Dude, every time that really happens you either corp hop or call in your blues to help. I call ■■■■■■■■ on this.
Also lets be real, with a ratio of 2:1 Logi:DPS the only threat you will ever face is overwhelming numbers or alpha strong enough to insta blap your ships out, in which you case won’t take the fight anyway.
Another fallacy that come up again and again is the “Big 5” thing, where there are really only PIRAT and Marmite left in Hisec, and Marmite can’t compete as they run half what you have in Logi.
So when Faylee says that the changes will be making Wardec competitive for the different merc outfits, it really means PIRAT and allies will continue to dominate Hisec warfare as far as Hiseccers go and Marmites will be stuck in Gallente in Minmatar space as usual.
The “Big 5” thing is something that was said by CCP when they pulled their data. You’re right, there’s really only 2-3 large groups now because the data at the time of announcement was old. Unless smaller groups band together I don’t foresee a reasonable outcome where Pirat is matched on a structure by another Highsec group.
I will try to explain this as simple as I can. In terms of a healthy and competitive Highsec, everyone know’s that Pirat the dominant force for structures. If you have an ounce of strategic thought, you can figure out when we’re our most vulnerable.
If you want to have a healthier ecosystem in Highsec where some of the other groups are able to have a meaningful impact would you rather attack us at our strongest or at our weakest? I’ll leave you to figure out when and where we’re weak. There are groups and pilots that have given us a good run for our money and have done lots of damage in the past. Those same players are ones that have vocally stated their distaste in structure combat, so I wouldn’t bet on them to adapt in this way. So who, aside from the nullblock is going to contest these structures?
Right, so the wardeccers get what they want, and the mercs get paid, and the targets still get screwed or extorted. You’re having a problem seeing past the aggressor side of things, it seems.
I just wrote a miniature wall of text in response to you but I just deleted it. I can honestly say that since posting the same thing here and on Reddit, the typical Eve Online player is not worth trying to win over or convince. It’s useless, really because I can’t and won’t change how any of you feel about wars.
What I will say is that I look forward to the changes because it’s going to be a change of pace. It will be interesting times ahead, and I’ll poke back in here towards the end of the year and ask you if anything has really changed. Perhaps you’ll just cry for more nerfs saying that not enough was done. Yeah, that’s probably it right there.
There are no “sheep” in EVE.
There are PvPers who don’t like always being at a disadvantage.
They won’t be “won over”, because their wishes are as valid as yours. Other games have found compromises. EVE could too, but not if every discussion ends abruptly before any negotiation starts.
Sorry, but you seem to have confused “disagreeing with your proposal” with “being a whiney hisec carebear”.
And once again, you are unable to get past the point that, in a game, which people play for entertainment value, and in which there isn’t a lot of entertainment in being your easy target and punching bag, that if there isn’t something in it for the defenders, beyond “you can pay some mercs to end the war for you”, then guess what? They will decline to participate.
They will decline by avoiding the fight, or by not logging in, or by leaving EVE, or by endlessly pushing CCP to defang high sec. I am talking about the way players do things, not the way I want things.
You appear to have trouble with the notion that other people will look at things differently than you, and that other people do not share your own goals. Also, that other people do not find being your victim as entertaining as you find being their oppressor. Again, this response is in light of what actual, average, MMO players and gamers have historically shown, not what I personally care about.
Personally, I don’t give a damn about mercs and wardecs. Never have, never will. That doesn’t mean I can’t think about how best to tune the mechanic so it is a positive for EVE, instead of a drain.
I suppose being in a place where it is all good with no real challenge anymore you can become complacent!
Previously Mercs had to work hard and be very vigilant as they had lots of enemys or be good at there game in hunting targets but now it has all become too nice!
There is not competition anymore and it has become griefing instead of where it was.
Wardec changes or not Mercs are slowly becoming like code in the way they operate.
One possible iteration of warfare that is possible under the planned changes is the inclusion of Empires in Highsec warfare. The penned changes give an opportunity to corps under the same Empire banners (Faction Warfare). Even different corps with the same FW banner would be able to provide logistics and boosts effectively in Highsec (and of course Lowsec).
It does make me think if there might be some way to expand and unify warfare with FW in all of Empire space. Choosing a ‘side’ might add more excitement and fights to an otherwise stale situation in FW. It just might be a good way to encourage new people to PvP…
Fair enough, the Nulsec groups and to a point maybe the largest WH groups are the only ones that may pose a threat to PIRAT war HQs, though there’s always the possiblity for your group to call for extra hands from the usual blues, which only leave the Nulsec guys.
Maybe Marmite/RIOT can get a few hits in if they bring tag along fleets with those, but of course that works both ways.
I may be wrong, time will tell, but smaller Hisec groups may even win some against PIRAT (competition there) if they time themselves well with other timers you may be forced to attend.
