If I could make a polite request… Splitting replies, where they address two different topics, might be of some help to me. But, your choice, of course.
Sorry but I did not want to reward the off topic spam. I will try not to do that with your posts from now on.
1 Like
If you mean “an adjustment of fleet mechanics in relation with concord rules in hisec during an official war”, sure.
For all the rest, definitely a NO, we do NOT agree at all, and NEVER did, lol. Discussing a finer detail of your suggestion with you is not the same as taking “an interest in the suggestion”, especially if I try to make you - and everyone else - see the consequences of your idea.
It is a wet dream of some, like Destiny and maybe even yourself, to be able to sidestep existing Concord restrictions. In Destiny’s case it was especially to target large nullsec blocs in perpetuity, without the need for a structure for a warHQ. Your suggestion enables that, and you hid it well.
What it boils down to, despite all discussions and polite questioning and answering, is unlimited and almost guaranteed content 24/7 by the ability of individuals to wardec huge blocs. It’s nice advertizing, I have to give it to you: “Get legal kills in hisec on 133,442 potential targets for the low low price of 300M. Join in on the fun ! No need for a WarHQ” That is today’s count of the 3 largest alliances, Horde, GSF and FRT combined, btw.
Let’s stick to normal ganking and normal wardec’ing, shall we, without enabling stupidity in hisec. And thank you, CCP, for having had the foresight of individuals abusing wardec’ing and countering it with the warhq rule.
Yes I did, and thanks for that, I appreciate it a lot.
Understood, I asked you if you thought it was good, fair, or correct that all the pressure of war decs in hisec on hisec entities was on hisec indy only. I don’t this is good thing at all. I also did some analysis when this all started to work out the balance with nullsec advantages and jump fuel costs to bring it to market. But I am getting a bit off topic here, so…
Yes it does enable that, and I did not hide it. But it is only 3 war decs. First of all I have no iron in that fire, it is not my playstyle, I play NRDS, and unless they are out and out reds I don’t tend to go after indy ships, I could have had many kills over the years on people flying past me.
It is something that comes with the territory, you are war decced by most of the war deccers anyway, a few more won’t make much of a difference will it?
That is the essence of blanket war decs, still that is what most war deckers are doing now:
However what about if the War HQ was required to war dec sov owning alliances, would that be a good idea. I think people like Destiny would perhaps be better off fighting small wars with hisec people in any case. I am trying to suggest a system that works for the game and I do count that as a blanket war dec.
Quite understand your point of view. Will add it to my suggestion.
There’s nothing left standing of your suggestion, for the record
I see it as a conflict driver, you have the ability to blow it up! Notice it does not apply to allying so if you war dec someone as a nullsec alliance Destiny can ally against you.
Your suggestion did away with the need for a warhq - at the same time limiting the wardecs to 3 in that particular case (and 20 with a warhq). If you still feel it makes sense for an individual player to declare war on 3 alliances, and not even needing a warhq but with plenty of legalized ganking in hisec, then there’s nothing left to explain to you.
And I think, quite a few people will raise eyebrows, starting with some folks in nullsec blocs, continuing with reps in the CSM and moving on to some folks at CCP, like those who take an active interest in NPE and hisec balance in general, to say the least. I’ll even do my best to help raise those eyebrows, if necessary.
I added the stipulation that a war HQ was needed to war dec sov holding alliances because there should be skin in the game that allows nullsec alliances to remove the war, if you can be bothered to of course? Please note the other restrictions I added to the cost and continuity of wars.
Nullsec alliances pushed to make medium structures a walk in a park, people who rely on them end up with a final timer after final timer after final timer which you can create by dropping a super for two minutes before DT, outside of hisec or a single ship while the defender is not online in hisec.
Are you telling me that after the CSM and nullsec alliances got this change implemented that you are still unable to remove hisec war HQ’s? Seriously?
Please do however as the more people look at hisec wars the better.
… have zero interest in wardecs. I told you when and why wardecs do occur from nullsec blocs - it’s against their usual nullsec foes when assets in hisec are involved.
Just out of interest: do you have any evidence at all that CCP did not make that decision on its own ? Perhaps CCP did read all the forum stink here and on reddit about the TTT and decided that “enough is enough”. It’s fine to underestimate the folks at CCP, but it’s amusing when they strike back.
WarHQ’s ? What are those ? Your suggestion got rid of them. Don’t you read your own posts ?
