The most healthy ideas I’ve seen for this was the introduction of more intel features so that players get more options on how they want to fight their wars. Road-side bandits are cool, but players do want to fight wars not just along trade routes or around market hubs. Many have blamed the removal of the player watchlist, as a tool for going after war targets, which is now missing. What it needs is for players to reduce the fog of war and not to be tapping in the dark too often. When players declare war then they also want the fights.
We can already view the location of corp members on the map. Making the location of war targets visible on the map as well would greatly accelerate warfare and give leadership an overview of the situation at any time. Trade routes and market hubs would still remain places of interest, but it would also become much easier to fight wars over a much larger area.
Seriously though, I think there is a case in making High-Sec the space for groups, for people who want to socialize and form a group before going into the great unknown.
Those who want to shoot at things would be better served by other spaces.
Yeah,
they ask for a group.
They ask for socialization.
Things High-Sec should encourage tbh.
You can satisfy the Pistolero and Bandit profiles in other spaces. The reckless players.
Corp A has 30 people. Corp B has 300. So Corp B sends 30 people into Corp C (their active attack group).
Corp C declares war on Corp A.
Every time Corp A tries to fight back, Corp B is there to provide 60 neutral logistics cruisers, making it impossible for Corp A to kill even a frigate.
That’s step 2 of treatment. We are at the “slap the clotting agent in, pack and wrap, establish an IV, and transport” stage. A better, more refined look at the issue DOES need to be done soon, but Let’s save the patient first.
But is this really the purpose of high-, low- and null-sec? I don’t think so. The higher security level of an area is only meant to protect the new players.
Instead of saying that you went into low-sec to find your fights should you perhaps realise that the need for you to go there was already a bit of a problem. Rather should you have been able to find good fights within high-sec. So you ended up in low-sec where we now even find caps farming noobs these days.
It’s definitely an issue that needs to be addressed before any attempts to say ‘this will even the sides’ can be made, yes. However…
This means that nobody can help the smaller group, either. Nobody can jump in to save them (which they can, now).
Also, a criminal flag in highsec is CONCORDed. That’s what happens when you get one. Get a criminal flag in LS, jump through a gate into HS. BOOM. The criminal timer just doesn’t go away, but when you get it? CONCORD.
And now let’s look at the expanded roster…
Scouts: Corp B.
Guys running haulers to move things to where the targets are: Corp B.
Absolutely every role in the conflict that doesn’t need to activate a module on Corp A is in Corp B. and they’ll stay there, because manpower’s a huge benefit, far beyond ‘who is shooting?’
Heck, the FC and target-caller can even be in the neutral corp. He’s just marking targets, not shooting them.
Nope.
The type of fights I was looking for was perfect for low-sec.
I was looking for fast-paced, solo PvP, and I got just that with FW, matched so well that it made me stay in the game for at least a year.
I was not with a bunch of friends, I was not looking to socialize (at first), and for someone who need those things to stay in the game and become a long-term player, High-sec is the best place to do it. And right now, it does not provide that.
Basically, the difficulty with coming up with a quick, easy solution here is that what you’re dealing with is a structural problem in a complex system. Structural problems in complex systems usually don’t have simple solutions. They have ‘rebuild the structure of the system, and do it better’.
Who would really? I heard from you earlier that people go for blobs because n+1 is always better than n. Making small big is a lot harder than making big even bigger when you consider that.
It is. But there’s always the chance of good samaritans in EVE. Anti-pirate types who just like to help out. It’s not common, but I’m not sure that completely removing that is a good move, either.
I don’t think the loss of outside help for the smaller group will make as much difference as the loss of stealth logi from an organized attack group.
Neutrals contributing damage OR reps in a fight that’s not theirs should be concorded
(Reps to a fight that’s not yours feels a little bit like an exploit)
Remember the CSM notes relate to how small hi-sec groups are not taking part because of the one side nature of the present wardec system - They may continue to log on and contribute if they are being attacked by a group closer to their size (without logi to throw the balance)
Well, without seeing the actual data and being able to parse it… I’m still more inclined to think the people who’re leaving are people who don’t want to be fighting in the first place. Doesn’t matter what the odds are, if they don’t want to do it.
Even if they DO want to do it, nobody wants a suicide run. With no realistic way of winning, and the potential downside of getting decced again and again because you tried to fight back, why not just dock up and wait it out? There’s little upside.
Unfortunately this may be true - they may not want to fight.
I’m hoping that leveling the playing field will remove the feeling of being totally stepped on thus making not logging on less of an option. Maybe wardecs will then fall into the same hi-sec carebear category as ganking in that “losses are the price of doing business”.
BTW, can you tell us if the people we’re talking about have any record of PVP activity (or if any indications on way or the other were part of the data set that @CCP_Larrikin showed you)?
