CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 Pages123Next page
 

Angry Mustache for CSM9

First post First post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2014-03-03 07:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
Hello everyone.

I am Angry Mustache, and I am declaring my campaign for CSM 9.

I’ve been an EVE player for one and a half years. I started out in Highsec with E-uni for 3 months, and eventually moved to nullsec after joining Goonswarm Federation, where I have been ever since. More recently I've become involved with J4LP in Syndicate and the Caldari Warzone.

Like Xander Phoena and Ali Aras, I am a member of EVE’s fan operated “press”, as a contributor to TheMittani.com. I primarily write aftermath reports on notable events, such as EVE’s first Revenant kill, and more recently, the story of how a scammer was able rob an entire alliance blind. Occasionally I’m able to get in touch with EVE’s Chinese server, and offer some glimpses into the other side.

How does this tie into my CSM platform? I’ve always liked analyzing information, and much of the work that goes into creating an article is sorting and distilling all available snippets of info into something that can be easily understood by the general populace. I hope to be able to apply the same principles to the CSM; I believe much of the CSM apathy comes from the unwillingness of the average EVE player to dig through the move primary CSM media, that is, the CSM papers and Town Halls. Presenting CSM content in a more digestible manner would go a long way into improving player involvement in this unique process.

Issues

As a relatively new player, I lack the absolute mastery that some other candidates have over their respective fields, i.e. Manfred and fleet command, Mynnna and economics, etc. What I am willing to do is do the reading on every topic that presents itself, so I can make a supported argument or understand CCP decisions.

I’ll defer making “campaign statements” on topics where I do not have excellent personal knowledge on. The 3 topic I do have decent knowledge on I have some pretty strong convictions about.

Accessibility
We all know about EVE’s infamous learning curve, and how unintuitive the game is for newer players. While it can be argued that this difficulty adds to EVE’s flavor, it’s also arguable that much of the learning cliff can be attributed to “unnecessary difficulty” as a result of some fairly lackluster design decisions.

Difficulty and player skill involvement should come from player interactions with the game, not the very act of interacting itself. Players should never feel like they are fighting the game itself rather than fighting game content. There has been continual improvement, but still room for much more. For example, I would like to see EVE implement better tools for comparing modules, and changes to the "mastery" system that actually reflect the impact of a skill on the ship in question.

Beyond just UI changes, I have an interest in CCP taking more drastic steps in easing the learning cliff. For example, drastic changes to the horrendously outdated and cumbersome attributes system, as well as changes to learning implants that will make actually flying in space less punishing. But that’s a long ways off.

Sov Null

I make no reservations about primarily being a resident of Sov Null. I love the community, the organization, and the sense of purpose in the Sov environment. Marching into Fountain was one of the best experiences in my EVE career so far, but the more that I interact with sov, the more the polish rubs off and cracks start appearing. After some 5 years, players have pushed the dominion Sov system to its very limits, straining game mechanics and game servers.

After being involved on a slightly higher level in the recent Halloween war, I’ve grown a great deal of respect for the people who run Sov war campaigns for not walking into the woods and offing themselves. Every aspect of warfare wears on your will to play the game, such that the winner is decided by who has the greatest tolerance for boredom. Endless hours scouting, planting, and destroying SBUs, grinding through millions of structure hitpoints, hours of preparation for a work for a timer fight that more likely ends in being punted or blueballed. War as it stands, is a contest to see which side has more masochists.

Yet, nobody has created a solution that the community can reach a consensus on. I do not have a magical “fix sov” solution, and I do not expect one to be available without much debate and discussion (of which I hope to be a part of).

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-03-03 07:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
Removing anti-gameplay/Encouraging flying in space

This is a very loosely defined term, but on a whole, Anti-Fun gameplay is any gameplay mechanic that adds far more in hassles and needless complexity than any possible "positive gameplay". This can take shape in many aspects. For example

  • Attributes and Implants.
  • While it can be argued that these two mechanics encourage "long term thinking", and "planning ahead", the fact is that attributes and remaps straightjacket player choice, and force players into very awkward skill progressions. On the other hand, learning implants serve to discourage pilots from flying in space, as the price of implants is not negligible.

