The foundations of EVE it’s CCP doing business. No business, no EVE. I already laid out what’s the matrix of options: voluntary wardecs and structure removal are the only reasons to be for a wardec mechanic. And some of the structure removal should be authomated since inactive accounts don’t need structures on grid.
Is pvp
And you start to sound like Salvos with your It’s either this option or that one, nothing else is acceptable approach 
1 Like
There already is this safe mode in the game - it’s called “not logging in.”
That’s the problem.
2 Likes
Exactly! No PvP sandbox, no EVE, no business. The PvP sandbox is the selling point of EVE. If you remove that you have just a shitty little mining simulator with the most boring PvE ever. Good luck with that.
2 Likes
Are you defending her argument for a 100% secure highsec now? Because that’s what she was talking about?
1 Like
My memory must be faulty, when did I say that? 
Hope that helps
2 Likes
I said what that people want, not what they should get. Also there’s more to PvP than wardecs.
Highsec… 
I really don’t know what else to say. I do but I don’t feel sorry for the elite highsec PVPers who are being asked by the great CSM @Brisc_Rubal to take a blind leap of faith that some sort of wardec rework is gonna make it right next April. Horrid gameplay anyway, and worst sec space in the game by far. Good luck with that.
I know it is terribly rude to use a ‘deadname’, but I have to know…
Is that you Ank?
How safe are we supposed to make highsec? As Yiole as pointed out, some highseccers simply do not wish to PvP at all. Are we heading in a direction with complete safety in highsec?
If that is the case, wouldn’t it be reasonable to decrease the amount of highsec systems, so we at least limit the space where people can be completely free of PvP?
Should we not then also increase the tools for aggressors in low/null/wh space? As I understand the data from the monthly economic report, the game is injected with too many assets and too much isk. So in order to keep the economy healthy, we need more ways to blow stuff up.
I can never understand why when discussing a long term and well known broken War Deccing mechanics and possible changes/fixes to make the system more enjoyable/active/enticing, the issue of removing ALL PvP in High Sec is brought up. The two issues are far separate; lets not conflate them. Those that are advocating changing the WD are trying to fix long standing broken game mechanics. Those advocating for a PvP free HS are advocating for another game entirely.
Yes indeed. But I think the CSM reps are to blame here as some of them just see wardecs or aggression in general in highsec as annoying and not part of their EVE game play. I suspect that some of them just want to use it as a secure logistic and farming zone for their alts. And that is why we get so little in the direction of actually making things fun for everyone, as their goal is mainly to reduce the impact this has on their operations.
We will see what CCP comes up with in Q1. But so far I’m very pessimistic. I hope it will not turn this into a shitty minigame no one wants to play and completely removing every sandbox spirit from it. That would be a real shame, and it would just push a lot of people who enjoy wardecs either out of the game (I mean a lot left already because wardecs are so shitty) or into suicide ganking.
This is flat out wrong.
The reason why we are paying attention to it is solely because we have seen the metrics and heard from players over and over again that this is a problem that it is driving players away from the game. No MMO can withstand losing new players in significant numbers - MMOs are traditionally treated like a bucket with a hole in it - you’ve got to keep filling the bucket to keep water in it or else the bucket’s empty. As older players quit, we need newer players to step in and start playing and that’s hard to do in any 15 year old game, but it’s especially hard when there are mechanics that can be used to screw over newish players that we need to stick around.
This is not a hard concept, and that’s why I don’t understand why the handful of hardcore war dec fans keep misrepresenting and deflecting the reasons why those of us on the CSM are advocating for changes.
As I have repeatedly said, the most effective tactic available for players when being wardecced is to stop playing for a week. That’s unacceptable. That needs to change.
5 Likes
Believe it or not, there are those of us who prefer the PVE style of EVE over PVP. Unlike some people I don’t have time to sit on my ass for 12 hours bumping someone, or going around ganking miners who are minding their own business. I log in, run a mission or two, make a few isk, then log off and go about my day.
i get the whole concept of without pvp there is no pve… well it works both ways. those of us who are pve’rs who get wardecced for no god dang reason, other than wrong place and wrong time, because we’ve never been wardecced and some assholes were feeling salty over losing all kinds of isk, is ■■■■■■■■ when all we do is run missions or offer to help new people who join the game find where they wanna go whether its in null, low, worm, FW, hauling, missioning, straight PVP, straight PVE.
the war decs need changed ASAP. the fact that 5 big corps put out blanket wardecs and sit on jita like flees in a camels ass, needs to be fixed. I applaud CSM and CCP for looking into this and getting it changed. inb4 some salty ass CODE or wardeccers flag my comment.
2 Likes
They do talk about fixing wardecs, but I didn’t notice anyone arguing against aggression in general in highsec. That’s quite a big leap for you to make mixing those two together.
1 Like
So how safe are the CSM or CCP (if you know), willing to make highsec in order to satisfy those wishes?
Having attempted to discuss this with an advocate for complete safety in highsec, I’m trying to figure out if complete safety for highsec is something even on the table? As you can see in the comments above by Yiole, some people are wishing for complete safety and will keep putting out feedback with the attempt to sway the development in that direction. Would complete safety be too far, since it goes against what eve fundamentally is about (“assets can be destroyed everywhere”), or are we willing to compromise on this fundamental aspect of eve in order to satisfy a vocal segment of the player base?
