Hot take - Alliances should require structures

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
140

If I’ve parsed this thread correctly, it seems the thought process is:

  1. Alliances should have to own structures…
  2. so they can be wardec’d…
  3. so that anti-gankers can shoot gankers in alliances?

This seems like an XY problem, and the proposed implementation sounds like it has the potential to cause collateral damage while not even achieving the stated goals. After all, what’s to stop gankers from just breaking up their alliances or simply staying in NPC corps? The only difference between a ganker in CODE and a ganker in State War Academy is that one is easy to spot.

As it stands, the big gank alliances are doing everyone a favor by consolidating into nice big groups that are easy to give red standings. Whenever I pop into a system, I just have to look at local to see who’s in Safety, CODE, etc. If you’re anti-ganker, why would you want to make it harder to spot them? That doesn’t make any sense.

So if you want to get to #3, wouldn’t it just be simpler to say something like, the second you disable your safeties in hisec, you automatically incur a suspect flag? For good measure, you could add an activation timer to prevent instant go red → shoot. Let’s say, 60 seconds from toggle to fire, during which time you’re suspect already. To solve the “hiding in NPC corp” problem, just prevent NPC corp members from disabling their safeties in hisec (same as Alphas). After all, why would the NPC corps want their members running amok in hisec?

Note: I’m not really advocating for the above, because that “solution” is likely to also have unforeseen secondary effects. I’m just saying it seems like a shorter route to get to the end goal than forcing alliances to hold structures.

A little real world anecdote (food for thought). I live in a place where it’s perfectly legal for any adult to walk around in public with a sidearm strapped to their hip. And in most places and cases, no one around here would even bat an eye at that because lawful intent is assumed. But the second someone draws a handgun—whether they point it or not—that person would be immediately regarded as “suspect.” And if they’re surrounded by other people who are also carrying firearms, things are unlikely to end well for the guy who decided to brandish a weapon. There’s a reason the saying exists, “An armed society is a polite society.”

2 Likes
141

bumped this into Player Features & Ideas - EVE Online Forums

Removed several posts:

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

9. Use of kill reports & chatlogs to troll & flame is prohibited.

Pilots are permitted to post chatlogs and kill reports on the EVE Online forums if it adds to and is relevant to ongoing discussion, however this may not be done to flame, troll, insult, shame or bait other corporations other pilots.

142

Yes, I am AG aligned in that I and the people I play with oppose gankers.

Ganking is only a small part of the game, the suggested changes would further help large entities and they don’t need help.

Blackflag are war deccers, though they have some ganker players in their alliance and have often helped gankers, they war decced us when we attacked and destroyed the CODE fortizer in Niarja for example under another name of course), but we switched corp on them so they could not intervene.

There have been many suggestions on how to help Ag as a playstyle, however CCP seem to dislike AG and like gankers as various mechanic changes have indicated, we can no longer rep other AG players who shoot gankers for example, another is the change to wrecks EHP when we started using cheap disposable ships to deny gankers the loot, like they use to gain the loot.

So when I get this:

It is one thing to fight gankers, but another to fight both gankers and CCP. Yeah AG failed, but I think most would with CCP being so bad at game balance at times.

Take the war dec system for example, that they blocked allies from repping each other due to complexity issues made the changes to war decs fail. In any case there are big alliances in hisec that can take on Blackflag.

@ISD_Drew you appeared to have missed a post above that was trolling and had personal attacks.

EDIT: The comment about a large portion of hisec hates gankers, I think that is incorrect, I think dislike what they do and how they do it is more likely, the only ones they may develop any hatred, is those that are on the receiving end of those that make extra effort to gain tears by winding them up further.

As this is a competitive game I do sort of accept that as in destabilising the opponent is fine, but I wonder if it is really worth doing against someone who had no intention or ability to shoot back. So I realised that it was really the ganker desperate for someone to bite the cherry and fight back in an inept way due to game mechanics so they can claim they are better than them.

Hate is too strong a word methinks…

2 Likes
143

OP there are all too many ways such restrictions can and would be circumvented so very unlikely it would achieve the effect you want from it.

EVE players and humans in general (at least some of them) can be very resourceful in such matters, especially if personal gain and benefits are on the line. (Tax evasion anyone?)

