About wardeckers in High Sec and solution

[Lena_Crews]

@Teckos_Pech

@Lena_Crews

You are taking a statement about the results of a decision (the decision to attack causing a suspect timer resulting in more conflict from that decision, and suggesting that I was making a prediction about how the behavior of attackers might change based on that.

I am pointing out that you are assuming the decision will be made in a way that suits your argument. I am pointing out that the players actually have a choice there, indeed, many choices and options in terms of strategic and tactical behavior and that your conclusion is no sound.

Suppose I write:

Given that Bob attacks Sue, then Frank and Joe can join in.

Now, that might be true given the mechanics change you are recommending.

My point is that I’m calling into question the part that goes, “Given that Bob attacks sue…”. One way to approach this problem is for Bob to NOT attack Sue. In which case there is no increase in conflict. Further, you are assuming that Frank and Joe are going to attack (which they must if conflict is going to increase). What if Bob changes his tactics so that Frank and Joe do not want to attack? Again there is no increase in conflict. In economics this kind of assumption is called ceteris paribus which means, “all other things the same, or unchanging or constant”. All other things are not constant so you should be careful saying it will promote more conflict.

@Lena_Crews

I’ll try to make this very simple and clear.

I know how your suggestion works. My point is about the dynamics.

@Lena_Crews

By adding a suspect timer for a war aggressor attacking a war target, they will end up (on average) getting more conflict every time they choose to attack. It won’t always be more… but it will never be less.

As I noted one solution to avoid this “war against all” would be not engage in wars of aggression, if this actually obtains then it would be less conflict.

This is essentially my point. You are assuming nothing else changes including player behavior. That is a very bad assumption and why so many of CCPs attempts to get to a given outcome have fallen on their face.

@Lena_Crews

I’m making no predictions on how wimpy those declaring war are. Perhaps they are so risk averse that some choose to avoid that conflict by not declaring war or by not attacking targets with witnesses around.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? If they do “not declar[e] war or by not attacking targets with witnesses around” that would be less conflict.

@Lena_Crews

You seem to have a very one sided and… dare I say… simplistic view of the game.

No, my view is far, far more complex than yours.

Again… the increased conflict is for the person once they are declaring the war. I get that you believe less wars will be declared because of this. I disagree… but I understand what you’re saying. The point of the suggestion is not about how many wars are declared… it’s about how much conflict gets created as the result of a declaration and how risk gets apportioned between the parties once a war is declared.

If the wardec corps want to avoid attacking or declaring wars due to fear of neutrals jumping in, that doesn’t change the fact that those who keep declaring wars will get more conflict out of their war declarations should attackers go suspect.

How they react to the threat of additional conflict is simply not what I’ve been discussing.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Lena_Crews

Again… the increased conflict is for the person once they are declaring the war.

And there you go again. You are assuming that this will happen. What if it happens less frequently or not at all as a result. Then we have less conflict not more.

@Lena_Crews

I get that you believe less wars will be declared because of this.

I did not say that. I said it is one possibility. Note that “a possibility” is not the same as “a will”.

@Lena_Crews

The point of the suggestion is not about how many wars are declared… it’s about how much conflict gets created as the result of a declaration and how risk gets apportioned between the parties once a war is declared.

Again, we are talking about a complex adaptive system. These thing can move in ways that are not easy to predict. In a complex adaptive system even if we assume you have perfect understanding of individual parts (a massively heroic assumption) that may not translate into even a good understanding of how the system as a whole operates.

One thing about complex adaptive systems is that they display emergent behavior (aka spontaneous order). And James Buchanan had a really great insight in terms of emergent behavior in markets, that the order we observe is defined in the process of its emergence. That is, it cannot be “pre-defined”. You cannot determine a given outcome and then implement some sort of “policy” so that outcome obtains.

So when I say, “Be careful.” I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but that you should have more humility when looking at the possible outcomes of a change in the mechanics. Overall it might result in more conflict…or it might not and it could even lead to less overall conflict.

@Lena_Crews

How they react to the threat of additional conflict is simply not what I’ve been discussing.

But that is really the crux of the issue when you say, “…more conflict…” You admit that war deccers would not like this. Thus, it will be something they seek to mitigate as much as possible. For example, it might push war deccers right out of Jita. In which case we’d probably see a net loss in conflict.

