Actually, it would give more points to attack those groups if they are as powerful as you say. This is the classical case of an empire getting so big it cannot defend its ever-increasing borders.
The War structure will probably have to be, again, Small, easily reinforceable, and , through that making it easier for “harassers” to check those empires.
This seems like a brillant example of festering corpse gameplay I was talking about.
It seems like your playstyle generates more festering and more cancer than actual content either for you or for the people you interact with.
I very much doubt you could classify it as something getting healthier, or even healthy for that matter.
What would it take to make you not have to do logoff traps, have you given some thoughts to it?
An interesting aspect of one who decides they must be right regardless of what they say is that they contradict themselves. First assuming that people won’t do something because they assume it. Then claiming that because someone assumes something that it doesn’t make it true.
So, I have been trying to figure out lore aspects to justify the use of Structures for Wars and the limitation of one structure needed for War in a system, and what I have been able to come up is CONCORD finally putting an absolute halt to all hostilities following one last conflict between the empires that was just that too much.
Now Capsuleers and private interests had to figure out ways to disrupt the constant surveillance of CONCORD, they succeeded but the codes used only work for a given system and they have to be housed in Structure-size infrastructure, the only with both size and power to effectively make them work.
You would have Encryption/Disruption Rooms that would ask for direct payment by the rogues operating in them. And the more there is in your corporation the harder it is for them and the higher the payment is. To put it simply, the price would depend on the amount of players in the owner of the Room.
Said Disruption of CONCORD sensors would ask for the deployment of Rogue Beacons in the system, beacons made of obscure technologies used by mad/genius minds to keep up with the Jovian tech of CONCORD. Those beacons can be scanned and found only by entities participating in the war.
Those beacons can be attacked by the defenders, and doing so would cause both a pause in the conflict (giving a window for the defender to move/act) but also leaving a wreck with Rogue materials and modules, and increasing the price asked by the Encryption/Disruption room and thus taxing the attacker.
This would give easy points of disruption for the defenders, points of disruptions that could drop valuable materials but also give a way for small defenders to fight back.
I think it adress both the lack of options the defenders have, but also it gives them a reason to anticipate being in a war as they could through it get valuable materials obtainable nowhere else.
I’m still trying to think of ways to link those structures and services to NPC corps, I think I have something but I will to refine it.
I still have to work out the aspects on the other side to provide content for the attacker, but I would love to know what you guys think of that already.
This is just wrong on so many levels. Wars can be the best tool for player retention of all
My evidence?
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation -> Rabble inc. slightly over 200 unique people joined Rabble inc. from Fredegar when that ended. Fredegar had slightly over 800 new characters join it. rabble had 180ish new characters (now subbed because there were no alphas)
How did we accmplish retaining 1/4 of the people who tried this game when the person they joined for quit??? Simple I showed them how amazing Wardecs were. I also showed them the less meaningful PvP like lowsec and nullsec
@Noragen_Neirfallas when somebody brings back some actual obtainable satistics to show how bad wars are for player retention
Oh, another familiar face, think I talked to you too in the Wardec Project discord.
I will be honest, I was definitely appaled by your wardec document, it was a great case of “Everything is fine!!! LA LA LAAA!!! I can’t hear you!!”, blaming the players to defend the system.
So you profited from an actual source of new players (the Youtuber) and, from my perspective, you made 3/4 of them leave the game through wardecs? Bravo! Truly the feature that will save EVE; 100k active players here we come.
I jest, but there is nothing extraordinary with what you did, Faction Warfare was easily the most active and engaging space in the game a few years ago and you had post on reddit everyday from new players asking how they could join Faction Warfare, and I recruited a few of them (to make sure those dirty Gallente did not get them…). FACTION WARFARE WAS/IS STILL A DEEPLY FLAWED SYSTEM.
And now Faction Warfare is a lot less than what it was, and I see the exact same thing with Wardecs.
That you manage to attract players is no indication that the system is good, just that you have good marketing skills.
LOL, Wardecs are more meaningful than Low-Sec and Null??
When was the last time a conflict in High-sec made it into the headlines? Into the news? Low-sec and Null did with epic AND MEANINGFUL battles and contexts. At best you must be joking here, right??..
The best thing that can happen to High-sec is when a e-celeb joins the game in it. And in that case Wardecs act as a tool for trolling those new guys used by the usual suspects to get some tears (I have seen it happen with my own eyes).
Also,
So because you manage to recruit some players my designs are wrong on “so many levels”?
Please do explain those levels since there is “so many” of them.
I do have a problem with it resembling FozzieSov too much, but at the same time FozzieSov is based on solid design points, like decentralizing points of contest, so I guess resembling it on those aspects is not such a bad thing.
We need a way for the defender to inflict losses to the attacker outside of brute force, otherwise Wars become inconsequential for the attacker and we end up with groups with thousand of Wardecs, the best I could find for now was those Rogue Beacons. But I am open to suggestions, do you have something in mind?
