1

I supported tying wars to structures, but I think CCP did it badly and without thinking it through.

My proposal is that any corp, or any alliance can only do 3 aggressor concurrent wars at any point of time and that they can war dec any corp or alliance regardless of whether they have a structure or not. Would it be a good idea to limit this to 1 or 2?

However to do more wars in hisec, to a maximum of 10 concurrent wars, the entity will have to use a war HQ which can only be a medium structure. Because of the blanket nature of war deccing nullsec alliances we could also apply a rule that a war HQ is required to war dec nullsec sov holding alliances. This restriction does not apply to allying against them.

There is no limitation to how many wars can be applied to a defender, so for example everyone in the game could war dec a single entity if they wished subject to the caveat that with the limited number of wars, CCP then can then assess whether the reduction in complexity of possible conflict permutations can then allow them to enable allies to rep their ally in a war and act as a proper fleet. If a war creates such an issue then the war will be blocked from being applied. This is the most crucial part of the suggestion because we can only make wars fun if those that want to fight can fight effectively.

However the most simple and effective way to deal with this and enabling effective fleets for a defender and their allies (allowing them to have logistics without going criminal or suspect) is perhaps to use the fleet as the driver for this decision in that once an ally is in fleet with a defender than all their aggressors are at war with you while in fleet at the character level. I do believe that current aggression and conflict timers will enable the conflict to continue for the required time if some one drops fleet. Perhaps having a designated war fleet tick box that enables this type of linking?

To prevent forever wars a war can be renewed up to three times, with a doubling of cost each time. After that the war ends and they cannot be war decced by the aggressor for a week. This additional cost is not applied if there is a war HQ. This effect sticks at a player, so that if that player moves to another entity to continue the war than the war will not be able to be made, or would immediately be invalidated.

To make it balanced, a defender can only have 3 allies maximum and an ally entity can only ally in three wars unless they have a war HQ and can then ally in 10.

A character has the war follow them for 24 hours at an individual level, and all war restrictions follow them.

This would make wars more interesting, break up bigger war deccers and get back to smaller more focussed wars.

EDIT: This is being adjusted with feedback received.

NB. The suggestion to require a War HQ for nullsec sov owning alliances is based on the perception that this is a lot of accessible targets, I don’t necessarily agree with this, but would drop the number of wars without a war HQ to 1 or 2 and not have this restriction.

The biggest issue is whether this would open the doors to the same sort of veteran farming of new players that was so destructive to new player retention. I believe that the limited number of wars does give some protection on this, but of course the veteran farmers know how to get around mechanics. Hisec wars were a good way for people in hisec to settle disputes and to develop PvP skills and were effectively destroyed by larger farming groups running around in bling fits supported by massed logi, which is the case with the current system.

3 Likes
2

Since when has that been a thing?

2 Likes
3

OK, balanced, will change it to that. Eve is not and never will be a fair game, something that is very understood by me.

4

Some point in another thread that I will address in a post below.

5

I am often surprised why someone would be on the side of gankers saying you are not safe and should not be and then on the other hand say things like open up wars to the defenseless and naive.

For me the issue has always been the stupidity of blanket war decs to create a target list of defenseless and naive people, and restricting wars to only those that dared to put up structures focussed the whole war dec system on hisec industry players.

I think you are a Goon related player, so I guess that this is why you are happy with this system, excuse me if I am wrong here or that this is not part of your thought process, but the destruction of independent hisec indy players suits the heavily industry focussed Goon leadership a great deal. So of course they would be happy with it.

Limiting wars to 3 per entity would create more focussed and better targeted and perhaps smaller wars. Enabling 20 based on a war HQ enabled war deccers to play their game but not make it a blanket system.

Enabling allies to be allies makes actual space combat more likely.

Please explain.

1 Like
6

I hate parallel threads…

Okay, in a few words, you just demonstrated in your replies to me in the original thread that you can retaliate and “win” without the need for rules changing (coming from the “structures” thread). You’ve done it without “new rules”. So can other groups.

