I don’t want. You have made enough points, you effectively said what Syzygium said but embellished it a bit with fun stuff.
Credit to you @Dracvlad , some elements in the discussion led to you altering your initial suggestion as to accommodate for things that you either overlooked or made sense to you at least. The result is spread over several posts that no one will start to look for. There is no post with a full disclosure of a matured suggestion, just saying.
So a re-write is probably the best thing you can do right now, to make it readable for anyone taking an interest at a level higher than the forum. Perhaps you could even skip the step of the forum altogether and send it straight to Mike Azariah, our current hisec CSM rep.
P.S, Thank you for flagging my (only) reply to Zaera. Petty, but quite understandable.
1 Like
I wonder if the discussion goes on long enough then whether he alters it so much over the course of such that he will revoke the proposal in the end.
Dear citizen, (forum-)CONCORD has been alerted to your presence, please stand by for disciplinary action. Thank you for your cooperation.
1 Like
That was always a possibility as I am painfully aware of the issue that Wadiest and Syzygium have both focussed on despite it appearing otherwise. I know that this is a major issue and when I suggested the change I was focussed on putting suitable restrictions to try to make it so that people are not blanketed in a crazy way. But we are dealling with veteran PvP farmers who are really good at getting around mechanics so it was always going to be a difficult one.
Oh, and just for the record, in case anyone wonders who is presenting actual statements,
here’s the relevant quote:
must be my “reading ability and comprehension” 
I hope Dark Shines isn’t going to make me the culprit for the “goddam awful hisec play”. I have sec status 5.01 after all, and am a single account player. I do 99% of my pewpew in nullsec, thank you, and I’m not even good at it (got ganked last night, lost my ship after killing 1 of a party of 4). 
That seems a bit desperate to link the terrible state of war decs and loss of new players due to veteran hisec farmers over fishing to a general comment about the state of hisec due to changes made to the game to accommodate major nullsec alliances, like medium structures for example losing a timer due to nullsec issues in forming fleets to blow them, but as I said if you wish to think that than feel free.
One account only, impressive, I have to have two to play. And good job in killing one of them.
Since you insist …
it’s a word for word copy of your words, you literally made nullsec responsible, not the blanket wardec’ers who operate in hisec, oh no sir. Ironically, now you also blame nullsec for the loss of new players in hisec. I guess once you made the first step, the second one follows inevitably.
ah yes, CCP is controlled by the nullsec blocs, of course, I forgot that part. Are Hilmar, Burger and Rattati aware of this ingenious infiltration of their business ? Or are you suggesting that they and their co-workers are oblivious to the needs of hisec, or the consequences of the changes they implement ?
oh, so the “goddam awful hisec play” is a recent thing, and it wasn’t before - like when keepstars were still allowed to be anchored ? Of course not, why even bring that nonsense up ? It’s not a valid element to even support the reason / motivation to have any changes to the wardec system, because it simply is not true. It was a mess before even Keepstars could be anchored in hisec, lol.
Must also be the reason why you think the CSM is useless because you think it’s dominated by nullsec reps (it isn’t, check the list). But if that is what you want to believe, feel free.
Thank you. I think I hurt them just a little. After killing the one guy from soe uni, who for some inexplicable reason stayed within optimal of my autocannons (less than 20 km) in his malediction without being pointed. they balled up in the next system without even a gf in local and filamented out. I assumed he was their “teacher”. It looks like I was right and cut their lesson short 
I warned him about that situation in A better way for War dec's - #77 by Wadiest_Yong and again in A better way for War dec's - #79 by Wadiest_Yong after his first refusal to make a solid update on his suggestion. If he doesn’t want to have the discussion here, that’s fine too. He can always send it straight to the hisec csm rep Mike Azariah.
For the record, I am against his proposal if it changes anything on the current wardec rules, unless it’s a limit on active wars per war declaring entity (and even that, with hesitation). I would also support some clever changes to the Concord rules in hisec where it concerns “official war allies” sharing the same fleet. That’s it on my side.