I am not saying any of these things will occur, I am merely noting that they could and their result would be the opposite of what you have claimed in your support for you preferred change to the war dec mechanic.

[Forseti_Valkyrie]

@Teckos_Pech

If you think you are so badass and need to prove you are elite, then go do it against someone who wants the same. If you have a legitimate cause to bring a wardec on someone, then so be it. But to just station camp, instalock and blap… have some pride ffs. Grow a pair and find a fight, don’t buy a cheap slaughter.

HS is already safe enough.

Avoiding wars is easy, as has been discussed to death.

Our current state of war decs is in part due to CCP’s blunders.

Now you want even more security.

You could just try not being bad.

• What?
• Sure, avoiding them is as easy as quitting the game… which is directly attributable to unlimited wardeccers.
• Thanks for reinforcing my point.
• Where did I say MORE security? exactly? Wardecs eliminate the entirety of security for those who want no part in pvp without cause (wardecs lack purpose)… which again leads to players leaving and never coming back, especially newer and less knowledgable ones.
• How am I bad? I station trade and PREEEEETY sure I don’t show up on any killboard that exists. I’m bad because I recognize and understand why players leave the game? I recognize that so many ‘leets’ have nothing better to do than to prove they can be dicks and destroy any and all interest in this game for thousands of players on a monthly basis?

[Buggs_LeRoach]

horrible idea that would let space-rich players farm noobs for no cost . would do nothing about the legions of untouchable hauler / freighter / pi / mission runners that never leave the first npc corp . would punish those that actually have tried player-run corps , and didn’t like it or don’t have time to dedicate anymore .

the only good thing about your idea is it’s only half-thought out , therefore only half as shitty as it could be …

[Ima_Wreckyou]

If you don’t want to PvP then don’t play a PvP game.

[Lena_Crews]

@Teckos_Pech

I am not saying any of these things will occur, I am merely noting that they could and their result would be the opposite of what you have claimed in your support for you preferred change to the war dec mechanic.

So… you’re just arguing to argue?

Look, I AM talking about what will happen. If the results of attacking a war target result in a non-aligned person to attack the aggressor once… ever… than the change will increase conflict for people who declare war and attack targets.

I think it’s fair to say it will happen at least once. I suppose you can continue to argue for the sake of argument alone and say it MIGHT not happen… but the reality is you know someone will take a pot shot at some point on a suspect person just like they occasionally do now.

COULD it cause less war declarations? COULD it cause more? COULD the number remain the same? I don’t care… that’s not what I’ve been talking about. It’s outside of the scope of the discussion. When I say “more conflict” what I AM talking about is conflict for the people involved in the action causing the suspect timer. YOU are trying to redefine what I’ve said into something you’re wanting to… spout possibilities about I guess? I’ve told you repeatedly what the “crux” is of what I’m saying. Your’e just too dense to acknowledge it.

One last time… I’m not discussing/concerned/all that interested in what the impact is of this on the number of declarations made. I personally think it would have almost no impact, but it’s not what I’ve been talking about. I’m merely talking about the TRANSACTION of attacking a war target creating more conflict by creating a suspect timer. Please stop telling me that I’m talking about conflict as an eve-wide phenomena. I’m not. You’re completely mistaken.

[Lena_Crews]

@Ima_Wreckyou

If you don’t want to PvP then don’t play a PvP game.

Exactly, which is why I like the idea of the aggressor in a war getting a suspect timer when they attack a war target.

It only creates more opportunity for PvP as part of the action of attacking someone. It just puts the risk more toward the aggressor.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Dom_Arkaral

Magic word

There’s no way for them to dec you if you don’t go there

And if you avoid it during the dec you’ll likely have no trouble either.

[Dom_Arkaral]

Unless it’s Marmite and you live near Balle, Hek or Uemisaisen lul

Otherwise you’re 99% safe yeah

[Faylee_Freir]

I wish you crybabies would quit the game. This obviously isn’t the game for you.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Lena_Crews

So… you’re just arguing to argue?

No, I am saying your statements made with certainty are sloppy and quite possibly misleading and that the type of thinking that leads to them is one reason why see this one more nerf phenomena.

@Lena_Crews

Look, I AM talking about what will happen

No, you are talking about what might happen.