    Right now, say a player want's a carrier pilot. The way that the carrier skill plan is designed seems to encourage the pilot to have some logistics experience. It seems logical that the capital logistics platform will require sub-capital logistics skills as well. However, using a Carrier pilot in training for subcapital logistics clashes with the "optimal" way to get a carrier pilot, which is to buy a set of +5/+4, set out the skill-plan with as little remaps as possible, and sit in a station for 200+ days.

    On the newbie side of things, while ship and weapon skills are per/will, the support skills to fly those ships and fit those weapons are all int/mem. I messed up my remaps when i just joined the game (and from what i see in chat.e-uni a lot of newbies do as well), and as a result, the only ship i could fly effectively for the first 8 months of EVE was a Drake. Tech 2 ships all require an int/mem skill trained up to V, as well as the per/will tech 1 ship skill. Meaning that a pilot that wants to fly a tech 2 ship and still have optimal training time will need to remap twice, and train support/ship skills in bulk.

  • Clone mechanics
  • Current clone mechanics are a mess. The "clone upgrade" mechanic is false choice/gameplay, because there is absolutely no reason why anyone would not want to upgrade their clone. It's a purely mechanical action that punishes people who forget, and frankly, should be the kind of thing that is automated.

    Clone costs are similar, while my SP is fairly low, the cost of clones is already more than that of a "slosh frigate", never mind people who have 100mil + SP and pay 100mil+ per clone. While I understand that clone cost is an isk sink, the current implementation is not a very good one, as it is an incentive to not undock, and for high SP pilots to never fly small ships where their clone is at high risk. CCP could kill 2 birds with one stone by changing the clone costs to a one time fee that permanently upgrades your clone, but at a much higher price than current clone fees. This removes a mechanical task, and allows pilots to not worry about risking their pod.


    I am more than happy to answer any questions, concerns, or just chat in the comments.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    #3 - 2014-03-03 07:36:20 UTC
    As an occasional follower of TMC, I can say that Angry Mustache would make a splendid CSM member with his intellect, his mastery of writing and his ever present charm. He has my appreciation as a bold EVE player who started playing EVE at a relatively recent date, went on to grasp it's basics and became one of the premier journalists covering the game.

    Godspeed Angry Mustache!
    #4 - 2014-03-03 08:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: BadAssMcKill
    So why you over Mynna or the third Goony Goon candidate
    #5 - 2014-03-03 19:21:48 UTC
    hi

    why is your mustache angry

    pls respond
    Goonswarm Federation
    #6 - 2014-03-03 19:24:14 UTC
    Tubrug1 wrote:
    hi

    why is your mustache angry

    pls respond


    Because i'm mad at getting primaried first in every fight, because my name starts with A.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Pandemic Legion
    #7 - 2014-03-03 19:39:31 UTC
    Assuming you are elected, how do you feel your contributions to the EVE community outside of your CSM role will be affected? For example, you write for an supposed Goon favoring video game news site, do you plan to use your CSM status to promote various things CSM are attempting to accomplish (assuming it were permitted under the NDA) or do you plan to maintain a tight lip while allowing for others around you to discuss the topic you may be working on with CCP? Arguably one of your CSM mentors could be Ali Aras who doesn't tend to output much in the way of articles, mostly due to her role as an editor for the same publication, on the subject of EVE and the mechanics therein. I'm curious how you'll address that sort of situation if it were to arise. Would we expect to see your take on such a publication or would it be on a non-polarized location such as a CSM9.org website? One could say it is better for "politicians" to be insulated from news sources, though that's more so about real politics and not internet spaceship pixel land dreamed up by some alcoholic Icelandic guys in the early 2000s

    Do you then feel that perhaps CSM members in CSM 9 should work with such publications to put out their statements and/or opinions on changes CCP are making, so long as they are not in violation of the NDA? Much like how Two-Step commented on CCP's actions numerous times, and so forth?

    How do you plan to continue communication between the CSM and the community? What do you feel CSM 8 did wrong in the way of communicating with the player base? What do you feel they did correct? What do you feel is the biggest fault with CSM 8? What is their biggest accomplishment? i.e. "didn't communicate with the community enough" "didn't push for community proposal X enough" etc.