I believe that would be called a strawman argument attempting to make a character suspicious ? Anyway, for those with some curiosity here’s a

Unimportant Summary but consistent with all my posts on this forum

I’m an unimportant line member of an alliance which at one time (and for a long time) was part of the Imperium (of which Goonswarm is one part). That is public data. I am not aware of the Imperium, or my current alliance, to be involved in hisec wardec’ing. Usually it’s we that get wardec’d. Sometimes we do respond and educate wardec’ers by removing their stuff. As much as I admire the achievements of Goonswarm (in their old and their new style), and as much as I’m part of the roleplay against the traditional enemies of current and past affiliations, I admire the achievements of those groups too, without reservation. That even includes the TTT - which I was glad to help to take down as well, believing it had overshot its purpose widely and was affecting the game negatively. I admire the craftiness and cunning of any play style in the sandbox, and that includes wardecs and hisec ganking, gate camping, spying, sabotaging, awoxing, using rules to the advantage, and anything else that makes the game what it has been for the past two decades. I am a defender of the need for fewer rules, especially if those rules do more harm than they solve any (alleged) problems. Fewer rules makes for a tougher but also a richer, evolving thus more interesting game, which leads to our famous long term retention of EvE players. I also defend ganking in hisec, as it fits the narrative of New Eden, as it was designed two decades ago. It’s part of what the game is, it’s normal, and it probably separates the player from the imitator.
Is that enough background for you ?

Now, it’s one thing to want to make the business model of constant wardec’ing less attractive, if that is really necessary. But, for reasons already given in the other thread, by myself and other players, I don’t think your suggestion is justified given the collateral damage it would create.

7

Sorry, it is not optimal but I brought it here because I don’t want to get it confused with the other suggestion which is something I do not agree with.

I don’t think putting all the war decs just on hisec indy players is a good idea, do you? The alliance I am in is not a hisec indy alliance, though at the time we blew up that Fortizar I would suggest that this was what the alliance was with an AG tilt to it.

Like what, that is meaningless, do you mean new players, well that depends on whether it could be made fun for them.

8

No thank you, stop trying to disturb my peaceful neighbourhood.

9

That was the previous system, but without limit on wars, I do not believe that anyone should be immune to wars, but wars need to be limited in some way so people get a break. The current system puts all the action on hisec indy players, but not on incursion alliances and corps, or those that do missions, both of who are likely to be better able to fight war decs in any case.

10

Any suggestion which removes structure-based eligibility as a condition for declaring or being the subject of a declaration of war, will certainly spark my interest.

There are still, in my view, some issues around corp-hopping and similar ruses designed to evade encounters, but I have no thought-through suggestions to make in that regard.

You mention repping. I don’t see why your suggestion should be a problem, as long as the ability is fairly distributed - i.e. it must be available to both attacker and defender, without restriction or punishment.

There may be wider implications for the game if this new repping principle is not confined to the wardec system though, especially in situations of which we’re both aware and which are of interest to ganking/anti-ganking activists.

I’ll want to follow the course of this thread closely, Dracvlad, but I am woefully ignorant about such matters. Perhaps you and others can carve out some sort of reasonable and deliverable solution to a mechanic which I currently find unattractive and elitist.

11

Not a fan of this. Big null blocks could become unwardecable just by using their alt alliances and weirdo alliances to war dec them. CFC, for instance, has at least 5 related alliances that could war dec CFC and make them unwardecable.

5 Likes
12

It would only be possible via the ally system, so only the defender is subject to that possibility. The reason to do this is simply to enable people wanting and being able to put up a defence.

Having it only applicable to the ally is what I am suggesting. I would also suggest that enabling it in fleet as part of the aggression mechanics would be possible. I would like it adjusted of course for repping of people who shoot people who go criminal. CCP really screwed that one up, but this is not about AG, only war decs.

13

I never said that the restriction would work on the defender in that they could only have 3 war decs applied to them, the restriction is on the aggressor only. Every one in hisec could war dec the Goons for example in my suggestion.

It is not clear, so I have put aggressor in a key sentence, which means that an aggressor entity can only have 3 aggressor wars without a war HQ and 20 with a war HQ, there is no limitation on how many wars they can have against them. Thank you for making me clarify this.

14

Thanks for making that clear. It does muddy the waters for me, however, but I can see your point in wishing to give the defender a leg-up, so to speak.

