About wardeckers in High Sec and solution

(Lena Crews) #353

Here’s the problem… I never said this.

I said that if ‘A’ does ‘X’, ‘A’ will get more conflict. You are the one saying “we’ll” get more conflict.

I’m talking about adding more conflict for the aggressor in a war. You’re trying to discuss what the impacts of adding more conflict for war deccers will be.

I’m giving up on the discussion with you for now… because after explaining it several times I have to concede that either you’re not capable of understanding the distinction or you’re just unwilling to acknowledge it. At this point we’re just running in circles.

Me: Suspect timers in this situation add more conflict for those attacking war targets.
You: No it doesn’t, because people might declare wars less.
Me: I’m not talking about that… the person attacking will still get more conflict. It’s about the conflict for those choosing to go to war, not those who choose not to.
You: No… they might declare less wars.
Me: repeat.
You: repeat.

(CowQueen MMXII) #354

The mechanic of war dec is the mechanic to legally allow high-sec pvp. There are a lot of scenarios where it actually makes sense to have this.
There a re already mechanisms that allow participating in war decs even if not initially involved.
Your suggestion doesn’t necessarily create more conflicts/fights/whatever. There are multiple possible outcomes:

  1. it doesn’t change anything, because nobody will interfere -> waste of a feature and dev time
  2. people will actually create less conflict, because they lack control in the relevant combat situations -> the opposite of what you (pretend you) want to achieve
  3. War deccers will mitigate the feature by adjusting their behaviour, e.g. by creating even larger groups with more war decs per group, so outside interference will be much less likely -> situation for the aggressor doesn’t really change, fighting back on a normal scale will be more dificult -> slightly less conflict
  4. third party situations lead to interesting and fun fights for everyone involved -> highly unlikely, because “free for all fun fights” are very opposed to the current “you don’t start a fight you aren’t certain to win” culture.

This suggestion does nothing to change the core problem of war decs: there are too many of them that are only targeted at easy kill mails. Can they still be had with this change -> nothing changes (at least not for the better). Will the become (much) harder to get -> conflict will be less, also at the cost of wars that go beyond mass decs at trade hubs.
As long as their is no incentive for either side to actively engage (in contrast to just waiting for someone to show up), nothing will change. Aggressors will shoot what they can and defenders will dodge the wars when they want. What remains are the people who forget they are in war, are bored or have actually something to lose if they don’t fight back.

(Dom Arkaral) #355

If people want to be suspect they’ll go suspect.

A war that is legal has no reason of having any suspects in it lul.

(Lena Crews) #356

I’m not really concerned with the impact as a whole in terms of how many war declarations are made.

I’m simply more concerned with causing more conflict when wars actually happen. But I’m not limiting that conflict to the side being attacked.

Most killmails in eve are caused by surprise. People warping in on miners or mission/anom runners (in null, low or high). Gatecamps taking travelers unawares. Other than set locations like FW plexes or citadel timers (where both sides are prepared to fight), most of the time it’s all about surprising the other guy to kill him.

The current way wardecs work, there is very little opportunity to surprise the attacker. If others join the defender as allies, the attacker knows this. He can see them in system and knows when there are others who could potentially come to the aid of target they are looking to blow up. Few attackers are going to fall for a baiting attempt if he sees all the potential hostiles in system. It’s not like the ship can drop a cyno to bring in support… because it’s high sec.

The suspect timer allows more options for the defender to organize surprise retaliation. It also allows for third partying of conflicts (though I doubt that would happen too often). You don’t know of those 10 neutrals in system actually are a group waiting to catch you in your attack and blow you up… or if they’re just passing through. It creates actual potential for defenders to catch the attacker in a conflict that really doesn’t seem to exist in today’s mechanic.

I mean… wouldn’t it be great if PIRAT or Black Flag or someone declared war on a smallish corp and ended up getting bushwacked by a fleet from a large alliance because that small corp was run by an alt of a big wig from the larger alliance? That doesn’t happen now… because as soon as the large alliance joins the wardec, the pirate corp knows about it and can choose to engage or not when the actual combat ships show up. Conflict (especially in high sec) pretty much requires surprise and alert players on either side can pretty easily avoid it. Wouldn’t this add a surprise element that currently doesn’t exist?

(Lena Crews) #357

Suspect is different than criminal.

Criminal is what you get if you do something “illegal” in eve. The police come after you.

Suspect means you do something where the police no longer protect you. They don’t come after you… they just withdraw their protection. Concord is basically saying that if you’re acting in a manner that might be provoking violence, they’re not going to punish anyone who does violence to you.

Shooting at other capsuleer ships could very easily be considered as acting in a manner that provokes violence… even if it comes under a war declaration. I don’t see the legal/illegal question as a factor with suspect timers… only criminal actions.

(Faylee Freir) #358

When you’re not at war it is illegal to shoot at another capsuleer. So illegal that CONCORD will blow up your ship.

When you’re at war it is legal to shoot at that wartarget that you’ve paid to dec. CONCORD will not shoot at you because you’ve paid the fee and legal aggression is fine by them.

You are wrong.

(Dom Arkaral) #359

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever

Wardeccers pay to be able to shoot people, so why would the general population be able to shoot them for free because of some suspect timer?!

(Starrakatt) #360

So… say that the defenders see an incoming attacker (now Suspect) fleet they can all leave corp and attackers can’t attack anymore, but the now ex-defender NPC corp players can, because ‘Suspect’ wardeccers.

Defenders now enjoy to pick and chose and decide if/when they want to shoot at Wardeccers without suffering a red corp KB and red war history.