    As an EVE player do you look towards any person and/or group as inspiration? As a potential "politician" do you have any real world experience in managing a community and the communications therein that would apply to your role on CSM? (not so much as a game designer etc. but as a "people person")
    #8 - 2014-03-04 12:46:58 UTC
    First let me say that I am a big fan. Likely I will find a place for you on my ballot because I think that you are an intelligent and open minded person, and although you may lack experience in many areas of gameplay, you are smart enough to analyze the information available and figure things out. Many of your articles are testament to this quality in you.

    However, you recently wrote some things in a comment on reddit which concern me. Let us review.

    Angry Moustache wrote:
    Wardecs are completely in favor of the attacker, and CCP only addressed their specific exploit rather than making wardecs carry risks for the attacker.
    Before inferno, corps could shield themselves with decshield V1, which could jack the price of a wardec to the 3-5 billion range. Immediately after inferno, wardecs had the risk of getting your corp burned by Decshield V2/V3.
    After the removal of those "exploits" wardecs are relatively risk and consequence free way to farm kills.


    Now, I realize that you are primarily concerned with the issues of sovereign nullsec, but frankly speaking, so are several other strong candidates. CSM isn't a democratic body in itself - sov issues don't get fixed because a majority of CSMs vote for them to be fixed. It is important that you be willing and able to advocate for other areas of play as well.

    The subject which concerns me is highsec piracy and PvP. As a member of an alliance which pioneered many tactics for highsec conflict, and as the author of several ALOD articles which highlight the successes of the highsec pirate community, one would expect you to be a champion of the pirate cause. Yet it seems that you have some wrong-headed ideas about wardecs.

    Wardecs are an essential part of EVE, which over the years have been balanced more and more heavily in favor of the defenders. As a defender, you can bring in as many allies as you want for free. I was recently involved in a war as an ally of a defender who did exactly this, resulting in an extremely one sided victory against the aggressors. The original version of decshield was a broken mechanic in that it allowed wealthy organizations to essentially outbid less affluent wardeccers and thereby shield themselves from overt highsec aggression. Nobody should be able to opt out of PvP because of the size of their wallet. The latter version of decshield was an improvement in that permanent war is better than no war, but was nevertheless a broken mechanic.

    Today, wardecs are in a pretty good place from the perspective of both aggressors and defenders, save for two issues. The first is evasion. There should always be ways available for clever individuals to opt out of wardecs, but there should be both consequences for dropping to NPC corps or disbanding and reforming corps for this purpose, and there should be incentives to stay and fight. The second issue is the price. 50-500 mil is fine for alliances like Marmite, but it prevents newbies from getting into the game. It also makes no sense that large organizations are more expensive than small ones to wardec - if anything the opposite should be true.

    Anyway, enough ranting. The point is - sure, sov is one thing, I'm sure you are all over that one and I'm confident that you'll do a fine job with it, but where do you stand on highsec piracy? Are you an advocate of content creation in all areas of space, or are you going to be another pro-Trammel guy like Trebor or Teg?

    www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

    Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

    Goonswarm Federation
    #9 - 2014-03-04 14:44:37 UTC
    Haedonism Bot wrote:

    snip


    Very interesting question, because some recent experiences (I made a friend in marmite and had some productive chats) and my viewpoint has changed somewhat. My previous experiences with wardecs have come from being a part of Eve uni, and Goonwaffe. Both organization are under permanent wardecs, and in my 1.5 years of EVE, I’ve yet to get a “fight” out of a wartarget vs. a “gank”. Obviously this colors my perceptions, but talking with the marmite guy has proved to be quite enlightening.

    From the start, let’s put the Reddit post in context.

    Angry Moustache wrote:
    Wardecs are completely in favor of the attacker, and CCP only addressed their specific exploit rather than making wardecs carry risks for the attacker.
    Before inferno, corps could shield themselves with decshield V1, which could jack the price of a wardec to the 3-5 billion range. Immediately after inferno, wardecs had the risk of getting your corp burned by Decshield V2/V3.
    After the removal of those "exploits" wardecs are relatively risk and consequence free way to farm kills.


