This was how it used to be. And it was great. It drove a lot of conflict. A lot of new players would say „you can’t own this hi sec system“ and then shortly learned what power actually means in New Eden. They then: joined a pirate corp to get the spoils (you do remember all the wardeccers, criminals, or suspect baiters living in hi sec, right?), or were encouraged to move elsewhere to space they could actually own in null and fight for it there, or got the motivation to start their own corp to take revenge.
Conflict was everywhere by and to everyone. It was fun. Today is safe by comparison. The game doesn’t feel dangerous.
Access to hi sec, a trade hub, or any other system in New Eden should not be a God given right and the mentality that demands it should be quashed.
And all that has to do with the rule that you have to have a warHQ before you can declare a war ?!
What about the fact that back then there simply were too many perma wardecs against not the nullsec groups but against newbie and indy hisec groups ? Right or wrong, ccp decided that perhaps it wasn’t such a great attractant for the game if total newcomers to the game could be wardec’d and locked up in a station - oh yeah, station games were so much fun … Wardecs could paralyze entire sections of hisec space - try that one in nullsec space and you’ll have some real content. Yeah, fun fun fun if you were on the aggressor’s side, for the rest of the hisec’ers it was less so.
It went wrong when wardec’ing became a permanent source of income instead of a source of directed conflict and content. Just like a TTC agreement was inherently wrong and damaging the game itself. If introducing warHQ’s was a way to get rid of the excesses, good. Only the strongest i.e., richest groups of wardec’ers survived, and to make it worth their effort at least they pick mostly on the largest targets, not the recently joined players and their groups.
Access to hi sec, a trade hub etc is of course a necessity. It’s not your dramatic “God Given Right”, it’s simply necessary for the game, how it functions, how sections have to have capability to interact. Why is it that nullsec does not have the capability to simply steamroll entire hisec sections day in day out, without repercussions, why is there a wardec mechanic and RoE+Concord ? Right, it’s called balance, it makes the game work.
The wardec system was abused on a large scale. That is why it was changed. Just like anything else that was abused (or worse) in the game got changed or got taken out. Apparently CCP said that you do not have the God Given Right to perma wardec everyone. You know what ? They were right, and the wardec’ers misused the tool.
You mean… people could earn a ISK living off of PVP income in high sec?
Same thing with nullsec and passive moons!
It was a blast!
You know what changed in the game? The silly mentality that “you have to PvE to fund your PvP”. It was a significant mindshift that drove a lot of people away from the game who had no interest in the “fun” PvE content.
It was balanced for 15 years (or however long until the Wardec changes came through). Time and player engagement numbers are not on your side.
One man’s abuse is another man’s “cluster in permanent conflict”. There were certainly people that used wardecs to grief people. Guess what? Any mechanic can be used to grief. On the other hand, any newbie leaving an NPC corp could shout “I feel griefed” when welcomed with a wardec immediately. That’s not a bad thing, they immediately understood the rules of the road. Today instead of massive high sec corps willing to PvP, we have Silent Company and Friends which are massive high sec corps unwilling to PvP and be tax extraction schemes. And they cry when any conflict happens at all. Sound balanced to you?
Let me refine what I said. Your access to a trade hub is not a God Given right. I certainly can’t waltz into Init’s Keepstar and start offering my wares. Likewise, waltzing into Jita should be dangerous. It was. But you could pay off or join the wardeccers. And for over a decade it was fine as a trade hub even with this behavior.
In fact, some people saw the dangers and instead sold locally in their high sec system so everywhere in New Eden there was these random smaller trade hubs filled with a hodge podge of goods. Rookie miners and industrialists could easily break into a market. Skilled haulers could then leverage local arbitrage back to Jita. There was hi sec piracy in between, both locally and for shipping traffic. Sounds a lot more dynamic and engaging than today!
They indeed said that, but only someone so deep into drinking CCP’s Kool-Aid thinking “the universe is very dangerous right now” could think “CCP was right”. Hate to break it to you, but the universe is safer than ever before.
The small groups of carebears aren’t the ones taking down the war HQs of dedicated high-sec war groups (of any size). All of this is CCP misdirection that you’re buying into, either because you’re ignorant, or because doing so directly benefits you as a member of one of the game’s largest null-sec blocs.
This is true but it needed fixing within this sys not just throw it away and bring in WarHQ , the old sys was open to many types of greiffing , like you said endless wardecs , If you look at Zkill on some of the endless wars , it’s just a few kills in trade hubs , that’s not war , we used to catch more flashy red or kill rights than these wars.
I know it must be hard to fix to get the balance right for both sides but I somehow don’t think it will be fixed like the bounty sys .
Going back to null groups for a bit , this one scenario I found interesting . This alliance wanted high sec ore or to stop hi sec miners getting it , any large group that formed in the area they were trying to control , they 1st offered membership , if they said no then wardec or ganking and loss of all structures. Once structures and corps had been removed then new structures dropped and new corps setup and a way to filter new members into main alliance
All fine and dandy so far it’s eve and a brutal game . But the same alliance kicked off about someone like DC wardecing them .