15

They need the leg up, it also enables them to learn, just being in a fleet with a competent ally would make them think PvP could be fun. I see the war dec system as something that should make people think this is great, I want to do more of this. But the current situation makes it so most run away screaming no!!!

16

If I were a Goon I’d reply with “and 1DQ by Christmas”, lol.

A bit of a strange focus you have there. As far as I can establish from wars, Goons (just copying your example, but you could have used Horde, FRT, NCdot or any other non-HISEC force and their close allies) have never been involved in the business of blanket wardec’ing. There is nothing to gain from HISEC wardecs for those groups unless it involves their NULLSEC foes - as it did in the TTT wars. So you must have taken a wrong turn somewhere, got things mixed up a little, maybe lost a hulk in 2012 ? :stuck_out_tongue:

The forum “grrrrrgoons” battle cry is so woefully outdated and not even applicable. Ask yourself, what are you going to do with the tiger’s tail once you got a hold of it ?

Still, all irony, minute details of 3 here and 20 there and reduction of number of allies possible and other flaws aside,

  1. how would your suggestion still offer some space for the average rookie trying out EvE and looking for a social group (a corp, maybe) that can then be wardec’d.
  2. How would you allow room for growth for a budding HISEC alliance trying to make the jump to non-HISEC space ?
  3. How would it put the real wardec’ing groups out of action (as I said, you’d just splinter and spread them into more smaller groups).
  4. How would your suggestion lure attract more hisec people into your altered war mechanic ?
  5. How would your suggestion make it more attractive to fight and lose stuff in an official war than it is today ?
  6. What exactly is “balanced” in an approach where you encourage more groups to pile onto a single target, and where you deny a defender to have its allies (bar 3) ?
  7. Why do you use an example of a typical nullsec, non-wardec’ing entity to advertize for your suggestion to “address blanket wardec’ing” ?

I already asked these questions and concerns before. You did not address them.

In my opinion you made a relatively small problem considerably bigger with your suggestion. There must be an opportunity in there waiting to be found (or at least more visible to the few who haven’t spotted it yet), and it may not be conducive to growth of the player base. If you want to snipe a target, don’t use a shotgun :smiley:

17

I replied to this.

CFC is effectively the Goons, albeit an old name. Perhaps you should direct your question to why he used them as an example rather than me?

Flaws, what flaws, none detailed, just you saying flaws.

Because with a more limited number of wars, the war deccers would have to be more focussed on who they war dec, pretty simple stuff isn’t it.

Do they have that now if they have a indy focus?

Which is utterly my intention, as I want smaller more focussed wars, thanks for noticing that…

It is the game, ships get blown up.

Because with a functioning ally system real mercs could develop and not those that are running protection rackets, also groups of people looking to ally in for content and to help people learn to PvP.

Because all war deccers attack entities that they can beat, the exception is of course the major nullsec alliances but they have no interest in hisec wars. A smart CEO who can bring in allies is going to be more successful.

Detailed at the start.

The problem you are possibly referring to is making players that do missions, mining and other activities without a structure able to be war decced when they are not now, except that in the past they were.

Gankers attack the same players and you have no issue with that, war decs are of course another level of PvP, but it is one that is easy to deal with if the aggressors only have a limited number of war decs that they can do, therefore target selection becomes key.

As far as I can tell your only issue is new players that get switched off by a war dec, but this is Eve, it is like getting ganked is it not?

18

I’m not in the habit of chasing everyone who has anything against goons or horde or frt or miners or gankers for clarifications.

Read on, those are mostly covered in the 7 questions that follow.

Equally simple is that a defender can be wardec’d by any number of entities, isn’t it.

Even if they do not, you now include anything else besides an “indy focus” and call it improvement ?

Rather you adjusted your suggestion after my criticism in the other thread. The only focus here is more groups focusing on a mutual target. The smashing and grabbing continues in a slightly different format.

Tell that to the risk averse crowd and see where that gets you.