    You are familiar with the terminology used in the post, so I won’t waste any words on that.

    So what do I mean by “Wardecs are completely in favor of the attacker”?

    It means that under current mechanics, a wardec places initiative completely in the hands of the wardeccer. Often understated, initiative is often the deciding factor in a fight. Beyond things like fitting your ship with a scram, initiative includes being in the right mentality for fighting, having the proper awareness, and being able to make that fight or flight decision in a split second. With the way highsec mechanics interact with wardecs, wardeccers choose when a wardec goes up, and 9/10, the wardeccers decide when and where a fight happens, and they hold the initiative. This can be something as simple as being parked behind the Jita undock when a wartarget stumbled out of the station, to getting the jump on a missioner.

    It’s easy to say that the wartarget should just HTFU and prepare to fight at any moment, but that’s not exactly 100% possible. Constant awareness wears on a person, being high strung and on the lookout has a mental load that not an awful lot of people can bear. My contact in Marmite states that when they look for a target, they look for corps where members are in space a lot, usually to PvE. These are pilots that rely on being able to mission/mine/haul for a living, and they have to spend a lot of time in space to make that living. Given what is said above, it’s inevitable these pilots are not able to keep vigilant for very long, and eventually their guard slips and they die to a wartarget. If the dec target is unable to PvE, they lose their income and stop being able to function properly (this is when dec targets log off for a weeks until the dec drops).

    On the other hand, a wardeccers chooses when he or she wants to undock, and when they do, they are in a fighting mood. They are aware, they are looking for targets, and they can very quickly react to situations. But I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that on average, a dec target spends more time missioning (until he quits trying) than a wardeccers hunting. This principle applies to other aspects of the game as well. For example, I’ve lost less ships in Curse than I have in my home region of Deklein, despite the fact that Deklein is “safe” and Curse is “hostile”. Whenever I undock in Curse, I usually have various escapes planned, I bounce before warping to gates, and take precautions to avoid dying. But I’m in Curse for a few hours at most, while I am required to rat at least 18 hours/month in Dek to pay my PLEX, and even more to have some spending monty. It’s just impossible for me to keep the same state of preparation for 18 hours, and eventually I get sloppy and die to completely preventable causes, but it’s just that I couldn't be asked to put in the same effort hour after hour.

    When a war goes bad for the defender, it’s likely the attacker will keep up the war, and the only recourse is to capitulate to attacker demands, stop playing EVE, or disband. Meanwhile, a war that goes bad for the attacker can simply be ended by not paying the bills. Should a defender be valiant and hold off the wardec, the attacker simply drops dec and swaps to a more profitable target. This is what the bloodtears mean in this post

    The Zerg Overmind wrote:

    This brings us to the current state of wardecs. Griefing is now once again exclusively in the hands of the aggressors. There are no consequences for aggressors declaring war at all. The Ally defense system is moot and feeble. The old mercenary defense contracts hold no meaning in the game anymore. Surrender mechanics are easily bypassed. Wardec exploits involving surprise joins/leaves still exist. And the changes to costs of wardecs vastly favors the nullsec alliances to an unprecedented degree.


    So that’s what I mean by “wardecs are completely in favor of the attackers”, it hands them the initiative on a platter, both in the actual fights, and in the war as a whole. The consequences for starting a bad wardec are laughably small, while the consequences of running a bad defense against an incoming war can be devastating.

    cont.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Goonswarm Federation
    #10 - 2014-03-04 15:09:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Cont.

    In regards to wardec costs, I believe the cost for wardecs as it stands is both laughable and excessive at the same time. To any serious party, the cost of a wardec is basically cheap as free. Even the largest alliances in EVE can be decced for a “paltry sum”, a mere 2 billion/month for a wardec against GoonSwarm Federation, which is a sum less than 1/30th of GSF’s Sov bills (as in, pure isk payment to CONCORD for TCU upkeep). In exchange, the wardeccers gets to shoot at a large stream of New Eden’s worst from relative safety and laugh at their stupidity. Conversely, for something intensely personal, the 50mil/week minimum dec fee can be fairly restrictive to players with a grudge to settle. Not to mention the fact that the target can just drop corp and reform for a paltry 1.5 million isk ala James 315.