Heck, if wardeccers became Suspects I’d sit all the time with a couple alts/friends (in NPC, CONCORD protected characters) around where these guys live and completely shut down any solo activity.

Your suggestion just turns the ‘neutral logi’ concept on its head and now everyone gets to be a ‘neutral attacker’.

(Ima Wreckyou) #361

So you basically have no idea what you are talking about?

Mercs already use neutral alts which go suspect when they start to rep. People could act on that already. But they don’t. You know why? Because the mercs are organised and will probably be able to do something about it.

If they have to go suspect to attack a war-target they will do it, but to make sure no one interferes they will bring extra people if it looks like someone in local might respond. Also crimewatch already has some “special” behaviour when it comes to wardecs and logistics. This will introduce even more situations which are confusing to players not familiar with the mechanics but will be used in some way to lock you into an unfair fight if you take the suspect bait.

Your idea if implemented will do absolutely nothing. Part of their setup already does that and they adapted, and no “good local citizen” will attack the suspect wardecer because you know, it may be a trap and they only shoot people if NPCs help them.

So let’s assume this will be implemented, “one more nerf to fix the game”, what will happen next? Nothing ingame obviously, as explained. The next “Lena Crews” will appear and demand “one more nerf” because still the evil mercs are dominating the small corps as they always did, they are probably even a bit bigger.

So what will be the nerf after that? Help from NPCs for the defender?

(Lena Crews) #362

Again… so what? It creates conflict.

As many have pointed out… the problem now is it’s easy to both avoid war decs and to avoid retaliation from a war dec if the defender has allies join.

If people do what you describe… GREAT. That’s content. They’re fighting back. We have conflict. That’s the goal here.

(Lena Crews) #363

How is this a nerf?

I must completely be missing your point here. A suspect flag nerfs nothing. It just lets more people get in on the pvp fun and gives more opportunity to lure people into PvP. That’s a good thing, right?

(Galaxy Pig) #364

LOL! Carebear apologists trying to justify their crappy arguments with “more conflict”…

Pathetically transparent.

(Minerva Arbosa) #365

Another set of useless exploitable ideas.

(Ima Wreckyou) #366

So what additional people will get in on the PvP fun and why aren’t they hunting neutral logistics already?

(Teckos Pech) #367

Now we get the irrelevant semantics debate.

Fine, whatever. Let me rephrase,

‘A’ does ‘X’, ‘A’ will get more conflict.

And you are still quite possibly wrong because we are talking about a complex adaptive system.

You seem to be missing the part where I also note they won’t keep doing what they are doing now. That they can change their behavior even when they attack to mitigate or even eliminate this increase in conflict you are claiming will occur.

Because it may not be that simple. Yes it can allow them to attack them, but the question is will anyone actually attack them? You have specifically said this will lead to more conflict. It is not clear that it will.

That is the same kind of thinking that lead to the watchlist being removed. Good job. :roll_eyes:

(Teckos Pech) #368

You keep writing this, but both Ima and I have been saying your logic is faulty. You are relying on “just so” reasoning vs. looking at how these things in fact tend to actually work out.

It is clearly intended as a nerf, to make war decs more problematic to prosecute.

That is a safe bet.

My God are you really this literal?

Ima just got done telling you it probably won’t happen like you think and why. War deccers already use neutral logistics alts. When those alts start repping their PvP mains they go suspect…and people don’t attack them now. Why would somebody attack after this change?

The problem is people in HS are disorganized while the war deccers are not. War dec players are going to be flying ships specifically fit to accomplish their task. They will implement strategies and tactics to help them achieve their goal. They will work together in groups. They will have comms and so forth.

The HS people you think will suddenly jump in generally:

  1. Do not want PvP at all as a general rule.
  2. They are not organized.
  3. They won’t be doing things like focusing fire on one ship.
  4. They won’t think to bring logistics.

The first one alone calls into question your claim. 2-4 also undermine your claim in that a single guy is unlikely to attack a group of players or even a group of pilots where most are alts.

Maybe if your average HS denizen was inclined to organize, use doctrine fits, some get into logi ships, focus fire, etc. then okay we might see something interesting. My guess is even if the war deccer were to go suspect nobody would shoot him.

Or if they did, they might respond in other ways such as bring a larger group. So we might see war dec corporations/alliances merge and get even bigger to ensure that at most hours of the day people can log in and get content. And with more people out there on the war deccers side, it will be even less likely somebody is going to start shooting somebody who goes suspect.

So, you might be right, but history has shown that no…no you probably aren’t.

(Teckos Pech) #369

Uhhh…errr…because reasons.

(Lena Crews) #370

Those hired by the defending side in a war.

The difference is they could do it with surprise as a neutral rather than have to join the war and be an obvious war target.

I’m sure a couple of logistics neutrals have been popped by third party people over the years too. Not many… but some. Those pot-shot takers will be there as well, but wouldn’t likely be a key factor.

(Ima Wreckyou) #372

And why isn’t this a thing now when they could perfectly well cripple the logistics already?

Your arguments are not really convincing that anything at all would change apparat from the obvious growing of the already existing big merc alliances.

(Dracvlad) #373

The solution is very simple, when you get a war dec from one of the blanket war deckers you play a little game, you jump into a character who is in your corp who is not training, make sure you are in an empty clone set your death clone to Amarr for example, then you jump into a noob ship and you go up and down the damn pipes and visit the markets hubs again and again and again, you job is to see if you can get past them, how many systems you can jump through and just treat it as one big laugh and see what happens.

If enough people did this it will end up being an even bigger joke than it is now.

There is nothing much wrong with the war dec mechanics a few tweaks here and there, but the issue is with the players and hisec.

Have fun!!!