The solution is simple: The early-game concept of POSes that could only anchored at a moon was obviously superior because it created a limit for every solar system, which forced groups to either fight over the best spots or to go and settle somewhere else once all spots had been taken by someone. It automatically prevented structure spam, created conflict and prevented a 99% concentration of industry right around the trade hubs. It was simply superior in every way. Yet CCP can’t admit it that the new Upwell System is flawed and bad for the game on so many levels (placement, defense mechanics, limitless storage and industry slots, asset-safety… and so on).
To prevent power creep and concentration it is incredibly easy to re-design the structure requirements:
XL Structures can only be anchored close to a Star, so they are limited to exactly ONE per system. Want more, claim more systems. Want a specific system: Reason for war, nice thing.
L Structures can only be anchored on the Orbit of a Planet, so they are limited to 6-12 or so per System. Want more, expand more.
M Structures can be anchored in the Orbit of a Moon, again hard limit by solar system. If it isn’t enough, expand.
This alone would solve most problems with limitless structure spam. Especially Structures intentionally placed mid-warp or on-grid of high-traffic gates that really cause lag.
In addition, Structure Maintenance in HighSec should be a lot more expensive given the extremely high protection level (aka needing a wardec to even attack them). Let them consume Starbase Charters based on the Security Level of the system, implement a one-time anchoring fee that works as direct ISK-sink.
Most problems with structures we currently face can easily be solved by remembering good solutions of the past. Because they worked and worked well, for more than a decade.
great idea. It makes no sense that a weird stick that does nothing requires Starbase Charters from the empires, but you can anchor a giant floating megacity in space and they don’t need any permit
Not sure if I like the anchoring limitations, some stations are in really cool places close to some monument or weird celestial.
maybe stuff could even be balanced with the permits… each additional station increases the amounts of permits needed for all stations in the system exponentially and if they go abandoned because the owner can’t keep up in a popular system they could get abandoned and made so everybody can shoot them going suspect. That way only stations that are really maintained and supported survive without needing wardecs.
However, Wardecs should be a part of eve in my opinion. Groups should be able to fight each other honorful but the punching down aspect and farming uedama/jita is what I dislike about them.
One idea is to have a system that limits the number of wardecs a group can have on member size. A pirate group with 5 members could have 10 cheap wardecs, a group with 100 people can only dec one group at a time… something like that could also balance the ■■■■■■■■■■■ a little.
For smaller groups <=5 maybe a POS should be enough to declare wars.
It would protect the smaller groups from giant pirate organizations and would give small pirate groups nice content without the need to invest billions upfront.
Imagine you have the choice between flying in a giant Leshak blob and fighting one big group…
or you could be a solo pirate with a POS or a friend and declare war on 20 corps (which the big ones can’t do) and try to catch some haulers or something. I think the smallgang stuff would be more lucrative and more fun for the pirates and the victims because even for small groups there is a possibility to fight back.
It should be changed so that you can war dec anyone, no need for an entity to have a structure in terms of the attacker or defender, but any entity is limited to 3 wars max, a corp on its own or an alliance. 3 concurrent wars only, that is it.
If tan entity wants to have more than 3 wars then they have to put down a war HQ which can only be a medium structure. All wars are now linked to that HQ, if it dies then all wars end, but without a war HQ they can start three wars, but not against those that had their war ended by the destruction of said war HQ, for a period of two weeks. I would limit this to a max of ten wars with a war HQ. to enable less chance of odd conflicts with the ally system, I would also allow only one ally to be live, but also allow this to be dropped faster. so it can be changed for timers to allow dedicated alliy entities to be a fun part of the game.
To prevent corp hopping and the like, a character leaving a war has the war follow them for twenty-four hours. Characters who had a war ended as part of entity due to the loss of a war HQ carry over that 14 day inability to war dec. If they join a corp or alliance that has a war on any of them then the war will instantly drop, their loss.
At that point wars become smaller and more focussed, and more fun…
And do lay off on talking about structure spam, it just does not exist apart from Goon space…
And the for the love of good fights, enable allies to rep their allies…
All mechanics can be abused in some manner, however this crazy imbalance that favours big merc alliances is detrimental to healthy war decs which are better when small in number and focussed.