1 Like
Cleaned up several posts for the reasons below:
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
1 Like
‘‘fun’’ wars should be relegated somehow over a resource field or sp; i realise this sounds a bit off but im also a fan of wardecks and have missed hs fun type wardecks and we all know the old system was too easy to troll new upcoming groups…
SO… resource war could be a temporary system or constellation type war over lets say one resource… could be specific resource or a couple of differing ones; the void could be filled with many items but out of the bag lets say a comet and the local authority will only give access for one group to mine it… anyway thats the general idea…
And skill point based, think a voluntary sign into wardeck option but based on corporation skill points so tat the playing field is ‘even’ - could also tie it into faction standings; this idea would mean groups of newbies can have at it with each other without being trolled by ‘elite’ campers with multipl logi and other support and could also be a boon for solo pvpers… wars should probably be limited in area and have some sort of target.
But no, random wardecks so you can troll newbies is not the way forward.
Resource wars had/has some potential to provide interesting conflicts of various size. However there’s a fundamental problem with EVE design that interferes with all these wardec or conflict re-imaginings.
EVE combat/conflict essentially has nothing to offer the loser - except a learning experience. And the first thing most players learn from a loss is “I shouldn’t have entered a fight where it was possible for me to lose”. As more and more of the player base learns this, EVE has trended overwhelmingly to wardecs and combat where the aggressor has a very high chance of winning.
Over time, this means people who want to wardec join the big wardec groups (so they have low chance of losing), people who don’t want wars join non-wardeccable groups or simply quit playing. No matter how you limit the ability of wardec groups to declare wars, they’ll still only declare against groups they know they can beat (in general).
A decade and more ago there was still room in the game for newer groups and smaller groups who hadn’t learned “only fight where you can win” yet. That’s not the case anymore with the reduced, multi-account, jaded player base and there’s not enough new blood coming in to start any new trends.
If EVE stays centered on “only choose fights you can win” then wardecs will remain the failed mechanic they’ve been for over a decade now. As will most other forms of combat in EVE.
4 Likes
I still think the restrictions I placed on the number of war decs will have an impact on the farming. What I will suggest is that any character that was in a war dec that was ended and causing a one week block will carry that with him wherever they go, so if they join another war deccer that will block them from doing a war until teh week grace is over, if they join and there is a war it will drop immediately, the onus is on the CEO accepting them to verify this, tough luck if you muck up.
Reading one of the replies above, I was reminded that, even with more resources becoming available to defenders, there might still be a problem.
It’s well known that some folks just don’t want to engage in armed conflict. We see evidence of this daily in the Forum, and I don’t know that your admittedly anecdotal impression that defenders just want it to be easier to fight back, will make a huge difference. We can’t really know the answer to this.
Given that in order to implement some of the ideas you propose, CCP would have to commit precious time and resources, they will have to be certain that the results (I’m only talking about Highsec) would justify the investment.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m still in favour of making changes. I just wonder whether they will be enough to encourage very much of a response from players. A bit like the Duel or Limited Engagement features. Larger, PvP-centric entities may welcome change and opportunity (and there is obviously numerical significance in that), but I’m not so sure about defenders, particularly industrial corporations.
Just musing here, Dracvlad.
1 Like
This is the reason for doing the most important part of this suggestion, enabling allies to be allies. The current situation makes wars impossible and one can argue that wars are falling on the indy players trying to improve their production capabilities and do not have the skill sets to. My own characters are a good example, I have two that are indy focussed, and I am still in the process of giving tham basic PvP skills, one of which will be bombers, based around the skill set to make best use of the new haulers. Most indy characters don’t even have that!
I know it is anecdotal evidence, but I did come across enough people wanting to fight back, but when the change hit, allies could not be allies, it was still born, if only CCP had left it with the suspect flag only… But what about the fleet idea that the allies immediately share the same enemies as the defender when in fleet and can rep and fire to their hearts content, maybe that is the best idea?
Wars are focussed on them as I said above, this gives them skin in the game, but they don’t have the skill sets, it is a complete mismatch.