@Lena_Crews

If the results of attacking a war target result in a non-aligned person to attack the aggressor once… ever… than the change will increase conflict for people who declare war and attack targets.

Not necessarily. You are insisting on this with certainty, but we have seen time and again where this kind of thing does not result.

@Lena_Crews

COULD it cause less war declarations? COULD it cause more? COULD the number remain the same? I don’t care… that’s not what I’ve been talking about. It’s outside of the scope of the discussion. When I say “more conflict” what I AM talking about is conflict for the people involved in the action causing the suspect timer.

Again, you are using what is also known as “just so” reasoning and it is not very persuasive.

@Lena_Crews

One last time… I’m not discussing/concerned/all that interested in what the impact is of this on the number of declarations made.

You should be because now you are all over the place. Oh it will promote more conflict…but maybe not if there are fewer war decs.

Bottom line you have literally nothing to support your claim it is nothing other than a salesman’s attempt to make your proposal look more favorable that it may very well be.

Here is the problem, if A does X we’ll get more conflict.

Sure, if nothing else changes except your change to the mechanics. But all else is not unchanging, so your conclusion is doubtful. Both in its limited context and from a wider context.

You should stop using this kind of dubious logic.

[Ima_Wreckyou]

@Lena_Crews

Exactly, which is why I like the idea of the aggressor in a war getting a suspect timer when they attack a war target.

It only creates more opportunity for PvP as part of the action of attacking someone. It just puts the risk more toward the aggressor.

How often do you attack suspect logistic alts under the current system?

[Celeste_Dixie]

Here’s my take, which likely is just going to be buried in this crazy long thread…

I enjoy the game, and I like the ever-present danger even in high-sec. However, I do think that the non-stop wardecs can be quite an annoyance for small corps that simply can’t defend or don’t want to. Everyone says “just drop to NPC for the duration”, which works fine - but again, just becomes an annoyance.

How so? Here’s my situation. I have a very small corp that caters only to some close friends and family members. These people have zero interest in pvp. It used to be that we’d chug along fine in our corporation, some liked to mine, some more the industrialist, some liked to play space-trucker. They accepted the risk or ganks, part of the game. Once in a great while we’d get wardec’d. But these days - the wardecs are nearly constant. We don’t have citadels or POCOs. As others have said, we’d get wardec’d by huge corps/alliances that have 70-100 active wars already. I watched one rep fly into an area in a shuttle and wardec every corp in system.

“Just drop to an NPC corp.” Yep - but that harms our little group of players, as all sense of belonging to a group dies. We can’t easily share items with corp hangers, lose the corp chat, etc. I’ve directly seen it harm retention.

Solution to this problem - social corporations. They’ve been brought up in the past. Basically, allow a lower-level of corp that has only a couple of the advantages of a corp (chat channel, corp hangers, etc), and no-wardecs-allowed of being in an NPC corp. HOWEVER, you don’t get to have any structures (citadels or POCOs), and you still get taxed the NPC tax rate.

Some might whine, “aaaaah but now people can hide in a social corp!” Well, they can hide in an NPC corp as well.

Some might say, “If you don’t want to PVP don’t play a PVP game!” Why wouldn’t you want these players? You can still suicide gank them if you want. They pay for accounts and help fund the continuation of a game you like. And maybe if their social corp grows and wants to expand into structures and pvp, they’ll flip that switch and become that kind of content.

[Dom_Arkaral]

Have you thought about going to some dead-end system where no one ever goes?

[Celeste_Dixie]

We have moved to backend systems. We just recently moved, in fact - we all moved while in NPC corps. New system is almost always empty. Wardec’d within 5 hours of the corp reforming, by an alliance that had 74 active wars and 22 pending wars at the time we got the wardec notification. All had to drop corp again, and two said they were done ‘for now’ with Eve.

I get it, some will just say “This ain’t the game for them.” But again - do you really want to drive players away due to annoyance or find a way to keep them that doesn’t compromise the game (again, because we can just live in NPC corps anyway)?

The social corp idea doesn’t solve the perceived issues with the wardec system, it just solves some of the annoyance of playing the drop-to-NPC corp games and player retention when you can’t continue to feel like you are part of some group.

