Main War declaration thread

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
663

First of all, this is written from a forum alt because of all the flaming and harrasment a post like this usually causes.
So go ahead and call me whatever you want, wait for me outside station in Todaki, I really don’t care.

The upcoming changes to wardec, like the current wardec system, is just so unevenly ballanced.

I have 5 industrial accounts and 1 athanor, wanting to expand with a few more athanors.
My EVE is mining and planetary production.
Eve Online is the best and only space game worth playing, and I have some 35 years of playtime in total on my 5 accounts … all in hi-sec.

I don’t ever play PvP. I don’t have the skills (neither in EVE, nor in my head), I don’t have the equipment, ships and what not, and have no idea on how to fit for PvP.

I have for the last few month been target for several what I call “harrasment wardecs”, disrupting my eve play style, and making eve not fun to play at all. Most of the avaliable time, I don’t login at all, or I leave my own corp, just to “be allowed” to play.
So in reality, I pay a lot of money for not playing and not having fun.
“Harrasment wardecs”, just because I was mining in a belt someone think is his. “harrasment” because none of the wardecs have resulted in any shooting (like 97% of the wars from the corp in question) … but I can’t be sure until it is declared invalid after a week, and I have lost a week of playtime and fun.

And here is the issue … I don’t want to PvP, but I am FORCED to do it, or stay offline.
And don’t give me the usual blah blah; Move to another system, join an npc corp, eve is a pvp game … and so on.
Why should I not be allowed to play EVE the way I like ?

Being an industrialist is being a sitting duck for players too chicken to join the real pvp fights in low-sec and null-sec.
Yes, thoes players caliming to be pvp players just want easy targets which can’t shoot back - cowards, chicken… cowards !!!

And what I think is the worst part - CCP encurages it by constantly making the game worse and worse for the industrialists.
I quit the game in 2015 for 3 years because of that, but came back this summer to my favorite MMO to see how it was doing.

In the early days of eve, Hi-Sec was acceptable peacefull.
Nowadays, I check a lot character sheets whenever I see a player entering the system I’m in, playing in constant state of fear of “annoying” someone and being wardecked and/or ganked.
When checking character sheets, it is quite remarkable how many 1 or 2 player corps there are. There are loads of small corps with 10 or less players. Everybody wants the benefit of having a corp of his or her own - I think it is so great … but apparently this is not what CCP wants.

Now with the upcomming changes to wardec, industrialist are once again the target of CCP’s fanatism to MAKE SURE every corp is FORCED to play PVP, and mining is destroyed once and for all in Hi-Sec.
If I wanted to play PVP, I would join null-sec.
Having an athanor will make me a bit fat target, even more than now, and this time, the new wardec system will FORCE me to pvp … and (not or), and be destroyed from the game. If I’m lucky, I will find myself flying 5 Ibis with a mining laser.
Can’t “sit it out” anymore, and no leaving the corp … I must be destroyed.

“Well if you are so dissatisfied, why dont you just quit” … yes that may very well be the result.
But I would much prefer if we ALL could play this fantastic game.
MMO is not equal to PvP. Lots of players enjoys flying around alone in their 1 man corp having their EVE, with 30K other players.
Looking back thru the years, there used to be 40K - 50K or more players online at a daily basis - that number has decreesed considerably to around 30-32K now. Something tells me that lots of players love EVE but really don’t want PVP forced upon them. When ever CCP made changes towards more pvp, players left the game.

I don’t want to play PvP, some wants to play PvP, so my suggestion is quite simple:

  1. Allow corps and players whom don’t want PvP to OPT OUT (like other MMO’s do, WOW, ESO for examble).
  2. Encurage players who wants to play PvP, to move into and join Low-sec / Null-Sec wars.

In short, make eve a game for ALL.

Fly Safe and enjoy your eve.

1 Like
664

Sounds like they are. As much is compatible with a full-time, PvP sandbox game: if you don’t want to fight other groups, don’t deploy a structure. That is the new line in the sand.

Highsec is a player-controlled area as much as any other in this game and if you want to play there, build things, and influence our shared economy, well, you need to be open to interaction by the other players.

This is never going to change. I don’t want you to quit, but if you can’t accept this reality you are just going to make yourself unhappy sticking around. There are a hundred games where you can build things free of risk from other players, so I don’t know why you are playing Eve, a game that has always prominently been a single shared PvP arena with no safe spaces.