Thanks and making good points while doing it.
1 Like
I think this deserves some qualification. EVE players sometimes get a bit too wrapped up in “the EVE way” and forget it’s just a tiny niche audience that caters to a specific type of gamer.
A gigantic huge audience of gamers wants to engage in armed conflict. Massive moneymaking game empires are based on huge swathes of the gaming crowd who enjoy nothing more than a good bout of kill-or-be-killed.
What the vast majority of gamers don’t want is the EVE style of armed conflict - ganking, N+1, hot drops, ambushes, etc. Basically all the various ways of ensuring that any fight you take on is an almost sure win. Then you add in auto-warpout bots, multiboxers, really long/boring travel times, TiDi, fly-by-wire controls, 1 second server ticks, etc.
What CCP has done is removed most of the interest for people who actually want “combat” and turned conflict into something more resembling a slow-paced game of cat and mouse.
As Dracvlad suggests, certainly some tweaks could be made to reduce mass farming of easy targets, and certainly some changes should be made to make it easier to ally up and defend.
That won’t change the fact that EVE has primarily two bases: the normal MMORPG crowd who want a game where they can be productive and progress their characters - and who in general aren’t interested in PvP because it’s neither productive nor progressive. And the very small niche of PvPers who want EVE’s uneven, ambush-style of combat rather than a somewhat fairer fight where the odds are (at least theoretically) more equal - which is what drives the massive success of the real PvP-combat games.
2 Likes
Thanks for that, Kezrai. I rarely err on the side of brevity 
and, of course, when I do, some things are left unsaid. You filled in the gaps nicely!
If we take a step back, it isn’t too difficult to see the direction in which CCP is currently taking the game. But that may change too, of course.
I know what kind of personality I have, its drivers, strengths, vulnerabilities. If a game manages to engage me sufficiently, I’ll play it - until it no longer does so; then I’ll stop.
No we don’t it was just fine
You do not speak for everyone, just yourself.
You finally said something I agree which believe me, is surprising you daft old bat…
I actually speak inline with many players whom i have flown with since 2007, people who had been in multple wardecks before the crimewatch changes and indeed after… before the crimewatch changes people used to get fights and it wasnt simply relegated to gate camping… which then turned into spamming multiple boring wars and trolling any newbro who wanted to make their own corp and actually achieved gaining more than 5 active members…
Who are you anyway? looks like my cyno toon has more kills than that character.
2 Likes
Personally, I think wardecs should be more like gaining letters of marque from the empires and corporations, more akin to privateering than anything else.
If holding sovereignty also gave the holder the power to declare an enemy state, either player or NPC then the same system could be applied again, creating a more dynamic system open for single players to large alliances to join or avoid, LP stores, player politics and more gameplay.
Deffinately better than the current system.
if it worked like letters of marque it could be similar to facwar, people could take on high level missions for corporations but open themselves to being attacked as well as playing into the whole sov politics game. I mean there’s a lot of things it could become, but just highsec structure bashing should never have been one.
2 Likes
I believe the opposite to be true there my friend, it is the few that believe wardecks have been in a good place since… 2014/2015 I think.
Its been full of people that cant really PvP for a decade and tying it into structures did not do much to help that save there are less campers about and more gankers.
These people do not undock for fights and cling to their killboards like their personality depends on it; having never taken a risk or tried using a strategy or tactic to win a fight instead of the standard crappy gate camp tactics they really are atrocious players that have done nothing to further the playerbase, in fact they have only harmed it.
Thats not to say i dont enjoy the occasional camp or fishing exercise but when the whole ethos has come to be ‘‘ermigerd mah killboard’’ and struggling to keep over 90% efficiency there is something intrinsically wrong with that part of the game; using the wardeck system to specifically kill haulers and nub corps because its worth nothing else is 100% a bad thing.
There should be more to it than that, i mean you could even have letters of marque where players not in faction warfare could be allowed to shoot at players in facwar… why cant i shoot angels and guristas militia btw?? wtf is that about…
1 Like