Oh you mean of course that tying the defenders hands behind his back would lead to “balance” and “opportunites” for mercenary groups to “develop” out of thin air. Let me explain to you, mercenaries act out of a sense of business. They are paid soldiers. No pay no pewpew.

i.e. the defenseless and the naive, and those without batphones nor allies. Right …

Uhuh

Gankers, and I specify the typical HISEC suicide ganker, looks for worthwile targets, i.e. worth the ship losses they will suffer. I have no issue with that play style, no. Attacks on mission runners in hisec are exceptional. Baiting is likely to be more common.
But now, again, you are switching to “gankers”, which are an entirely different subject than blanket “wardec’ing groups”. Please pick one subject and stick to it ?

Your ability to attack (and wardec) them is unrelated to the number of active wardecs they have going… it doesn’t make one iota difference.

It’s one of the issues I see. Playing it down as “it is like getting ganked… but this is EvE” is not realistic, when you just increased the chance of being drawn into “ganks disguised as wardecs” lol. Like I said, hisec will not thank you for this. Why have a hisec at all ? For strictly solo, unsocialized / unassociated players then ? Not sure that game would attract me as a starting point, lol.

Did not. You could - and should - have used an example of a real blanket wardec’ing hisec alliance. Why didn’t you ?

And you missed a few questions, or rather ignored them because no answer ?

19

So you don’t want to ask him why he used the Goon as a reference but instead say it was me, OK, seems like you have want to have a dig. When I said that you were Goon related I knew that you were linked in some form or other from memory, and I mentioned that the Goon leadership would obviously prefer that hisec indy was made more difficult. I did not say that you did, but I did wonder if you saw that as a thing or not. I guess it upset you…

They were your feelings on the issues, not flaws

And that means that they end up being smaller entities which is a good thing and an effect that I want to see happen, then people might start fighting back.

As I said the effect is smaller war deccers, limited wars that can be created and a more focussed war and the load does not just fall on people that want to do indy as their main focus, the least likely people to fight back as their indy skills do not mesh with PvP but those that do PvE do.

LOL, was always my intention and what I expected to see.

You do when you support ganking, why is this different?

The current system with allies that cannot fight as allies in fleet is fighting with two hands tied behind your back. The current mercs are all into protection rackets, there are a large number of bored players with a huge amount of ISK that want good fights, this could be an interesting way to get them and develop a following that would work with them and perhaps join them, could get many recruits like this.

But the allies would change that fact if they can actually fight as allies in an integrated fleet of course.

As I said it is fine for you to have gankers attack them, but not for war deccers, why the focus of war deccers on hisec indy who want to use structures, as I suggested the Goon leadership were likely very happy with it. This is the subject, if you are going to say think of the children, be consistent with it, I am making it clear that you say one thing with gankers and another with war deccers.

So having only 3 war decs makes no difference…, oh dear I am glad I got that on a reply.

Hisec is there for a slower paced easier game that people can develop in when they have lower skills, war decs are controlled. Pretty obvious that.

I explained why I used Goons as an example when another player asked about other CFC (Imperium) alliances war deccing the Goons so as to use up their number of war decs, which was not the case as I have not placed any restriction on the number of war decs that an entity can have against them.

I answered all your questions

20

I find myself repeating the same questions, and explaining the same obvious consequences. Because of that, anyone not interested in reading the same stuff again and again, noticing the same inconsistencies, don’t open the “tldr”. I’ve taken up enough screen space already, without noticeable progress in the discussion.

tldr

more gaslighting ?
You’re the only one responsible for what you wrote. A reply with “I used it because he used it first” is not what anyone would expect you to do. In any case, the validity of my opinions should be challenged on their merit or lack thereof, not on my affiliation.
For example, no one has implied yet that you might have some irons in the fire and a plan to wardec more often than you did before. See what I mean ? “Rounding up the usual suspects” is a bit below the level of discussion most would like to see.

…you were wrong. I am with INIT., who were never “goonswarm”, and which currently is not part of the Imperium (wouldn’t mind if we did that again, after all, the foes are still the same). Who says you don’t have an alt in the Imperium, this being EvE, lol ?

Why goons in particular ? Pick any non-hisec group. They all have the same interest in a working economy. The only difference is that they don’t have to rely on hisec indy solely. They couldn’t care less if hisec is riddled with corps and alliances wardec’ing each other, lol. They’ll make sure they get their needs from hisec one way or another, as they do today - and no, you can’t wardec their operatives.

Not feelings, opinion and prediction, based on what I pick up on current opinions about wardecs.