Well I kinda do: you like plying the in player-run economy this design enables, but an economy that interesting can only exist in a war/destruction-based economy. So if the anxiety this risk of attack (which honestly, is so small in highsec) outweighs the enjoyment access to this intricate economy gives you, you are probably playing the wrong game. Sunk-cost fallacy be damned, take your ball and go find something better suited to your wants and personality.

3 Likes
665

On the contrary, more players were staying with the game before pvp in hisec was nerfed.

I think you know that pvp is the centre of this game. I think you know this isn’t changing anytime soon either.

The recent change to wardecs is a quick and dirty fix until next year (hopefully). But i suspect the big fix is going to be more of what you don’t like.

666

I second this motion. :+1:

667

I don’t see how upcoming changes make game worse for you.

At least you can now split your characters between two corps, one structure holder, who never undock and second for all actual playing chars and forget about wardeccers altogether. Sure, they can bash you structure for no reason, but they can’t have cheap kills anymore.

668

The worse thing about the change is it is yet another incomplete change.

“We don’t know what to do so we will just toss this out”.

Same as the ECM change.

Can we hire some designers with enough skill to do something besides temporary hacks?

669

If CCP would adopt the same form that Vegas uses to attract customers for their casinos to EVE’s wardeccing mechanics, perhaps they could achieve the same success. What I mean by this is that there are different types of people who come to Vegas, some don’t gamble , but enjoy the other attractions/amenities, i.e.HS Industrialist,miners,MR,etc. These people add to the over financial health of the city/game, but don’t usually participate in the activity that was the sole reason for it to be created/developed. Then there are the vast numbers of people who do some gambling; enough to be a little at risk, but not enough to destroy their lives/careers if they lost. These people are willing to jeopardize a part of their assets, but not so much that they regret ever visiting the city/game. These people are the ones that the city/game makes bank on, by a small, but steady income stream of a huge number of people forgetting the House odds advantage. These are the small corporations exploring,roaming,LS/WH mining. Then you have the whales; people who risk a lot of money, but either shrug it off when they lose or prey on the “noobs” and “suckers” at their table. We all know who in EVE is best represented in this group.

The bottom line is that all groups need to be included for a healthy financial structure. The lower tier “players” allows for s a sound financial base, while the higher tier players attract big money and more PR. However, you wouldn’t start demanding that EVERYONE must gamble when being in Vegas, even if the city was built up with that sole purpose. You wouldn’t demand that only $20 slots and $1000 tables would be the minimum allowed to be risked,driving away those willing to risk only a little (but perhaps over a longer amount of time). By doing that, both the non gamblers and the low risk gamblers, the huge majority of your customers, would refuse to visit or stay in your city/game. The Whales? Well, they will get showered with rewards,opportunities unavailable to the masses, and the best atmosphere/area the city/game can offer…just like it is now.

Bottom line, if CCP is going to rework WD over the next 6 months, they must be able to establish a finer granulation to the types of wars that can occur to cater to the different risk acceptance of their players. You have the people so averse to risk that they will stick around for the atmospheric excitement, but don’t want to risk anything of value. Then you have the large number of people who might risk a bit, but refuse to jeopardize the health of their career/life. Then you have the whales who can risk a huge amount, yet either prey on the underskilled or just shrug off any losses. All sections must be at least partially addressed, because all of them are important based on the current numbers in each group atm. Going with a motto of “Everyone must gamble everything they own” doesn’t work for Vegas and it has been shown not to work for EVE in recent years. A system that incorporates several tiers that connect owned structures with the assumed risk/opportunities must be included in future WD design; no all or nothing. Perhaps start with destroyers and below,next tier BC and below, finally a “full” corporation allowing any ship to take part in the war.

TL;DR A system where the number of owned structure types and amounts combines with increasing acceptance/intensity of war could encourage more wars in the future by allowing corporations to better represent how much they are willing to gamble.

2 Likes
670

You’re paying for SP, the fun in a sandbox is up to you to create or not as your playstyle dictates.

It is not harrasment purely because you dislike his reason for deccing you. What is harrasment is clearly stated in the EULA and specifically (at the time) allowes him to roleplay that the belt is his and dec you for it. I’m not going to argue about the soundness of their reasoning but you’re playing a game all about fighting over resources so that particular reason is fine and supported.

Secondly, it is not harrassment purely because 97% of the wars ended in no combat. Your choice not to fight does not make anything harrassment as stated above.

You answered your own question, you could not be in a player corp if you don’t want to PvP. It’s easy to call any contradictory information “blah blah” but that’s not a reasonable way to argue a point, if you have one. You had every choice to avoid decs by not starting your own corp and declaring yourself fit to defend yourself.

