Scipio Artelius
Savage Moon Society
46583
   |
Posted - 2017.01.10 20:50:39 -
[2] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:B)Require Wardeccers to have a citadel or other asset in space that can can be destroyed to end the war(s) they are currently waging. No one should have a problem with picking on easier targets, but the fact that even if they did mobilize or get allies that could fight back, wardeccers have no tangible assets to fight back at. Risk and reward are supposed to be tied together in this game - wardecs are one of the huge disparities.
The common complaint when it comes to wardecs is how the mechanics are used by large hub humping, professional wardec Corps/Alliances that mass wardec highsec industrial Corps; and that is somehow unfair because of the advantage the pvp oriented wardeccers have over the pve oriented defenders.
The introduction of a structure for wardeccers is essentially the introduction of a capture the flag mechanism to provide an objective for defenders.
However, in every game I know of, capture the flag minigames only work effectively where all sides involved have flags to be captured. That gives all sides something to defend and something to attack, so they need to balance both aspects.
The only practical outcome of providing a flag (ie. Citadel or some other structure) for only one side that I can see happening is to make the current situation even worse.
From a wardeccer perspective, having no flag to go after themselves, the only option is to defend their flag by creating the largest possible group and only attacking much smaller, much weaker groups.
That seems the exact opposite of what most people seem to want from wardec changes; and would lead to even more complaining down the line.
This is even more true in a situation where defenders can have any number of free allies to assist them. That uncertainty for wardeccers will naturally produce caution in order to manage that risk. Bigger groups, smaller targets.
I don't know what the fix is that would be agreeable to everyone. There probably isn't one. No matter what the system, people will complain simply because pvp can be brought to them when they don't want to pvp.
However, I personally think any changes should be ones that encourage and suit smaller entities.
Give reasons for the large wardeccing groups to break up again into smaller groups (eg. proportional wardec fees - declaring war against a bigger group is cheap, but declaring war against a smaller group becomes more expensive, remove unlimited free allies for defenders so wardec groups can have some certainty over the size of opponent they will face - make allies cost ISK, etc.).
No one seems to have a problem with the idea of wardecs being used by small groups to fight their competition, or by small merc groups hired to complete a contract, etc. So their play shouldn't be removed by any changes, but encouraged.
Just my 0.02 |