4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. Doesn’t make a difference in number of ships, pilots, tactical knowledge and fire power when 1+1+1+1 are wardec’ing you instead of a size 4. Even in terms of ISK, whether they have 20 wardecs going or more for a month, it wouldn’t make a significant difference. These groups are financed, by who or what that is for others to find out. I’ve read something about at least one wardec entity that was financed via a trade consortium to attack multiple members of that same consortium (nice doublecross, lol). Could it be that wardec entitities are engaged in mercenary activities ? Shocking news at 7 ! And of course, the customer pays the increased price for doing wardecs…

the load will fall on the same groups that were attractive as targets before, and some more that you now serve on a silver platter.

Here you have your own elements mixed up. There are no restrictions on the attacker side, as per your suggestion. You who are targeting that typical hisec blanket wardec’ing alliance (if not, wth are we even discussing here) are maybe limited to three wardecs if you don’t have a structure - but you most likely are only interested in that one entity. Right ? Right !

Fleet mechanics have their limitations, I agree, and perhaps those should be addressed first. I was rather referring to your “no more than 3 allies for the defender” - which is an unbalanced change without stated motivation.

The difference is, you just push the current level of hisec ganking to higher levels, with more potential targets. It’s not difficult to see.

Mercenaries in EvE, as in the real world, are hands hired to protect certain “interests”. Mercenaries do not fight for your ideals or sense of justice. They fight for your ISK.
Your typical mercenary is a highly skilled, well-to-do pilot hardened in combat, flying top equipment and very well versed in grid tactics, and gathering intel.
Outline the task, set the goals and expectations. If they’re interested, negotiate the price and possible replacement of equipment, and agree upon a payment scheme for milestones. Pay them accordingly, and give them a fat bonus for anything that exceeded the agreed upon goals. You never know if you’ll be a returning customer or their next target (they mostly don’t care either way, morals aren’t isk nor a business model)
Isn’t that how it works with mercenaries ?
If the market for mercenary activities increases, then you may have more mercenary groups eventually.

I don’t care who attacks hisec dwellers. I like consistency in discussions and staying on the topic. Hisec ganking is not at the level you would like it to appear to be. In any case, now you widened the scope for any would-be hisec wardec’ers, and call that a good thing. The “no need for structures” to have a wardec going does that. It’s not a point for you, maybe, but it will be for those who would become hisec war targets without even owning a structure. It’s not rocket science.

And you just increased the opportunity for hisec wardecs. There’s nothing to “control” on the side of the defender, and you even reduced their number of possible allies offering assistance (which is purely an element for the defense side, not the attacker side). If anything, you just told newbies to not join corporations - they cannot effectively deal with being wardec’d.

Call that “think of the children” or anything else you like, it does not change the consequence of your suggestion if implemented. You increased the number of easy targets by at least an order of magnitude, in the “slower paced easier game that people can develop in”, meaning HISEC.

Your answers so far:

  1. ganking (or wardec’ing) in hisec is to be expected. More of it is not bad, even for rookies.
  2. No answer
  3. It would not. It would merely “focus” their efforts and perhaps make “smaller” wars. (would you call the current ones big ones ?? You even hope for “more” wars, but your (lack of) answers to 1, 2, 4 and 5 doesn’t bode well for that expectation)
  4. No answer.
  5. “It’s EvE, expect to lose ships” (which is exactly what hisec dwellers want to hear ?)
  6. No answer
  7. No answer as to why you don’t refer to a current blanket wardec’ing hisec entity but to a nullsec entity that has nothing to do with wardec’ing.

Let’s make a summary here:

  • Your suggestion does not address hisec blanket wardec’ing, at most it would shorten their list of active wars and make “smaller” wars (assuming you call the current hisec “wars” big things).
  • Your suggestion does however emasculate your future wardec targets, allowing them only three assisting allies, while not restricting the number of active wardecs against a single target.
  • Furthermore, by dropping the need for structures to be war eligible, in particular for the defenders’ side, you widen the scope of wardec’ing to include those who have been able (by knowledge or by being new) to stay out of wardecs in hisec.
  • You also removed the endpoint for a war, namely the loss of the relevant structure or the warHQ.