I’d grade your suggestion:
So why are you complaining about my proposed changes to hisec war decs then? In any case nullsec enmtities operate in hisec, why should you not be subject to war decs while in hisec?
You should ask Brisc about it, he was all for it.
I question your reading and comprehension, because they are still there.
You mean why shouldn’t you have the privilege of wardec’ing nullsec alliances at leisure, without the need for a warhq, as an individual, so you can assure yourself of enough potential targets for hisec ganking disguised as a wardec, giving concord the finger. Wet dream for some, indeed. Every nullsec player becomes a legitimate target when venturing out of nullsec, flags, sec status, criminal status, fw status and all the rest of it be damned, thanks to your “Better Way for War dec’s” ? LOL
You made them no longer mandatory for the entity who declares the war, for example:
meaning there isn’t always a warHQ. I’m sure most readers understand that implication.
But do keep questioning … because the moment you add structures fully (meaning: mandatory) back into your suggestion, you will have reduced your suggestion to “restrict active wars to 10 per wardec’ing entity” - for which you will get nothing but applause from me and countless others 
In that case i’d still give you a “D”, because of my own rule to have the smallest number of rules possible, so as to allow for all play styles to exist - at least the ones that make some sense.
I have added the suggestion that an aggressor requirea a war HQ to war dec nullsec sov holding alliances. Because I feel you chaps need encouragement to come in and blap those that have the impudence to war dec you and an easy medium structure kill is worth something.
But I still wonder why would would get this uptight over a few randoms war deccing your alliance, I am in the same boat as you, and it does not bother me.
The requirement for war HQ’s are still there for more than 1 or 3 war decs
The restriction was max of three renewals and a one week break, with the cost doubling for every additional week, I initially did not apply the restrictions because with a war HQ it was something that could be removed and had a cost and value, so I have decided to only remove the doubling of cost because there should be a benefit to having a war HQ above the number of wars that can be applied.
Thank you, I guess. But why do you single out some nullsec alliances at all ? And why would you enable more ganking disguised as wardec’ing at all ? There’s a very good reason why CCP implemented the requirement for a HISEC WarHQ in the first place. It’s to ensure that “ganking disguised as wardec’ing” is not making a complete mess of HISEC. As a second consequence re nullsec, as much as I dislike the approach, there are a lot of renters who do not own sov but do live in it. They don’t exist for you, they should be punished a second time for being a renter, hence a non-nullsec alliance (they aren’t officially, are they) ? Then there are those who live in NPC null … And what about wormholers ? Why do they have to suffer your “be a war target in hisec any time”, while we both know you (meaning the one who declared the war) will never take down one of their wormhole structures.
I hope you see from this and the other thread that you cannot have it both ways, dropping/reducing the need for a hisec WarHQ and widening the scale / scope of wardec’ing (and have more, smaller wars, as you call it) while reducing the number of blanket wardecs. It’s one or the other, not both. That much should be clear from these discussions.
Structures should remain mandatory, period.
And if you want to reduce the number of blanket wardecs, reduce the number of allowed active wars. It really is that simple, if blanket wardecs are such a thorn in the hide - which I doubt, honestly.
One does not perform the rain dance to conjure up Brisc without good reason even if this thread would likely amuse him and eligible to be served as a fun topic on INN.
I am not singling out nullsec alliances at all, you are. Your comment about renters could apply to lowsec and WH alliances and corps too.
I think the issue was that they found new players were finding wars a game breaker, their analysis of course and that issue will be there with my proposal, but with the limited number of war decs per entity it would not be as bad as it was with the previous system.
The ability to do blanket decs is something I want to curtail which is why I focussed on the number of war decs, but the point you made was about the sheer number of targets that they can get with a single dec against the largest nullsec alliance, though only a small number are in hisec, and most nullsec leaders don’t care about that.
There was every intention to widen the scope away from hisec indy players, while limiting the number of wars, there was also the intention to enable wars for small groups in hisec.
I get the sense that it is you who wants it both ways, you want to control hisec wars and hisec play because it impacts you, just like the change to medium structures pushed by your main alliance FC by the way, and CCP is fully focussed on nullsec and ignores hisec, the one size approach does not fit all and indicates a lazy development cycle by CCP.
What has been made very clear to me by the entire exchange with you, is that nullsec is the main reason why hisec play is so goddam awful. I have often thought it but you made me think that this is real.
Structures should not remain mandatory for a small hisec focussed war.
I have applied hard limits to the number of wars that an entity can apply, it is in my proposal, something that you seem to ignore, and a war against a nullsec alliance becomes a blanket war only because of your success in developing so many players. Success sucks!!!