Personally, I don’t mind the changes to wardecs as they currently have been announced. However, my gut feel tells me that it might not necessarily fix the problem that the data was suggesting. Whether or not the problem remains, depends on whether highsec wardeccing corps are going to switch to structure bashing instead of trade hub/trade pipe camping. For the sake of argument, let us say that the war efforts indeed are going to be focused on killing all and every structure in highsec not properly defended, then I can see the same complaints emerging again, together with people not logging in. People will come back complaining about how unfair it is for the little guy to compete with citadels and how hard it is to defend one in their 5 man corp.
The problem is that, people who are not willing to PvP will not do it, no matter the tools they get to fight back or engage in the content.
As I see it, it is a problem of perception, as well as having too many incompetent highsec CEO’s forcing players to play according to their play style.
Eve does not do a very great job of informing new players, that losing ships is a fundamental part of the game and that it is completely fine to lose expendable ships as long as one is able to replace them. Yes, we have the “8 Golden rules of eve” thread, but how many newbies actually explicitly check the forums with the intent to find this information? It is logical, that players not used to how eve work would naturally feel that “death” or loss of a ship, is something one should avoid at all cost. So they do the only thing they know, in order to keep their ships safe, which is being docked. However, experienced eve players know, that one needs to be willing to bet your ship in order to engage with the outside world and get interesting content. Thus, it should be made more clear in the ingame NPE, that losing ships is encouraged and a vital part of the game.
In addition to newbies not fully comfortable with losses, we have the corps newbies often get into. There are so many highsec corps with incompetent leadership that prey on newbies. They recruit them with the sole purpose of having these newbies fill the leaders coffers, by forcing them into activities they only deem ok. So these leaders, will force players to stay docked whenever a wardec arrives. Since the leaders are natural carebears, they force their own playstyle and fears on the newer players, who are not necessarily prone to same risk aversion. Sometimes the leaders are not risk-averse because of some conscious decision. Sometimes it is simply because of their own inexperience with the game mechanics, so it becomes a case of “the blind leading the blind”.
I am not sure how to fix the highsec leadership part since it is a meta problem. But I believe better attempts at explaining ingame what eve is about, would definitely be a realistic objective.
I also believe that any attempts at making highsec safer, needs to be accompanied with more tools to explode ships elsewhere. As I mentioned in my above post, I believe that there are currently too many assets entering the eve economy. So an attempt to remove assets and isk from the game should be done, in order to keep the economy healthy. But the topic is probably too complex, nor appropriate for this thread since it is about highsec specifically.
1 Like
Perhaps. But Ima is pessimistic because some pretty terrible ideas have been suggested for both highsec and wardecs over the years by both players and even the generally nullsec-focused CSM. I agree with you though - there has been no real suggestion to make highsec safe nor do I expect CCP to even consider doing so.
There is danger however the fail to learn the lessons of the last wardec revamp and try to fix things by just making it even harder to declare a war. Making it more expensive or tedious to play your game isn’t going to increase activity in the PvP game you are developing - it just going to drive people away on both sides from boredom. Similarly, turning corporation wars into a mini game will just result in a mechanic nobody uses and is a waste of time as we already have a war mini-game - Faction Warfare - that needs attention.
And I agree with Ima here there is danger CCP gets this wrong and wars are basically made impossible to use for anyone but nullsec groups and the “Big 5”. That won’t be the end of highsec aggression, but it will be the end of much of the sandbox gameplay for most of the modest-sized groups that live in highsec which would be a shame. They would still be farmed by the “Big 5” routinely, maybe even more-so given wars of harassment against nullsec would be off the table, and things will just get worse.
But I am usually much more of an optimist than Ima. I think CCP really wants a war system that allows everyone to fight everyone as is the core idea of this game so I am hopeful they use this opportunity to build a war system useful for everyone, from the smallest corp to the largest coalition. That probably means they will have to ignore most of the suggestions whispered into their ears by the null-centric CSM or shouted by self-interested carebears and spend some significant effort, not just small tweaks, but I think they will try.
3 Likes
I know you are a politician, so lying is probably second nature for you. But this is just borderline bullshitting now, given CCP explicitly stated that new players are not affected by wardecs except for your nullsec recruiting corps who had all the resources, manpower and knowledge to protect them!!
So cut the crap! At least be honest about your intentions!
I’m not disagreeing that there should be something like social corps! I disagree with your approach that is NOT fixing wardecs and just cripples them in a way no one wants to use them because you don’t care about that gameplay!!
I have seen NOT A SINGLE CSM talking about how to make wardecs more interesting and accessible! All that’s coming from you bunch is the same retorical ■■■■■■■■ about new players quitting we know isn’t true and gets abused to push the agendas of older players like yourselves for over a decade now!!
4 Likes
I’m pessimistic because the CSM like the general carebears come with the same “think of the children” to justify their stupid ideas, generally dismissing any other ideas brought forward appart from just simply limiting wardecs to address the current meta.
Addressing the meta directly is probably the most idiotic thing to do in a sandbox game, as it does not address the underlying problem and just shifts it until one month later everyone adapted to the new rules and everything starts over again.
I think you wrote basically the same thing, but as always far more eloquent 
2 Likes