I’m not motivated to debate. I am disappointed, and convincing you of anything or everything wouldn’t make me want to play Eve again, but this mode of thought strongly reminds me of why I don’t want to.
Declaring war and ganking were not part of my usual activities. I was the person declared on or ganked. People doing this were part of my reason for playing. When they added war HQ requirements people couldn’t afford to mess with me, allies couldn’t afford to ally with me, and with the structure requirement to even allow someone to declare war on me it became more costly to even be a viable target to generate content in my area.
I am disappointed because I am comparatively weak and impotent, but was still capable of operating in highsec while at war with a large and small groups for just about any length of time before the structure requirements came into effect. I expect a powerful nullsec group to be able to clear that same bar.
Destiny, Aiko, and I are definitely not friends. We’re on opposite ends of the player spectrum, and that was the point. People like Aiko and Destiny would come to give me a drubbing and I’d have to figure out some way to not get drubbed. Destiny and Aiko, though, are diehards. The exceptional that didn’t die out completely because of the changes CCP has made. Try as they might, they can’t replicate the variety and novelty of facing a new and unknown foe every week or month. They’re probably far too busy to even visit my old home.
Whether CCP has made the ‘right’ choice or not depends on what CCP’s values are, and those are arbitrary. It doesn’t seem I agree with those values. They’ve made a game where I can do whatever I want in relative peace, but that’s not fun for me.
I don’t go so far as to say people in null shouldn’t be able to exert their overwhelming advantage over Destiny’s one ma’am band in their own space, whether it is cowardly or not. I don’t care. But being able to exert that same advantage over her outside of your space by requiring her to put up an immobile bullseye that spits out a participation trophy when destroyed is unreasonable to me.
In my opinion Highsec specifically should even the playing field for small parties against larger and more established ones. That Destiny is focused on active PvP instead of more passive industry does not change this opinion. I would have been happy to ally in a war to keep her in check if she were bothering friends of mine. I have no doubt she’s capable of giving me a headache under those circumstances, too. But just because she’s causing me problems or is too good for me to beat does not justify making it impractical for her to do those things. Instead of holding her down with expense and red tape, it would be better for me to git gud.
Kinda defeats the purpose of a hisec zone. Tbh, I don’t care about a hisec zone in the game for my own purposes - but new players have to start somewhere to get their bearings.
Not contesting that statement. And just like the TTC it should be addressed, preferably by players.
That right was never claimed. Guess what … Any sane nullsec player has wardec evading access to any of the trade hubs in hisec, so your point is flawed. You want to deny unrelated toons access to trade hubs via non-committal wardecs at random, to catch as many as you possibly can without concord intervention ? Some God Given Right you claim You should have to determine who gets access to Jita ? That’s a lot of hubris, if you compare Jita trade hub, a public npc station with anyone’s keepstar in null, and point out the difference in rights of access. You didn’t fight to own the systems and put up structures, in fact you’re there in hisec doing pvp despite not having made the effort - which is fine in its own respect on the scale that is allowed, but not when you think others have no right to be there to do their part of the stuff. You do not control your space, it’s not that part of the map.
Indeed, hisec is safer than before. That is not the fault of nullsec. And not all of the measures ccp implemented were balanced. But when you start claiming the right to wardec nullsec groups, or any other sizeable group without having to have a warHQ, thereby preventing those groups from teaching you a lesson not to mess with them any more than the occasional Jita gank, that is where your design goes into the bin. There needs to be an endpoint for any official war to prevent it from becoming permanent, in a zone of the map that is not intended to have permanent wars. You want the right to wardec regardless ? Well, then others should claim the right to steamroll you regardless. Fair is fair, right ?
Sure. And what does that have to do with wardecs against nullsec groups ?
On the other hand, much of it has to do with the existence of Upwell structure based new markets, which are run by some powerful (nullsec) groups, killing the smaller scale initiatives you mention. And as far as I know, you can still gate camp. Yes, it will cost you your catalysts, but that is an investment just like a war dec fee. A situation where you don’t have to commit, and take responsibility for your choices, are allowed to hide in an npc station when you do get the interest of a large entity ? Nah, there should be repercussion. Maybe not in the form of a warHQ (they are a hassle for just about everyone), but there has to be commitment, a risk and an endpoint in time. Else it becomes too easy to abuse.
True. It’s a pity, and it probably screams “imbalance”. It turns legitimate wars into organized, wide-scale extortion without defense from the ones who are the targets. Apparently it takes substantial organized firepower to deal with those warHQ’s.
Always the same binary approach, either ad hominem or the “conspiracy”.
The simple matter is that I don’t see why you should have the possibility to wardec without committing, and risking. It does not have to be in the format of a warHQ, it can be anything substantial.
You want legalized, concord sanctioned permaganking in hisec without serious risk against large groups, targeted groups, miners, haulers, pve’ers and whatever else shows up in the game ? That’s another level of Kool-Aid consumption. Don’t like that particular content ? There’s lots of other things you could be doing.
I had a good time for a while sparring on these forums with a fanatic anti-ganker who I don’t need to name. During a rare episode of honesty he admitted that his stance was inspired by the gankers’ unmovable position when it came to balance and fairness. In your particular case he may have been right.