The blanket wars were an issue based on CCP’s analysis in that new players were war decced and stopped playing, so a limit has tro be applied in some sense, but I don’t think a new player in a major nullsec alliance is at the same level of risk in terms of leaving the game as a player in a small hisec corp or alliance. Something that you do not seem to get.
Still I have to say you gave me many wow moments here, so thanks.
Feel free, many people I know who rather like Brisc, as I do too, did not think he covered himself in glory in that thread, still the CCP developer was far far worse, so…
Just a quick reply, I tried to read everything but the conversation got so messy in the middle, I stopped somewhere.
My problem with your suggestion is the following:
-
it reestablishes the old problem why CCP did change wardecs at all. A group of vets can simply look out for newbie corps and wardec them until they quit. The newbs neither have the understanding nor the finances or assets to ever fight back. Thats how EVE lost numbers of new players until even CCP realized this “everyone can be wardecced by everyone” is a bad solution. Don’t repeat that mistake.
-
your “protecion mechanics” and “cost increases” mean nothing, because every organized group can just use different official corps filled with alts. So the target corp will be held permanently at war, no cost increases apply, the wardeccers just rotate the declarations. All assets can be shared via deliveries on a single base. You simply add lots of complexity that will in the end just make players find solutions that work around them. And you won’t have solved the problem.
The “problem” with any wardec system is that you have two groups of players - those who want to wardec, and only targets they can safely beat into the dust + those who don’t want to fight, they rather quit than be forced into combat, which hurts CCPs wallet and new player retention. And you cannot ever come up with a concept that would even remotely finds a balance between those two positions.
A good concept would focus on two things:
-
- a threshold below which a group cannot be wardecced, to give newcomers (especially groups of newcomers joining from other games) a time to establish, get some experience about the options and ways the game offers, finding an identity here and learn some basic mechanics. Also to allow groups of casuals to stay in the game at a low level, but still participating in the game experince and player community. Of course that comes with consequences and limitations, nobody should be able to get rich below that threshold or running large empires.
-
- a mechanic that is so simple, that even a totally new guy can learn the rules in reading a wiki article on one page in less than 5 minutes. No "if this, than that, if that, than this, but x can also do something that would change everything and finally y and z can join in and do something else. No. Keep. It. Simple. If you can’t explain it to a person not even playing EVE within 5 minutes, it’s a bad design.
Why don’t you ask Dark Shines if he really did. He may answer if he feels like it, and if it’s not covered under an NDA with CCP. He’s not only our main alliance FC, he’s the alliance leader, and a CSM representative. And even if he suggested it along the way, there’s no telling that CCP didn’t plan it before he even did suggest it, if he did. So stop gaslighting, thank you.
That’s odd. Nullsec alliances are not involved in hisec “play” at all. Why do you keep denying that ? Nullsec alliances are not in the business of hisec wardec’ing. Hisec folks are !! But sure, blame nullsec alliances for anything wrong with your hisec, it makes you look credible. Why don’t you settle your beef with “nullsec alliances” in nullsec ? Dotlan will show you the way. Or is it the old “oh but the csm is worthless because it’s all nullsec’rs” (it is not, btw).
What is a small hisec focused war ? One that is not against a large alliance, perhaps a sov holding nullsec alliance ? It becomes quite clear why you didn’t like the OP suggestion in the thread on “alliances have to have structures to be alliances”. We’re back at the “no need for structures” element in your suggestion … and you saying one thing and then the opposite the next moment, as in:
So which leg are you standing on now ? You either need or you don’t need. Can’t have both, says Ockham.
Structures should remain mandatory, period. No one wants random muppets wardec’ing the bejeezus out of anyone to satisfy their HISEC pvp “needs”, where the only structure they need is an NPC station, and for which there is no counterplay. No one but you and some other generators of “ideas”, that is.
Newsflash: the idea that wardecs are simply a way to have HISEC pvp is wrong. It’s only what some folks degraded it to, instead of keeping it as a way to resolve conflict between hisec entities.
Let’s assume you have proper source material for that statement. And so you force the current blanket wardec’ers to create more and smaller alliances/corps to keep up the numbers of wardecs they want and call that improvement. Like I wrote days ago: you simply spread that part of the wardec mess around and made more small groups in HISEC targets for them. You can say “oh, but that won’t happen”, and we’re back at square one. No, thank you. The need for structures, primarily the HISEC WarHQ for the attacker, keeps it in check !
