I would have a problem with that, not least of all because of the collateral damage you create on other alliances who for some reasons don’t have “structures” (yet). Why would there be a need for all large entities - if we could even agree on the definition of “large” - to be open to wardecs, because some benefit seeking wise guys set up these sham alliances and spam recruit ?
That kind of reasoning could very well lead to someone else saying “let’s get rid of hisec altogether, no immunity anywhere”.
Wardecs are not the answer to your (legitimate) concerns. That’s like carpet bombing to hit one assassin.
You don’t need “structures” or wardecs to make an alliance meaningless, if that’s the purpose and if it’s justified - and not just a feeling.
Because the only way to get that large is by slurping up newbies. The proof is in the pudding, the big groups are by default the biggest offenders.
A group that invites on a per person basis and is active in high sec (like actually active) and isn’t just recruitment/intel/propaganda for a large null group is not going to be massive.
Straw man.
Why not? Wardeccing groups that get so big (through spam inviting newbies) seems like a great way to limit their functionality while at the same time making it less likely for newbies to join in the first place (“this corp is at war, are you sure you want to join”) or actively make them leave after they joined.
You wouldn’t have some say or characters in such groups, would you?
Not at all. You want structures imposed on anything that is simply “large”, with the sole purpose of being able to shoot them. We both know:
Not everything “large” needs to be shot at. Wars are usually fought for reasons except by hisec wardec’ing entities, who do it because it’s their business model, or because they act as mercenaries for other entities.
Some groups avoid having structures for avoiding wardecs, which is legitimately designed into the game by CCP to offer a way out - and of course not having the benefits of owning and exploiting a structure
You want to take away the choice of having wardec immunity. It’s only a matter of time before someone suggests “then there’s no need for wardecs at all. If we can’t make organizations anymore, then everyone should lose their individual immunity as well”.
Wardecs are primarily a hisec tool, for easy targets, and to annoy those targets they cannot reach directly (like strong nullsec and wh groups) or openly (acting as proxies).
So the messages and pleas to CCP to do something about the recruitment spamming ended up with zero result, and now the next attempt is to force structures on every “alliance” for the same, lofty purpose but now using the weapon of “wardecs” ?! Good luck. I think CCP is one step ahead of that.
Crafty question. It doesn’t matter what my response is, does it ? Didn’t you say you had alts everywhere ?
lol.
Maybe we can progress to a discussion about “standards” that an alliance or corp should achieve to be deemed “acceptable” in some players’ views of New Eden.
/sarcasm
You are asking for the impossible and clearly don’t understand how a lot of ganking works.
Although many gankers are in corps and alliances, there’s actually no need for any of that in order to gank. I could form a ganker fleet composed of people from completely different corps, or no player corp at all. Indeed, many of the larger ganks involving 40 - 50 gankers are precisely of that nature.
Thus the ability to gank has nothing whatever to do with alliances, as people can gank without any alliance or even specific corp. All they really need is a Discord group for comms. Making alliances ‘vulnerable’ is thus not going to do anything at all to stop ganking.
It’s not about the ability to gank. It’s the narrative of the gank.
People didn’t join Safety. to gank. They were already ganking. They joined Safety. to feel like what they do is anything but bullying in highsec. There was an interview with some Hawk dude, total loser btw, who went on and on about how their cause is legitimately good for the game. Greifing miners, rookies and haulers as an act of good.
These people operate under the guise of welldoers while being a syndicate of bullies and blackmailers. If you break their alliance, their narrative, they’ll keep ganking, without a doubt, but they won’t be able to do so with as much presence as they do now. Right now, highsec is plagued by a group of bullies that actively make the game unfun to anyone that participates in any activity in Highsec.
If you can’t explain the background of your so-called suggestion, better let someone else write your posts for you. But then, you’re not here for a discussion, are you, old boy. Or could it be that your reason is just as shallow as your suggestion that had barely any thought put into it ?
@Aiko_Danuja , that reads like it requires a reply straight from the source, but it’s essentially just another “Nerf Hisec Ganking” thread. So no need to interrupt your activities.
NO ■■■■ right? But why. CCP wants 10,000 man non-war ele noobs flying around in highsec who can still join a fight in null. Brave United? All the nullsec groups have this in place and CCP is idiotic by supporting it. Eve sucks tbh and its because of anti-pvp ccp. They just want to put a fence around all these sheep and farm them for visa transactions. Anyone who causes issues to the farming of nubs for credit card swipes is simply eliminated with creative game mechanics. Pay attention to the source when others speak.
Cold take, no, not a good idea. In my experience forcing things like that is rather counter productive, the most glaring one would be that you will lock people into old rich alliances which have created the stale game we have in nullsec atm for example.
In hisec you just give even more power (and ISK) to people like Blackflag, is that shaking things up, in my opinion your suggestion is entrenching them further.
One of the worst things CCP did was put the armour and structure of medium structures into one timer, it was done to make line members of big alliances more keen to structure bash, but all it did was make it even harder for smaller alliances and groups to survive because they spend so much time now forming up for do or die timers that people create by simply dropping a solo super just before DT as an example of boring play.
And creating structure spam to be able have n+1 just seems rather lame to me as a mechanic.
Except that it wouldn’t, we did this before official alliances existed in the game and we could do it again pretty easily, ACL’s exist and having a group chat channel that only has x corps in it is entirely possible already, there are a couple of extra steps but realistically this does literally nothing to fix whatever “problem” you think exists
There is nothing stopping you from ganking said players so go risk something for that reward
Much like corporations, alliances are tools for players to use to band together under a shared identity towards whatever goal or reason they deside on.
Structures should not be a requirement for it, as it limits the freedom to cooperate under a shared identity with other players.
Maybe there are some corporations out there containing members who like knitting woolen sci-fi themed pandas and want to alliance-up with eachother over this shared interest to use the shennanigans they get for inspirational guidance… Needing to have structures up should not get in the way of such a thing.
The key issue appears to revolve around “large groups you can’t reliably hurt”. Which also means, large groups you have a reason to want to hurt.
In that case it would appear “large alliances” aren’t really the problem, since a large social or boring or theme alliance isn’t likely to be a target of someone’s need for revenge. In this case the OP seems fairly targeted at ganker groups like Safety.
If this was a problem actually in need of fixing (because as many have stated, limiting alliances to structures wouldn’t stop something like Safety. from re-organizing under whatever format), then it would make more sense to address the root of the problem.
Should gankers continue to have a system and routine that basically makes them immune to counterattack? Should there be more counterplay options than simply “avoid being ganked”? Should they need to put more skin in the game than their disposable “the math says I’ll profit from this kill even if I lose this ship” setups?
I’m not a fan of ganking, but it also doesn’t bother me that gankers operate the way they do. I can certainly see however that there might be more actual conflict in the game if there was a way to force gankers into battle.
So instead of trying to tar all alliances with the ganker brush and make them all pay, why not try to focus on a conflict system that makes gankers fight for their right to parrrr-ty?
Drac if I’m remembering right you are an anti ganker right?
Now if structures where necessary to be in an alliance then anti-gankers could actually have a purpose by killing safeties structures and disbanding them.
Actually being able to do something to gankers will give more motivation for people to actually join the anti-gankers as a huge portion of high actually hates gankers so I would imagine you would easily get 500 or so in an alliance and be able to handle both black flag or safety.
Once upon a time there was 500 brave soldiers living from sendaya I used to farm them all day every day 1v3 np, years later they are now one of the most dominant forces in the game (Brave).
The same will happen in high sec they just need time and a purpose to unite.