Here are some examples of why this is a stupid argument :

Moving your pawn 5 squares forward in chess because why should I not be allowed to play CHESS the way I like?

Taking the pot in poker with a single 3 because why should I not be allowed to play POKER the way I like

Being able to legally shoot everyone in hisec and lowsec because why should I not be allowed to play EVE the way I like?

Be in the NPC corp and tank your ships while being smart about how much you put in them. Both problems solved, enjoy your happy industrial life.

CCP want to offset the goodness of having your own corp with some risks, like EVERYTHING ELSE in EvE. You accept risk in exchange for opportunity. My main issue with your narative is that you haven’t explained what’s so impossible about being in the NPC corp and sharing a player created chat with other players so you can still chill together and do stuff as a group.

You can use one of the hundreds of public facilities, owned by people who have grown their group enough to defend it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Isn’t it strange how back when the game was dangerous and had few rules loads more people wanted to play? Isn’t it interesting how every change CCP have ever made to satisfy the crying of industrialists has screwed the game a bit more and lost all those players?

Correct. But an MMO designed specifically from the ground up as a PVP MMO does infer at least a small amount of exposure to PvP. As I’ve explained it’s really easy to avoid the PvP to a great extent by flying carefully.

Can you list some of these changes please? If you look at the data you’ll notice it’s actually anti-PvP changes :slight_smile: Crimewatch and the removal of the watchlist to name a couple. There was also that study that proved players exposed to PvP early were more likely to stick with the game so… there’s some data too. Where’s your data?

To close, wardecs are screwed. I’m not pretending the way things are is optimal, but the worst thing CCP could do is allow people to have the full opportunity in Hisec with none of the risk. The risk is currently too high, but reducing max active decs to 1 - 3 per corp / alliance would eliminate the problems you have without destroying the game. You would still have targeted wardecs happening for territory / structure bashing / score settling but you wouldn’t have the blanket dec situation where every indy corp is decced 3 weeks of every month. Decs would happen only if they were really worth the slot.

Your OP was awful tho, your reasoning is poor and you seem to have little grasp of what makes EvE tick in the first place. You want everything in the game available to a rank solo amateur at 0 risk because otherwise you feel discriminated against and that’s ridiculous.

1 Like
671

if you want structure in high sec, then be prepared to defend it. You can’t set up your own structure and be competitive against other while having invulnerable shield protected your structure

with change on wardec, you can opt out by not have a structure in space (only high sec pvp you will face is ganking at this point) If You want structure, See top of my post^

Speaking of WoW, Blizzard makes a big change to encourage more PvP, so I guess Developer see PvP as a good thing for MMO.

672

But you can OPT OUT from PVP !!!
Blizzard is smart, it give options you can unlimiz+ted PVP with other PVPers, and you can completly OPT OUT from PVP and have 100% protection from PVPers.
That is a reason why Blizzard earn 1000x more money than pitty (niche) company from Island.

673

My wife plays SWTOR and this is all true.

However, the implication that EVE could be converted to that sort of market is at best misleading.

All they would do is alienate their little niche and the PvE crowd would not show anyway because the rest of the game is “spreadsheets are us”.

674

Nice talk, but you’ll do the talk, and PA will do the WALK, and at the end of the day we will se what happen :wink:

675

I know you can tell PA hates sandbox by the games they are purchasing.

676

As much as the wardec system must be changed, what you want isnt possible. EVE is a pvp game and you can opt out only in certain ways; for instance, my ISK earning alt never leaves the market that they sit in. Buying and selling without any concern for getting into pvp. So you can play this game full pve mode but you cannot do whatever you want and not be involved in pvp.

677

Complete and utter unadulterated garbage.

Because (as it stands) that’s not how the game works. Tell you what, you lobby CCP to get the watchlist back and generate an army of lippy alts to do the same, as is the current ploy of the minority to enact change, and when I return to the game I will personally ensure you remain unmolested. I will need the name of your main though.

See? We can be reasonable.

678

You might not like my comments, and you probably think i am just another PVPer… but I am as carebear as they come. I mission, mine and Wormhole.

maybe you are mining out a belts in a system that a competitor industrial Corp is set up in. They should have the right to enforce their control over belts that they call ‘theirs’. And if that Corp can field a war in order to dominate their competitors, then that makes them a stronger Corp than you… man up or move along.