People who keep defending a seriously flawed idea are often surprised. Piecing together the original idea and the alterations you made to it as a result of this discussion, it looks like this:
Your first point, I am painfully aware of that issue, I saw what CCP said when they changed the system and I had seen it happen to many new players. On the other hand so many players I came across wanted to fight back, but it was impossible.
So CCP just decided to place it on people with structures, and the people who got the full weight of war decs were hisec indy players who needed the structures to compete.
I realised that the protection mechanics had to make the number of wars very low to cater for the corp hopping and use of alt corprs and the like, my view was that the poor guys who gets all the attention would be not just the indy alliances and corps in hisec, but the number restriction would still have an impact.
I was always focussed on the many players I came across who wanted to fight, and there is more than you think. But once they made remote repping a criminal impact and made no allowances for allies I knew that it was over, very few people would fight back. There were quite a few people myself included who were interested in allying in on selected wars with the opportunity to take out a war HQ. But because CCP screwed up the allied repping it failed. That needs sorting no matter what.
I made the comment myself that most war decs are done against people they can easily beat, it is human nature.
But I can’t help thinking that small focussed war decs in hisec were good fun for new players, I saw that multiple times, but it seems that the farmers ruined that.
Good points as always.
you said it was nullsec’s fault, a few posts ago
ur welcome.
Well Brisc actually indicated that the alliance FC would be happy with these changes as they would be able to get people in fleets to blow them up. Still we are going off topic. So your gaslighting slur is way off base. Anyway, its done, its a huge pain in the ass and CCP are not going to change it, but the load it puts on many players in immense, who have to form up for every single medium structure, thank you Dark Shines for destroying their Eve. Thankfully in the alliance I am in my play is only affected by having to sit in certain systems just before DT with a HIC and a batphone, but the US TZ really get it bad…
That is odd indeed, nullsec players are all over hisec and do wars, and not all of them are linked to their nullsec wars. The biggest issue is nullsec changes like the one above being applied to areas with completely different balances, so that change to medium structures made the precarious situation of hisec indy groups even more precarious. Yeah I blame your FC for that, hell yeah.
I don’t as a rule go out of my way to shoot the Initiative though they are -10, mainly because Tactial Supremacy rolled up into them and I have friends in other alliances that ended up there, which indicates to me that Initiative is a pretty decent alliance. So excuse me if I don’t shoot your guys because I like them even if I grumble over some of the changes they pushed in game, I guess that makes me soft hearted, but whatever…
The CSM is utterly useless and terrible for hisec.…
That is quite ridiculous, to link being able to have an alliance to having a structure seemed a bit iffy, and linking the number of people you can have to the number of structures even more so. However the one thing I liked about it was that it took the pressure off of hisec indy by bringing in all manner of new war targets. But I did not like it because linking the existence of an alliance to structures and the number of structures just seemed so arbitrary and lame, I did not see the association and in a way I don’t see it with wars either in terms of having a structure makes you war eligible, I am being entirely rational here. The only thing structures do is put skin in the game so to speak.
So tell me again that I am saying the opposite again and I will just chuckle…
And there you go, to resolve your difference in hisec, you have to have a war HQ, right…, so all you new players forget about PvP in hisec and run out to nullsec, so you get your recruits, fine. This is not the reason I am suggesting this change at all before you start on that line of attack, but because I think small hisec wars between hisec entities can be fun and they got chekec out with the bath water.
It is what CCP said, they said pointless wars that had no end and no meaning, which is the definition of a blanket war dec which is to just try to get as many active targets as possible which you obviously know about as a nullsec alliance and what happens to your players in hisec at times.
The flaw is not so much wishing for a decent hisec mechanic that enables decent fun wars, but the farmers that farm it like crazy while then getting upset at the state of hisec wars. So just end war decs completely then, why place it all on hisec indy players?
If you want to feel that feel free, but hisec wars were ruined by an excessive amount of farming by vertan hisec war deccers, I have been saying that for years, I never said hisec wars were ruined by nullsec, you really do twist things massively. I was finding it fun, but I think you are over doing it now.
Next thing you will throw at me is I think that the change to escalations in WH’s requiring a dread to stay in the site to get the spawn was caused by Briscs left toenail.
I suggest you do a thorough re-write of your suggestion, as it stands now. Your attempt to bury the criticism and discussion below a pile of back-and-forths is not constructive.
If you want, I will add my few points that are opposing your suggestion. That’s it. No need for more than that.