It only requires the leadership in charge of these organizations to have the know-how, will and persistence to work around some such a restriction so I find it likely it would not work.

Forum-ganked by @Zaera_Keena, let’s see if forum-CONCORD shows up to save the day. :thinking: :smirk: :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

:blush:

144

But we all know that CONCORD are on the same side as gankers. :thinking: :smirk: :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

:blush:

1 Like
145

Exactly. :wink:

:blush:

1 Like
146

Concord is nothing more than gravity as long as you know how it works it can’t really stop you from doing what you want.

but yea that is fair I guess you could chuck a pos into a random wormhole, many people dont even kill the pos structure itself as it drops no loot but it still counts as a structure so it just sits there for years.

147

:wink:

1 Like
149

Your memory is amazing, this is the 2nd time lol.

150

Why alter the entire way the game works in order to ‘solve’ a non-existent ‘problem’ ? Ganking is supposed to be a part of the game. CCP have numerous times even said so. Plus the lore of the game is that Concord are not a proactive force…they are not there to ‘prevent’ crimes.

People need to grasp how the game works and change their behaviour accordingly…not expect the game to be changed because they can’t cope or never want to face any challenge.

151

What if ? A scenario with many variations

After lots of pressure and hot posting, CCP introduces the requirement: no structure = no alliance. A structure comes with war eligibility as usual.

In the most likely scenario, the ganker alliance disbands officially, assembles pvp section in one single corporation. Other sections cooperate “unofficially”, sharing same oog comms, same leadership via alts etc, effectively a status quo. Life goes on.

  1. Alliance acquires structure and becomes war eligible, because why not, and “let’s teach these hisec guys a lesson they won’t forget” or some such.

  2. The disgruntled anti-gankers start to realize that, if they want to “strike back at gankers” they too have to be in an alliance and have to set up a structure in HISEC. They do so.

  3. Shocker: After a while the AG alliance gets wardec’d by at least one of the hisec wardec’ing groups - pick one. The (inexperienced) AG alliance either paralyzes (likely) or loses its structure (very likely) or somehow wins by killing the agressor’s war HQ in HISEC (highly unlikely), somehow having mustered sufficient fire power and pilots to take down a structure over several timers in HISEC.

  4. The AG community somehow manages to attract enough people into their (now war eligible) alliance for the purpose of going to war. They can finally declare war against their ganker targets who stayed in their alliance. They do so. Cheers all around. Mucho chest beating too.

Now for some options:

a. Ganker alliance (defenders) attracts assisting allies, increasing their numbers with experienced combat pilots or
b. Ganker alliance pays mercenary group to hound the aggressors - goals may vary and
c. Both Ganker and Anti-Ganker alliances attract attention via social platforms, funny posts, propaganda, video reports, battle reports, and reel in some more support.

And thus … with no big wars ongoing, pvp’ers from non-HISEC are looking for action. Perhaps some of them have ganker friends or alts. Maybe they think the new rule just sucks and since they can’t “Burn Jita” they come to do the next best thing: make a mess in HISEC. They decide to join in on the fun in HISEC and kill some hisec’ers. Some drop alts in the ganker’s alliance just for that purpose.

Now it gets funnier.

  1. After this round of unpopular changes to the rules, a sleepy beast stirs in the murky depths of New Eden. The first nullsec alliance declares war on the anti-ganking alliance, comes in force, removes war HQ.
  2. Not wanting to see their eternal foes in HISEC having all the fun for themselves, another nullsec alliance declares war against the first nullsec alliance and starts to offer cooperation to the anti-ganking alliance. Wars are entangled affairs now. More groups join in to stir up some more ■■■■ in HISEC and fill up the killboards. More mercs are hired, business is good. Wardecs fly everywhere. Fun is had by most, except the hisec’ers.
  3. Structures are attacked, left and right, but the nullsec alliances tire quickly - they do not like HISEC rules, and killing structures is never “fun”, even if they get the core. HISEC for them is mostly like a desert: there’s nothing really worthwile in there to fight over.
  4. Wardec’ing anti-ganker alliance is left exhausted, likely sitting on a pile of rubble, and the remainder of their pilots who were finally acquainted with the TiDi phenomenon and the alarm clock fights.