[Faylee_Freir]

The mentality that you can play this game with friends to be left alone boggles my mind. You aren’t left alone in Nullsec, lowsec, or wormholes… highsec is no different.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Celeste_Dixie

I enjoy the game, and I like the ever-present danger even in high-sec. However, I do think that the non-stop wardecs can be quite an annoyance for small corps that simply can’t defend or don’t want to. Everyone says “just drop to NPC for the duration”, which works fine - but again, just becomes an annoyance.

Or maybe you could…you know, think out side the box.

Like move your hauler/hauling alt to and NPC corp and have him do the hauling while under the safety of an NPC corp…much like the NS corps/alliances do.

@Celeste_Dixie

How so? Here’s my situation. I have a very small corp that caters only to some close friends and family members. These people have zero interest in pvp. It used to be that we’d chug along fine in our corporation, some liked to mine, some more the industrialist, some liked to play space-trucker. They accepted the risk or ganks, part of the game. Once in a great while we’d get wardec’d. But these days - the wardecs are nearly constant. We don’t have citadels or POCOs. As others have said, we’d get wardec’d by huge corps/alliances that have 70-100 active wars already. I watched one rep fly into an area in a shuttle and wardec every corp in system.

Welcome to the post-watchlist game. Yeah, it sucks. However, consider the situation from the other side…you want to have war targets, but now finding them is rather problematic. So instead you sit in a trade hub and wait for them to come to you.

Why bigger war dec corps? Well, to war deccers a war dec is like a club good. If each player can support 1 dec, by banding together the war dec corps with 75 guys can have 75 wars at one time. This means they can all have a higher chance of finding targets

@Celeste_Dixie

“Just drop to an NPC corp.” Yep - but that harms our little group of players, as all sense of belonging to a group dies. We can’t easily share items with corp hangers, lose the corp chat, etc. I’ve directly seen it harm retention.

For the chat, you can make your own chat channels.

If you base out of a citadel (not necessarily one you own) you can make use of the delivery function which can help with sharing items.

@Celeste_Dixie

Solution to this problem - social corporations. They’ve been brought up in the past. Basically, allow a lower-level of corp that has only a couple of the advantages of a corp (chat channel, corp hangers, etc), and no-wardecs-allowed of being in an NPC corp. HOWEVER, you don’t get to have any structures (citadels or POCOs), and you still get taxed the NPC tax rate.

Some might whine, “aaaaah but now people can hide in a social corp!” Well, they can hide in an NPC corp as well.

I’d probably want more restrictions maybe limit on number of corp members and limit on offices…maybe some other I haven’t thought of yet.

BTW, this will be a huge boost to NS logistics. Instead of having to live in an NPC corp they can switch to these.

[Celeste_Dixie]

We aren’t expecting to be left alone - as I stated, we can be ganked, bumped, griefed, etc. All I’m addressing is that wardecs cause A LOT of small corps to just disband or drop to NPC corps, and that in turn hurts retention. All I’m suggesting is that you can keep the wardec-free NPC corp status while still being in a group of players. You get no advantages other that social ones (sharing stuff with hangers and chat). No other protections. No other advantages, like lower tax rates or citadels/stations/poco’s.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Celeste_Dixie

Wardec’d within 5 hours of the corp reforming, by an alliance that had 74 active wars and 22 pending wars at the time we got the wardec notification. All had to drop corp again, and two said they were done ‘for now’ with Eve.

You or one of your members is popping up in local for a trade hub, maybe one of the systems on the trade lanes. That is why you got decced.

You need to tell your members to stop doing this. Figure out an alternative. Yes, it is annoying and adds to the costs of running a corp, but that is as it should be. If you want to avoid war decs then put in the effort to do so.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Celeste_Dixie

We aren’t expecting to be left alone - as I stated, we can be ganked, bumped, griefed, etc. All I’m addressing is that wardecs cause A LOT of small corps to just disband or drop to NPC corps, and that in turn hurts retention. All I’m suggesting is that you can keep the wardec-free NPC corp status while still being in a group of players. You get no advantages other that social ones (sharing stuff with hangers and chat). No other protections. No other advantages, like lower tax rates or citadels/stations/poco’s.

With player created chat channels all you really are asking for is some sort of method to share hangars. Then again, for this added costs you avoid war decs…doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me.