    So what is my stance on highsec piracy?

    I believe there should be more consequences in general. More consequences for attackers if a dec goes bad, more consequences for the defender that cannot be avoided by merely dropping corp. More assets at risk in-space rather than docked up (POCO’s are a good example), and more rewards for conducting a successful attack/defense.

    Much of the “drop corp, skip wardec” issues could be avoided if corps were given meaning in highsec. Currently, 95% of activities in highsec can be done in One Man Alt Corps (I call them OMACs for short), in fact, activities such as missions, incursions, industry, and research POS’s are optimal in such configurations. More permanent and structured corps are largely discouraged because they offer little to no benefits and make themselves a juicy wardec target in the process. Highsec could do with greater emphasis on community interaction and rewards for being social. Permanent organizations would make avoiding wardecs much harder and make it hurt when someone looking for the easy way out drops corp.

    On the other hand, the attacker being able to drop a poorly planned wardec at the drop of a hat is a poor mechanic. In my E-uni days, WHORES would often drop a wardec after they suffer an embarrassing loss to remove it from the war reports, then immediately dec again to continue farming clueless newbies. They had no capability to hurt E-uni in a serious way, but for 400 million isk/month, they had access to a duck hunt until E-uni toughened up.
    So to sum up my thoughts.

    -Current wardec mechanics carry little consequence for either party unless the defender is unwilling to drop corp. Attackers that drop a dec can immediately re-dec with no consequence.

    -More assets in space means more things for attackers to raid and pillage, and thus profit from.

    -Rewards/compensation for a defender being able to withstand the assault. For example, if an attacker drops dec, the defender keeps the attacker’s dec fees.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Goonswarm Federation
    #11 - 2014-03-04 16:13:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    BadAssMcKill wrote:
    So why you over Mynna or the third Goony Goon candidate


    Honestly, from a purely technical perspective, I’m not as good with numbers/economics as Mynnna, nor as savvy with people/communications as Sion, and much less experienced than both. If you can only vote for ONE goon candidate, I can’t honestly say that I’m the best one for the job.

    However, you can list up to 12 candidates on your ballot after voting for yourself and Aram. I don’t consider myself a direct competitor to the likes of Mynnna, Sion, or Mangala Solaris, Matias Otero, or even James Arget. Those are people with guaranteed seats, and the task of the newcomers is to compete with each other, for the 4-6 seats still in question after the 5 incumbents and 4 new bloc candidates (Manny, Sion, Corebloodbrothers, Matias).

    So with that in mind, what do I have to offer to the CSM?

    I’m willing to put in the work, I have a decent writing background to draw skills from, and unlike the older folks, I have the physical energy to sit through meetings and take note over everything. Despite being a member of Goonswarm, I consider myself able to view most issues from an objective viewpoint and I’m not hesitant to state the truth like I did in the first two paragraphs.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    #12 - 2014-03-04 16:48:00 UTC
    I'd definitely vote for you purely on the last point. I love the CSM members who are constantly communicating with us even if I don't happen to agree with them all the time
    Shadow Cartel
    #13 - 2014-03-05 18:16:20 UTC
    Variation on BadAssMcKill's question:

    You are now the third TMC writer to run, after Ali and Jayne Fillion. You are the fourth CFC candidate, after Sion, mynnna, and Roland.

    Why should someone put you #1 on their ballot?

    Because right now, I see your votes dropping into the hands of other TMC or CFC candidates, but I see you yourself getting eliminated in one of the first few STV rounds. You need a sizable number of #1 votes to survive those early rounds. Why should someone give you one of those #1 votes as opposed to one of the candidates above?

    aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

    Goonswarm Federation
    #14 - 2014-03-06 01:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Ripard Teg wrote:
    Variation on BadAssMcKill's question:

    You are now the third TMC writer to run, after Ali and Jayne Fillion. You are the fourth CFC candidate, after Sion, mynnna, and Roland.

    Why should someone put you #1 on their ballot?