And that is what I am saying as well. And like you mention in the same post, it’s not evident how to fix it, and not certain it will get fixed. Any fix that makes people log off and not log in would be a bad one (see below).
If I remember correctly, the claim at the time was that the perma wardecs simply made people to not log in - which would explain the low kill numbers, at least in part.
You don’t have to “convince” me to listen and pay attention to what you’re writing. I’ll do that anyway
Rather than picking sentences out of your post, a few thoughts from reading them.
Personally I’ve never had any problems with the existence of ganking in hisec. It adds spice to the game and it’s even crucial to make players grow into the game. There are always counter-measures to ganking, which potentially makes it balanced for most players who understand what type of game they are playing. If ccp disturbs that balance - and usually it’s against the gankers - the changes should be contested, here and via the CSM, for as long as it takes.
But with the solo person against nullsec group wardecs without warHQ, that’s where I no longer follow. Why should that even be possible ? A lack of targets ? Unlikely. Why does there need to be a wardec in the first place ? To have no concord intervention of course. And how convenient it would be if you could not lose a structure (and its expensive core) and pewpew all day/week/month long without concord, right ? That’s why. Apparently it’s not enough that a modest Upwell+core can give all the benefits of wardec’ing local hisec groups.
Or is it that this renewed cry is because they sided with certain nullsec parties and now start losing their precious Upwells to nullsec groups like the one I’m in ? Perhaps.
Hisec should not be a trump card for an individual to “take on” large groups who fought for their part of space, cultivate it, and create stuff that denizens of hisec also need. Hisec should not be a force amplifier, especially not at the level of 1 against 1000+. That is against any logic. Anyone is free to be an Olmecca, an individual who successfully aggressed large nullsec entities on their own turf and by his own (smart, have to hand it to him) approach. It took him effort. That’s how it should be. Hiding behind all sorts of hisec benefits, that’s not how it should be. That is just favouritism, and inherently bad game design.
Yes, I would like hisec to become more interesting/risky again. No, I don’t think the wardec mechanism is the one that will enable a more dangerous hisec in a balanced, undamaging way.
There’s always some historical reason for changes…that people fail to mention when they rile about them. Often a change that may seem ‘unfair’ for one person is actually fair for 100 others and the change is a correction of some imbalance. So many arguments here fail to see or present the flip side or the true historical perspective…it is always ’ my exploit of the old mechanic got nerfed and I don’t like it '. Never mind that there’s likely a far larger number who were glad to see the change.
But surely there’s a sense in which you gain the kills that you do precisely because the wardec only lasts 48 hours and you cannot be perma wardeced by all and sundry. Under the old system, I could come to Amarr and disrupt your efforts. Anyone could declare war on you and do so…without they themselves needing a war HQ. Under the new system, I myself have to have a war HQ to get involved at all. Nobody can disrupt your efforts without Concord getting involved. So its just you vs Blob Corp…nobody can interfere…and yet this is somehow unfair ?
Why not? Afghanistan was invaded by a superpower to capture 100 terrorists, the superpower with all it’s resources, airpower , technology and manpower lost.
Now wouldn’t it have been different if all they had to do was blow up an HQ ?
I’m going to start out by saying this is my opinion, as whatever rules a game should or shouldn’t have are a matter of preference and opinion. Someone decides based on whatever values that someone has and that’s that. You think a powerful group should be able to force an early end to a war in a stand up knock down drag out fight, and I don’t. CCP agrees with you.
My opinion is that highsec is not meant to be safe, and that wars were supposed to be an ever present threat, or possibly a continuous problem. What highsec does provide is 24 hr notice and clear indications of who your war enemies are. Large or small, I don’t think anyone should be able to end a war that was paid for other than the people who paid for it, and I think that whatever hardware a person brings to bear against the person they declare on is a sufficient amount of financial risk.
I’ll also lay it out on the table that I don’t have much sympathy for the people who quit because of being wardecced. CCP may miss them for whatever revenue they were worth, but I do not. The entire concept of an ‘indy group’ kind of makes me cringe because it’s an implied separation of industry and PvP. I was what you’d call an industry player, or a miner, but I would not stop logging in or quit because of a wardec.
I’ve never had much sympathy for null groups, either, but that’s just because I don’t care for big groups, so I am biased towards small groups with my priorities. The content that disappeared with the introduction of war HQs is, to me, a bigger problem than worrying about how null would handle being vulnerable to the same small groups I want to be vulnerable to for the sake of generating interactions I find entertaining.
But, again, these are my opinions and priorities. They aren’t objectively or provably correct by any means, but I think they’re valid enough that we’ll continue to disagree on subjective grounds pretty much indefinitely.
I ask myself what is the goal of the wars, content or profit? I know the math on this topic very well, virtually every other activity in eve will earn you more isk/hr than doing high-sec wars. A realistic goal would be to kill enough to pay for your activities.
Thus we are left with content as being the prime motivation for high-sec wars. If that is the case, what is the big deal with losing warHQs? I can say have we have lost our fair share of warHQs. So what? Its literally the cost of business.