This is only possible if the attacker chooses to engage. The ones who sit docked waiting for single targets to pick off are the ones that abuse the system. Let the players hunt down and fight the actual object itself that allowed the war to start, give it upwell like reinforcement for shields/armor/structure so that the defender has a reason to fight and the attacker has a reason to undock rather than both sitting on their thumbs waiting for the other to make a mistake.
I agree with that, that’s one of the big reasons I support the Wardec being tied to a Small Structure. It both gives a way for defenders to push a fight and it gives them a way to end it if the attackers refuse to commit.
However, even if a key point of my design is that the structure should be Small enough to not be too much of a grind, this is asking a lot out of a small corporation to only be able to retaliate if they have the fire or staying power needed to down that Structure.
What I’m looking forward to is a way for even a solo player in the wardecced corp to be able to stick it out to the man if he careful/bold enough, that’s what the Rogue Beacons aim to do.
That’s probably why people don’t understand it. They don’t want someone skilled enough and careful enough to end their war dec. This is why I say shields, then reinforcement timer, then armor, another reinforcement timer, structure, and if the attackers can’t be bothered to deal with their war module being blown up then whatever it contains should be free to be looted. Hence fuel instead of isk.
The fozzysov mechanic is designed around the larger group scattering faster than the smaller group with less risk. It caters to bigger groups being warned and prepared ahead of time to keep their war going indefinitely and gives them engagement points for easier kills rather than a defense to maintain as well as an attack.
Why? This is EVE, survival of the fittest. If you aren’t strong enough to inflict losses or smart enough to evade the war entirely then your corp doesn’t deserve to exist. You deserve to be camped in station forever, until you disband your failed corp and accept your place of shame in the history of EVE. You aren’t entitled to a structure mechanic that lets you escape failure by getting lucky with the right time to F1 a passive brick of HP.
You can inflict losses through smarts too, this is what I want to empower.
Being a coward is not being smart, if logging off for an entire week is your idea of smart, not only you are not smart (because in that case they have won by just making you not play) but your idea are also cancerous to the game as they encourage the blue-balling and lack of commitment that is killing both the active player count but also the spirit of the game.
I agree.
But those are the kind of words that are easy to say to others. Do you live by them? Are you yourself able to look at and make yours your own failures? You should then have no problem with a structure telling you straight if you have failed or not but it exploding or not.
Unless you are afraid and can only say those nice words when you yourself don’t have to confront meaningful risk?
You are reading into it what you want to read, not what I have actually wrote lol.
The goal of that structure is not to save the defenders, on the contrary.
Actually read what I wrote and think, instead of spewing out some mantra you have in your head; or don’t bother.
There was another point I wanted to discuss about my proposal. The idea of Small Structures that would essentially reintroduce and tie the functionalities of the watchlist to structures.
As much as some of you guys hate the idea of war mechanics being tied to structures, would you not like CCP being able to bring back some aspect of the previous watchlist functionalities by tying them to something that can actually be interacted with by the targeted party?
Thus I propose: Surveillance System
Small Structure
Can only be anchored around Jump Gates
3 max per Gate in 1.0-0.5, 5 in 0.4-0.1, and unlimited in 0.0- space
1 Reinforcement Cycle, leaves reinforcement the next day
Once anchored, can be set to target through a specific player (or Corp, could depends on said services/modules).
1 target per service.
Whenever the target player or Corp use the Gate, the owner of the structure will receive a saved notification.
And with that I also introduce a system that would allow the targets to gain… Intel on being watched
for by the Intel System
The SS can be hacked by anyone.
Successful Hacks give a private kill right to the owner of the SS on the hacker.
Hacking SS give Intels to the hacker, Intel describe the player(s) being watched out by the SS.
Intels can be sold to the concerned player.
Said player can then use the acquired Intel to deactivate the SS surveillance on him for an hour (could be modified by the SS services or rigs)
The owner will be warned when an Intel is used.
The goal is again to give some territoriality and interactivity to surveillance this time and to create something that can be an activity and a reason to undock for people.
SS structures will enable wardeccers to have an idea of where their preys are and tell them if they are active and at what times they are active.
They will give a way for people to interact with them. Hackers with nothing better to do can hack them and make a career out of selling Intels, Targeted players can open up windows of safety with Intels for whatever they need to do but said windows are the perfect moment for hunters to get out there and hunt.
In-game? Because Upwell doesn’t manufacture murder-mazes into their products.
Out-of-game? because having a second avenue of attack, though presumably just as hard as destruction, /could/ make the aspect of structure removal more lively. Just think what an ‘assault boat’ rush would do to fleet warfare.
Bravo! Truly the feature that will save EVE; 100k active players here we come.
LOL, Wardecs are more meaningful than Low-Sec and Null??