    Because right now, I see your votes dropping into the hands of other TMC or CFC candidates, but I see you yourself getting eliminated in one of the first few STV rounds. You need a sizable number of #1 votes to survive those early rounds. Why should someone give you one of those #1 votes as opposed to one of the candidates above?


    So this is the question about "core constituents"

    I am not an official CFC candidate, and I expect no #1/#2 ballots from CFC members, It's also likely that positions 3-6 will be reserved for other bloc candidates in a cross-deal. However, I would not put it past Goonswarm members to put one of their own after the official candidates.

    If I had to make a gambit, I would say that a portion of my #1 votes would come from TMC readers otherwise unaffiliated with blocs. I tend to avoid very political articles in favor of analysis/fact reporting. I know that I am a known entity to a decent number of people in New Eden, as a decent amount of my writing finds their source from random EVE-mails appearing in my inbox.

    The other portion I would say comes from Eve University, who has yet to announce their own candidate this year, and from talking with Neville Smit, do not have plans to. Ever since departing, I've been active in the in-game E-uni chat channel, and the long periods of "hurry up and wait" in Nullsec warfare gives me plenty of time to help the newbies in channel at the expense of my own wallet.

    Edit : I saw that I wasn't on the list of "New Csm candidates" that you drew up :(

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    #15 - 2014-03-06 09:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarojan
    I dont think you can win, but you have my number 1 vote.

    Your answer to Haedonism Bot question on war decs is why. I havent seen it spelt out so clearly before, how the whole war dec mechanic is fundementally broken and you stated it so well. I left the first corp I joined due to a war dec that locked me out of my trade hub and I will never be "at war" again. Even if CCP nerfed it so I had to stay in an npc corp for a month if I disband my corp, I would just stay in that npc corp for a month. If they nerfed it so you couldnt leave a player corp while it was under war dec, I would set my training queue for a week then go play dota2 for a week instead. I wont undock in a badger or a venture or a faction fit navy raven while under a war dec: Im not r*****ed.


    War decs give to much power to the attackers, are to cheap and have to few consequences to them which is why smart people dont try to defend them and morons get griefed to the verge of quiting the game because of them. Make them more balanced and Haedonism Bot might find he has more people willing to play with him.

    Will gank for food

    The-Culture
    #16 - 2014-03-06 18:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph IX Basarab
    I found your stance on wardecs very surprising truth be told. You seem to have an issue with the ease that the attacker can dec an alliance such as GoonSwarm and think that they should have more ways to defend themselves. It's an arguable point but I was interested in this statement especially because it runs contrary with certain policies that your own alliance holds for highsec. I am of course referring specifically to things like mass suicide gankings of mining ships and ice miners.

    If you believe that there should be more consequences for parties paying to wardec entities such as Goonswarm, would you likewise say there should be more consequences for entities such as Goonswarm for mass ganking events targetting mining barges, ice interdictions and things like Burn Jita?
    Goonswarm Federation
    #17 - 2014-03-06 19:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
    I found your stance on wardecs very surprising truth be told. You seem to have an issue with the ease that the attacker can dec an alliance such as GoonSwarm and think that they should have more ways to defend themselves. It's an arguable point but I was interested in this statement especially because it runs contrary with certain policies that your own alliance holds for highsec. I am of course referring specifically to things like mass suicide gankings of mining ships and ice miners.

    If you believe that there should be more consequences for parties paying to wardec entities such as Goonswarm, would you likewise say there should be more consequences for entities such as Goonswarm for mass ganking events targetting mining barges, ice interdictions and things like Burn Jita?


    I don't have an issue with groups war-deccing Goonswarm. To me, wardecs are a non issue because I don't go to highsec on Goonwaffe characters. The quote was a response to a comment that war-deccing an organization like Goonswarm is "prohibitively expensive", when the fact is that 500m/week is pocket change to any organization of note. If a group can't even afford that, they probably don't have the resources to hurt a group like GSF meaningfully anyways. If a random alliance member has a stroke of stupidity and loses his ship in highsec to wardecs, the general response is the point and laugh.

    The main point regarding consequences has nothing to do with Goonswarm, but rather that the current wardec mechanics allows aggressors to pull out of war easier than [INSERT WITHDRAWAL JOKE HERE].