Are you more important than any other player? Do you consider that you have more rights than a player who may want to wardec someone?
Spoiler Alert: A wardec’er has just as much right to play the game the way he likes, as you do.

No always. Take my above statement. An industrial competitor of yours may want to remove you from the local market. Its your fault if your Corp cant cut the mustard.

NO. You ‘opt-out’ by being in the npc-corp.

679

I’m gonna assume if he was ganked in hisec for mining, then it was Code.

680

This already was suggested some weeks ago and got some positive feedback, so here I come with a complete proposal.

TL;DR: remove non-mutual corporation-wide wardecs and enable wardecs on individual structures for a reduced fee. Attackers will get suspect flag while they shoot at the structure so they can be shot by anyone willing to defend the structure. Anyone attacking the attackers will get fleet aggro so attackers can shoot it back. Structures under attack will be advertised gamewide to allow roaming fleets come to defend or fight the attackers. This will allow emergent PvP and will let tutoring corporations split between go-mutual and no-mutual sections to allow easy PvP progression to all noobs. The loss of blanket wardecs and opportunistic kills of unwary war targets is deemed acceptable as the new proposal enables more PvP and non-mutual blanket wardecs rarely are honored by defenders, who just drop corp or stop playing.

Now for the extended version:

The foundation is to KISS with wardecs: wardecs exist, allegedly, to let the destruction of structures which can’t be suicide ganked. So let them be literally about destroying one structure.

Thus corporation wide wardecs could be made mutual only and add a new type of wardec aimed at individual stuctures. The “structure wardec” would be cheaper than a full wardec (say, cost of wardec / average structures in corp) and non-consensual. Attackers in the wardeccing fleet would be free from CONCORD retaliation but they would get a suspect flag during attacks. This would enable anyone to attack them. To defend themselves, attackers would get fleet aggro and thus the wardeccers could shoot back freely at anyone interfering with them.

Next element, the attacks on structures would be advertised in all game. This way, people could assemble roaming fleets and rush to defend structures -or just kill the attackers for a goodfite. Conversely, wardeccers could use the mechanic to bait roaming “firefighter” fleets into fleet aggro and get goodfites too.

The benefits would be that tutoring coporations could keep a non-wardec corporation that would never go mutual, and a PvP corporation where new players could operate under wardec. Also, non-wardecced corporations would let new players form roaming “firefighter” fleets to try PvP vs attackers, as a gateway to fleet PvP.

The losers of the proposal would be corporations who wardec to get random kills of unwary war targets. But I think (CCP should numbercrunch it with their data) that in general my proposal would generate a lot more PvP. The casual nature of “get in, shoot suspect” to defend the structures would let even Joe Nobody get some kind of defense for his structure, and keeping tutoring corporations free of wardecs so they can decide how and when noobs try PvP would be benefical to the game. Also, targetting single structures instead of the whole corporation would make easier to remove some of the clutter (FAI, think of structures owned by Alliances).

Last, non-mutual wardecs are a mostly broken mechanic and deserve to die. They massively end with a) corp drops b) people stop playing and c) griefing noobs out of game with recurring wardecs that punish them for joining a corporation.

Since structures must die, KISS: wardec structures. Let anyone join the defense at a whim and let attackers get easy kills (or don’t) and/or become easy kills (or don’t). The optimal solution to a wardec should be join a fleet and go facemelt somebody -not stop playing or else you’re the one who is gonna be facemelt.

3 Likes
681

So you want to have complete freedom for your characters in the corp without structures and at the same time you want your structures in that other shell corp to be defended by random people?

I can see how that is a compelling concept if you don’t want to fight for your stuff. But you can play the game perfectly fine from an NPC corp without having to worry about wardecs already. In my opinion, and guess that is also the reasoning about the current game design, if you want to get more competitive by having lower taxes, the ability to deploy structures, corp roles and wallets etc, you have to take the risk of being wardeced.

And it’s not like that risk is super huge. There are multiple ways to defend or avoid wardecs. They are simply a part of the game if you have a corporation so be ready to deal with them.

I don’t want to attack you personally here, I guess you think you do this to make the game better. But proposing a massive change to the game that benefits your self chosen play-style in such a massive way and just wrecks the play-stile of other players you don’t like is just extremely selfish. Your proposal is in no way balanced or an iteration of the current mechanics. It removes completely valid gameplay and will only manage to make the game more boring and stale.

3 Likes
682

I don’t think the war dec system should go mutual as to many people will hide behind that safety but having the ability to war dec a structure could be a good thing if done correctly