I am sure you know, but better to explain it. At the current moment an ally in a war is unable to operate as a coherent fleet because if they do logi on an ally they will find themselves going criminal. This means that while you could perhaps get numbers to contest the war, you end up being a fleet of small independent gangs that can be taken down easily by the attacker. This is of major importance when most fights should happen over structures.
As a footnote I happen to think that the previous situation of going suspect was good enough… People complaining about neutral RR, did not counter it, which was in fact very easy to do.
What exactly is ‘imbalanced’ and ‘unhealthy’? Please be precise! And how would you fix it? Why would your solution be better overall, considering possible abuse scenarios?
What abuse scenarios? You ask me to be precise but you are not being precise, if you see a major abuse potential then detail it, not just say that there may be one? I said above that all mechanics can be abused in some manner, I am sure that someone will work out how to do this.
Having big merc alliances that fight co-ordinated with logi, while the defenders are unable to pull together into a coherent fleet that can rep each other due to this mechanic imbalance. To fix it would require adjusting the mechanics to enable allied entities to be a full member of the fleet by being able to give and receive logi support. Create a mechanic that removes the criminal flag for repping if it is the defender, or an ally and it is in a fleet with the defender.
I would think you would see the abuse at this point, because you can effectively have complicated multi-wars and people shooting them that you have not allied against. There are ways to deal with this, in that once you ally on a war you have all the defenders wars, and each entity can only ally once.
Another way would be to just remove the criminal flag when you rep an ally in a fleet, but you go suspect if the damage is from someone who you are not allied against.
There are many ways around this, I have suggested two above, I have also thought that limiting the number of wars that can be made even with a war HQ. To enable this one would have to create limits in the number of wars so that odd combinations are less likely to happen, and invalidate any that would cause abuse or when people are mis-using the mechanics.
To me this is what is unbalanced and unhealthy because people can’t fight back against the big groups and just feed, unless they are of a certain size. The ally system is not enabling people to step in and help, because the defender is still on their own.
Do you agree that wars were better when they were small and focussed, rather than hub and pipe camping blanket targeting? (I asked this question because I remember when there were many small wars, I was wondering if you knew of that period.)
What? You haven’t even told me what exactly is the problem. Describe the mechanic and how it currently works, where you see the problem, how you would fix it, explain why your solution is better than the current mechanic and if you can see possible problems with the suggested new solution.
Really simple questions to base a discussion on, stop interpreting what I might mean or want.
I hope what I put above is better, I did design a game at one point so I have played with complex mechanics, but the aggression complexity of Eve is nothing to be sniffed at. The issue is that allowing unlimited wars causes such an imbalance, CCP needs to bite the bullet and accept that no restriction on who can be war decced is the right approach, but they must limit the number of wars so that it does not become an unholy mess in terms of aggro mechanics. By doing that they can then enable allies to rep, however if they do have a conflict then the war dec mechanism will not allow the war dec.
People may not like it, but as it is CONCORD deciding what cars can be fought in hisec, they will have to accept it.
That is far too much efford for CCP. We all know they don’t care about wardec gameplay, so they went with the most lazy possible “solution” and declared it fixed.
Even tough the very metrics they uses to justify the “fix” showed probably no improvement at all, since there are still mass wardecs happening.
hey, that’s a great video showing the ‘feature’ that is already known and used by the high sec griefers for years.
95% of the replies in this thread are complete bovine fecal matter.
To answer your original implied question: Yes, one is able to launch, offer assist, gain assist, scoop structure - and then still have that fixed 2 week defender wardec window, all the while being “not war eligible”
It’s really kind of stupid, but if you think about it, the wardec window is fixed and can’t be shortened outside of hoping the war ends sooner than the 2 week duration of assistance.
If you think that’s unfair, you should realize this is merely one gimmick in high sec griefer’s bag of tricks…the main one is their fanatic devotion to dropping their multibox characters to npc and swapping alliances just to circumvent the wardec ended cooldown that most everyone knows about already.
The real annoyance is CCP’s refusal to even contemplate coding the abililty for defender allies to share logi, because that would get folks interested in a coalition level entity and they’d most likely want to let sleeping dogs lie. the high sec griefers would love nothing better to keep the situation static because it benefits their signature move (see prior paragraph)…null sec blocs like Goons would love nothing better than to invoke mythical spagetti code references to why this would be TiDi inducing blah blah yadda