    The most blatant example of this is probably the year-and-a-half continual wardec between E-uni and various wardec corps, most notably WHORES, who have since closed down. Since the release of inferno, E-uni have pretty much been under constant wardecs, and you had week old newbies joining to learn, then immediately being picked off by wartargets in Cynabals and T3's. I'm quite certain that when CCP made the inferno wardec changes, they didn't plan on the largest training corp being wardec'd 23/7/365. When you look at every large group in EVE, most of them have perma decs, Sov null alliances, E-uni, Brave Newbies, etc. There is zero consequence for declaring a war, and when you get bored/suffer a bad loss, the wardeccers can just drop the war at the tip of a hat, no penalty for poor play at all beyond some ships.

    In regards to ganking, i don't see much of a connection beyond "they are both forms of highsec violence". After the barge buffs, crimewatch changes, and changes to insurance payouts, only the extremely stupid can die to ganks. Safety against gankers is as simple as fitting a damage control and shield hardeners, or carrying less than 1.5B in your freighter.

    Edit : Edited since seraph has completed his post.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    The-Culture
    #18 - 2014-03-06 19:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph IX Basarab
    Will do.
    Double Post
    Goonswarm Federation
    #19 - 2014-03-06 19:24:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    This post is no longer needed, will be turned into an answer for Hendrick talladar's question at a later date.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    The-Culture
    #20 - 2014-03-06 19:47:40 UTC
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
    I found your stance on wardecs very surprising truth be told. You seem to have an issue with the ease that the attacker can dec an alliance such as GoonSwarm and think that they should have more ways to defend themselves. It's an arguable point but I was interested in this statement especially because it runs contrary with certain policies that your own alliance holds for highsec. I am of course referring specifically to things like mass suicide gankings of mining ships and ice miners.

    If you believe that there should be more consequences for parties paying to wardec entities such as Goonswarm, would you likewise say there should be more consequences for entities such as Goonswarm for mass ganking events targetting mining barges, ice interdictions and things like Burn Jita?


    I don't have an issue with groups war-deccing Goonswarm. To me, wardecs are a non issue because I don't go to highsec on Goonwaffe characters. The quote was a response to a comment that war-deccing an organization like Goonswarm is "prohibitively expensive", when the fact is that 500m/week is pocket change to any organization of note. If a group can't even afford that, they probably don't have the resources to hurt a group like GSF meaningfully anyways. If a random alliance member has a stroke of stupidity and loses his ship in highsec to wardecs, the general response is the point and laugh.

    The main point regarding consequences has nothing to do with Goonswarm, but rather that the current wardec mechanics allows aggressors to pull out of war easier than [INSERT WITHDRAWAL JOKE HERE].

    The most blatant example of this is probably the year-and-a-half continual wardec between E-uni and various wardec corps, most notably WHORES, who have since closed down. Since the release of inferno, E-uni have pretty much been under constant wardecs, and you had week old newbies joining to learn, then immediately being picked off by wartargets in Cynabals and T3's. I'm quite certain that when CCP made the inferno wardec changes, they didn't plan on the largest training corp being wardec'd 23/7/365. When you look at every large group in EVE, most of them have perma decs, Sov null alliances, E-uni, Brave Newbies, etc. There is zero consequence for declaring a war, and when you get bored/suffer a bad loss, the wardeccers can just drop the war at the tip of a hat, no penalty for poor play at all beyond some ships.

    In regards to ganking, i don't see much of a connection beyond "they are both forms of highsec violence". After the barge buffs, crimewatch changes, and changes to insurance payouts, only the extremely stupid can die to ganks. Safety against gankers is as simple as fitting a damage control and shield hardeners, or carrying less than 1.5B in your freighter.

    Edit : Edited since seraph has completed his post.



    I actually agree with you here. Attackers shouldn't have a way out. Question is how do we plan on balancing that aspect? How do we allow smaller groups to be effective against larger alliances in high sec without the little gimmicks you pointed out? Perhaps simply having the wardec last for a predetermined amount of time then so no one can leave the party early would fix it.

    Would you be for that as a way to solve to the issue?
    3 Pages123Next page
    Forum Jump