances isn’t. The 0.0 guys may complain about blobs or coalitions or cloaky camping or whatever, but that’s just tactics. They’re not complaining about the concept of another entity shooting at them at all. Wardecs on the other hand, typically involve a defender who doesn’t want to engage in combat PvP at all . How can you reconcile that desire with the desire for other players to play a FFA PvP game? The War Bond addresses the fig-leaf justifications that both sides put up. Deccers constantly complain that defenders can just quite their corps and reform another, risking nothing and losing nothing but a name. Defenders complain that they have no way to use their playstyle to protect themselves, and that the wardeccers commit nothing and take no real risks.
And yet when offered a mechanism that addresses these complaints, neither of them like it. In true EVE style, each want the other to do all the adapting.
Basically we are in the world of the second best, IMO. We are going to have to settle for a less than desirable outcome.
1 Like
So a ‘Rules of Engagement’ where the defender chooses which condition(s) they accept as terms of victory. Scaled based on relative corp sizes. That could work if done correctly.
I doubt this would work. They’d have to make themselves targets…people who are comfortable making themselves targets while mining are already doing that in places like NS…not HS.
1 Like
It’s not punishment. It’s balance. There shouldn’t be anything in the game that is riskless for a high reward. The reward and risk should ramp up equally. They don’t, especially in high sec, where you can fly very expensive blinged out combat ships with no risk because CONCORD protects you from most things. It’s not like lowsec or nullsec, where as the ship value rises the likelihood of you getting blown up rises, too.
Right now, there is no real risk on the side of the war deccer. That has to change.
But the casino has risk here, too - there’s a risk you win and they have to double your wealth. The odds are stacked in their favor, sure, but they aren’t riskless.
Why not? Sure, the other guy did something stupid, but why should somebody be able to take advantage of that without some risk to himself?
Think about it this way - if I walk around with a million dollars in my wallet, should you be able to steal my wallet with impunity because I was so dumb as to do that? Or should we make it risky for you to try to steal my wallet?
I’m willing to bet that public opinion on that has probably shifted.
In game terms, if you’re daft enough to do that, the onus should be on you to make it risky. The mechanics should be in place for you to be able to make it risky, but it shouldn’t be risky just by default. That’s handholding to degrees that aren’t good for Sandboxes.
The casino, while it wants you to come back, has a massive influx of one-time customers as part of their business model. It’s a radically different scenario.
That is not balance. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of risk.
Players create these situations, IMO. If I put 1,000 PLEX in a shuttle and fly around that is on me. You cannot balance that.
And even Malcanis’ war bond does not fit your bill. If I have a big fat wallet I could effectively insulate myself from a war dec and thus go about earning rewards with far less risk.
Again this is the behavioral aspect of the game. Players impose risk on each other. What you are asking for is CCP to impose risk. That is just flat out wrong.
Actually no. They don’t. They face very little risk because of the law of large numbers and the odds being in their favor.
Why should another player’s stupidity have a negative effect on me? If I play smart and he plays dumb…I am to be penalized?
I was using the example to highlight who bears responsibility for taking risks. If I take a risk that should generally be on me, not you and everyone else. Private profits and public losses is a recipe for disaster in any system.
I get that, but at the same time, CCP (and the rest of the players) have a vested interest in keeping as many people in the game as we can. Unlike the casino model, there isn’t a functionally endless supply of addicts and suckers waiting to be taken advantage of. So it’s in our interests to provide for paths to recovery, and ways to motivate people to want to use them, rather than just walking away and joining Gamblers Anonymous.
So that’s an argument, for example, for getting rid of CONCORD.
If there was a mechanic in place for us to introduce the same level of risk to potential aggressors… yes. Besides, CONCORD is generally speaking a bad example. They don’t really reduce risk, they just introduce consequence, and rather poorly at that.
1 Like
CCP already does this. It’s baked into the game. CONCORD, gate guns, etc.
Very little risk is still more risk than zero risk - right now, the war deccers have zero risk.
Spoken like every libertarian I’ve ever had a conversation with.
The risk is the risk of the consequence happening.