Can we agree that if you dont live in highsec and have never done anything but live in null or do PVE or input broadcasting ganks… maybe calm down and mind your own? You already had your time to speak years ago and it lead to the worse decisions ever made for the health of highsec and put in place the corrupt and singular system we have right now.
OK, well if you scrap war HQs then I can simply declare war on Corp X and go blap all their mining ships in system Y using an NPC station as my base…and do so free from Concord intervention. Effectively a free ( or whatever it cost to declare war ) ganking pass. Yipeee !
Now I don’t recall reading anywhere that ganking only came into being when war HQs were introduced…so maybe there’s some subtle nuance about that ‘glorious golden age’ that I missed. Perhaps we need to have some documentation of what the true state of affairs was before war HQs.
This is how we need to approach the issue. From the stand-point you just mentioned. Lets make it fair. Lets stop pretending that war HQs eliminating 100% of all competition and content was the answer to a poor miner demanding a safe space. You dont need to use a hammer to crack open a peanut. Also Ramona… just stop. you highjack otherwise constructive threads way too often. Let people with good ideas and good intentions speak for once.
Maybe so, but you still havent answered what was unworkable about them before that creating an artificial penalty would solve?
Well, Destiny keeps wanting to go back to some past but is short on the details of just exactly what that past was. I would bet there were subtle nuances that are not being mentioned. But as it stands, I’ve mentioned ( above ) what the consequences would be if there are no such nuances. Literally a ganker paradise in which declaring war means highsec security levels become meaningless.
Now either there is more to that glorious past that is not being mentioned, or we do need some other form of penalty. I’ve simply proposed one. But I would not be surprised if one already existed but is simply not being mentioned.
A solo player should be allowed to declare war on a nullsec alliance and fight them in Highsec. Those are huge wealthy blobs that should be able to fend for themselves, and solo players shouldn’t be forced to waste isk on a pointless unnecessary structure, just so the blob has an easy killmail. The requirement to own a citadel was devised by cowards who want to prevent people from engaging in Highsec PvP. These blobs should be willing to PvP when they come to Highsec, instead of hiding behind CONCORD.
16 Likes
OMFG 100% Aiko said something correct and to the point. EXACT FACTS
1 Like
Everything I say is correct and to the point.
2 Likes
So you are offering a solution to problem you cannot identify and are guessing exists?
1 Like
The most powerful blobs go around claiming to be the victims in all this. The biggest fleet ive ever seen in Tama was EvE Uni… the ones who are most guilty of playing the victim card to CCP. All the while being one of the largest and most established groups to exist. HULK SMASH
Setting a limit on the amount of wars doesnt make sense either, It will still allow the single dominant force to eliminate all opposition. Ive run up to 150 wars a week and missing out on one opportunity to ransom a mining corp means nothing compared to stop the guys who want to compete with me for business.
LOL…no, I’m responding to what appears to me to be a deliberate omission of information about the true state of affairs prior to war HQs. Based on the supposition that if we simply ‘eliminate war HQs’ as things currently stand then we create a ganker paradise absurdity in which I have only to declare war and I can knock out an entire mining fleet with impunity. There’s something missing.
Can you state why we shoudlnt be able to knock out a mining fleet? and give a solution thats fair? The solution in 2016 was for your CEO to pay the other CEO the surrender he demanded.
Also, state why Brave can use holding corps and then keep 10000 pilots in a non war eligible highsec corp and we still call that fair.
3 Likes
what you are missing is you could not wardec an NPC corporation so still had to gank those targets
3 Likes
Essentially this. War HQs enforce a stand up slugfest that the biggest army can reliably win. Underdog tactics like guerilla warfare are rendered much less practical. War HQs enforce the status quo and make it much harder for upstarts to terrorize large groups who should be able to defend themselves.
It is not an exclusively ganker tactic. Any group looking to be a thorn in the side of a larger established power is likely going to want to avoid direct confrontation and instead pick off whatever forces they can from the fringe. Sometimes that small force was a solo player being a thorn in my side. Sometimes it was me trying to convince a group trying to move in on my turf that it was more trouble than it was worth. Either way, it was interesting content.
Anyone who had war declared on them could hire allies. Mercs, friends, whoever you could pay or persuade to join your cause. If that doesn’t still work to impose risk on people declaring war, then it just goes to show how much more selfish and fearful the people who play Eve have become.
6 Likes
Skin the game = lay your head on this stump so we can cut it off.
1 Like
IF we take what you say to be true, how does forcing a cost on the participants solve that?
The War already has a cost to declare.
Ccp raised that cost for years and years already. They made it so high that only 5 corps remained who could afford it. Then they stood on stage in 2017 eve vegas and said " Its a shame that only 5 corps in game cause 95% of the wars"— Burgur. Then they called us greifers. its to the point now that you spend 12b on a fort and get two timers for a few days of war that ends with a Hulk Smash and forced peace.
2 Likes
Well keep in mind that people would still sit in NPC corps to avoid wardecs, and would still get “ganked” if they did so.
Typically, golden ages are only so in the eye of the begolder.
One notable difference back then: wars were much cheaper and unlimited, so war-corps could keep hundreds of them going if they chose to. Which may have looked “gold” to the types that prefer to sit safely in high sec while blobbing anything smaller than they are. Or those who could afford a number of wars just to have weak targets to hunt while they remain essentially safe themselves.
One of the key problems with this type of wardec turned out to be that fat rich merc corps who could afford to declare war on anything and everything would do so, and most of the targets of these decs would just stop logging on.
So instead of encouraging “content” they basically just sinked some ISK and caused players to quit playing. This has been one of the key issues of wardec design in EVE - less activity rather than more.
At any rate, the idea of “objective-driven” wars is a good and interesting one, and one I’ve discussed in the past. To make the setup actually interesting and engaging is fairly tricky though.
For instance, CCP could make it such that A could declare an “objectives” war on B, and A would post a war bond for it. A would declare their objective - destroy X value, or prevent any mining in region Y, or blockade station Y or something. B would declare their counter-objective from a similar list, or simply to prevent A’s objective. (Except in the case of destroy X, which could be countered simply by not undocking.)
Then the war could proceed without need for War HQs with both sides striving to achieve their objectives and being paid proportionately from the war bond. Maybe have an option for B to post a warbond as well, similar to the Reward/Collateral mechanic in courier contracts.
This has the potential for both sides in a war to see some potential gain if they continue activities, rather than the weaker target simply folding and not bothering to undock or engage.
Unfortunately the setup and design of such a system appears to be fairly complex and require some sophisticated planning and programming. Which means it’s effectively out of CCP’s reach.
So tell me what prevents me getting out my cloaky Raven and zapping highsec Corp X’s entire mining fleet single handedly as Concord become irrelevant. I mean…I’d love that. When can we start ?
Not quite true. Friendly fire wasn’t a setting. So anyone else could simply also join the NPC corp and kill them without CONCORD intervention.