Meanwhile…

  1. ganking continues, by pilots who have no official player organization - they just form purple fleets, laughing on comms. New complaints emerge about heavy TiDi in HISEC because of these “pick inappropriate adjective” wars that attract too many combat pilots and alliances from outside of hisec, etc etc

  2. CCP pulls the new requirement as it proved a complete waste of resources and silently admits that hisec ganking is part of EvE Online. “Nerf HISEC ganking” threads appear as before.

My projection ? They wouldn’t get to point #4. (You see, they never got to point #4 against wardec’ing alliances with structure)

1 Like
152

Your post was hilariously funny, though not for what you thought was funny, and I will leave it at that.

I keep suggesting to CCP that all corps and alliances can be war decced regardless of having a structure, but that a corp or an alliance can only do 3 concurrent wars without a war HQ, and I think a maximum of 20 with a war HQ. That would be a much better change then the one proposed by the OP. Perhaps you can do me the honour of an amusing post on my suggestion? I even made a features and ideas suggestion.

I have already had two things that I suggested applied by CCP, so maybe a third time!!!

153

with respect I disagree with this, having a structure should not be mandatory for an alliance.

corporations are businesses and not all businesses require facilities and shouldn’t be forced to have one.

154

That’s a pity. Maybe it deprives me of a “learning experience”, eh. The question is, did you learn anything concerning the futility of the suggestion in relation to “war on hisec gankers” - which was the core of my post, it wasn’t about hisec wardec’ing groups ?

So you focus on hisec wardec groups, a parallel target of the OP.
What’s the purpose of your suggestion here, besides curtailing the list of active wars in current hisec wardec’ing alliances, as you would throw open the wardec mechanism and draw in more (inexperienced) cannon fodder, but never hurting the groups and individuals who know how to evade the mechanism altogether, and the gate campers between them and Jita ? Obviously you (I hope) “unintentionally” penalize anyone who is in a hisec corp or alliance with a wardec possibility.

A simple solution for the wardec’ing hisec alliances who want to continue their business model is to make more alliances. Those can assist when the wardec’ers get wardec’ed (!..), and they can expand the business of wardec’s on their own, and perhaps focus on the (thanks to your suggestion) easier pickings.

Alas there is nothing amusing to reply with. You’ve just thrown open HISEC to an increased number of wardecs against mostly the defenseless and the naive - even (and that’s not 100% clear from your suggestion) if you would still require the aggressor to own a hisec war hq. You may even have introduced a 1-man wardec possibility for “fun” prolonged 1-on-1’s without concord intervention. I doubt hisec will thank you for that, especially the new and the pvp averse.

155

No I did not learn anything, it was hyperbole, because my AG alliance has done a successful war dec on gankers and dealt with the leading war deccer when they came to their aid in a half-hearted matter.

156

She is awesome, isn’t she?

157

So you won one official war. It was against “gankers”, you say ? So it wasn’t against “wardec’ers”, which was your previous post. Just asking because you’re hopping from one leg to another. Or are “wardec’ers” always “gankers” in your opinion ?

The question is, did it put the “gankers” out of business ? Or did you all just have a great time planning and fighting, like you’re supposed to ?

Who knows, maybe when it matters enough the outcome can look different. Carry on :smiley:

158

I suggest you look at in with your previous post in mind. And I am not hopping from one leg to another, I am replying based on your 2., 3., 4. which were all proved wrong. So please do some hopping, will be fun to watch.

2 Likes
159

EDITED to contain only “on topic” text, with handy, numerical references to an earlier post of mine at Hot take - Alliances should require structures - #151 by Wadiest_Yong

Next time your AG alliance, with a victory under its belt, may bump into some more serious opposition, proving my 2, 3, 8 and at least a good chunk of 9 . Who knows. Anything can happen, it’s EvE, right ?

Btw, I won’t have anything to do with this hisec nonsense. I’ll stay safely in nullsec, where it’s always peaceful, and where we grow fat on the lands (allegedly). But do not touch our Skyhooks !

160

And now a strawman, I never claimed to be a tough guy, lol.

I called it half-hearted because they missed our war dec that enabled us to shoot the Fortizar without them being able to intervene. I thought that was obvious?

In any case when we war decced in hissec we selected a hisec island in lowsec which required the attackers to come through more dangerous space where they would get well and truly beaten up, not difficult is it…

1 Like