But then the old VMG core is well known to try and stomp the will of anyone who actually manage to fight back with some degree of success to ever do so again. That was the ■■■■■■■■ I was calling NCC on btw, he and Khrom wants fights sure, but only ones they win, that is if they lose badly and get their nose rubbed in they call in the donut and pound the perpetrators to the ground by whatever means available, try to crush their will to do it ever again.
Nothing wrong with that, but NCC should stop trying to make swallow this horse manure to the community.
That being said, I fully agree that changes are well needed, stagnation is death.
Two suggestions for dealing with the “deadlock”, one old, one from a couple of weeks ago:
A market for ISK-poor players to sell killmails to gankers. That way the gankers get their guaranteed win, but the victim gets compensation for their time and trouble.
Allow certain classes of player and ship to self-destruct in highSec, leaving neither salvage nor a killmail. Some ships should be excluded of course, such as freighters and high-value “bling-ships”, which should be valid targets for unrestricted PvP.
I’ve kited both suggestions earlier. Both times provided interesting insights into the nature of EVE players.
This seems like it would be a bit cheesy. Who wouldn’t blow themselves up under attack? Perhaps if it was limited by requiring a self-destruct module in a slot, which would show on ship scanners, and also requiring a timer to activate, such that it would be a tossup “Do I try to blow myself up and maybe they get me anyway? Or should I wait for Concord? Or maybe fight it out?” Also, of course, there would have to be no insurance payouts on self-destruction.
Your continued disingenuous running commentary is a load of crap, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
As to your, ‘we’ll just keep spamming citadels’, comment, go ahead, it is great for the economy, thanks!!
I leave this tedious conversation knowing that your, ‘salty tears will flow for years’, as i know that you’ll keep bringing future conversations with your buddies back to, ‘the good old days, when we could kill freighter pilots in highsec without even losing our gank ships’, time and time again, year after, year as long as you play this game.
In the original thread I suggested potential victims should pay a significant fraction of the value of the ship and cargo for it (I was forced to create a name, and called it “negative insurance”, though actually insurance and gambling are more nearly opposites). Even then I didn’t really try to design a proper solution - it was 50% serious and 50% a personality test for EVE players.
The idea isn’t to benefit the unwilling target economically, nor to stop economically justified attacks (e.g. someone being paid to carry freight - they should arrange scouts and guards).
It’s an anti-griefer, not an anti-PvP measure, trying to selectively target the “I’m not having fun unless you’re not having fun” brigade. Take away their ability to control the engagement (remember it’s not a combat engagement for them - it’s s psychological attack). Take away the “victim’s tears” they value so much. Take away their “badges of dishonor” (killmails) - except when they actually have to work for them.
I don’t think it’s possible to completely rid EVE of griefing, but I think this would reduce it more than any “safety measure”.
Back to design:
As I said, I didn’t try to do a real design. I was kiting an idea: address the psychological issues (griefers’ need to make other people unhappy; targets’ need to get angry over it).
I’m confident something workable could be devised, but I don’t believe in one-sided design - you need all parties should be involved in order to balance everyone’s interests. I’d want to get griefers involved in the discussions too.
How confident are you that there’s a large number of people interested in “griefing” you for tears rather than trying to kill a big shiny ship you have, or hoping that you’re carrying lots of value?
In my experience I only antagonize or poke fun at a target when I either get an angry mail or a convo about how my mom got raped by a dog or something. Sure wars have been used for “griefing” but meh. You really think it’s a systemic problem?
I don’t participate directly in discussions based on “EVE denial”. “Griefing” (the real word, not the EVE cryptospeech version) has a wikipedia article. Read that and comment on it.
An indirect comment: a lot of people who are capable of avoiding being griefed, or don’t actually care, still wont play in a game with too many griefers - and EVE definitely has too many.
Anyone who reads this far - please don’t come back with something inane like “it says “inintended ways” but EVE is a sandbox”.
I’m not denying that there’s griefing in Eve, but I’m skeptical that it’s a deep issue. I have no doubt that the fact that Eve is Eve has turned away quite a few potential players.
The developers have designed this game around players interacting with each other in various ways - good and bad that are otherwise not possible or is a bannable offense in other games. It’s what makes it unique, and because it is so is also a reason why it will never have the playerbase of something like World of Warcraft.
Most players are able to look past the guy behind the keyboard trying to rile you up… I don’t imagine that the game would still be going strong after all these years if it were any different. I like the dark nature of Eve because I know that there’s lots stacked up against me, so when I have victories they feel really good.
It harbors a different kind of player that’s for sure, but I think if CCP truely saw it as a systemic problem then things would change. We saw issues with griefing with the Bonus Room where the EULA was updated, but that was more or less “harassment”. I just think that some players are too sensitive to take the game for what it is. A lot of people have a hard time accepting the fact that you can be attacked at any time.
I know this is a small section of the wiki definition but what interactions are unintended? Ganking could be one as I don’t believe CCP intended ganking to be a thing. It’s been allowed to grow into what it is now because it’s emergent and CCP supposedly likes that stuff.
CCP did intend for us to shoot at each other though, so is using an arty Tornado to constantly 1-shot your frigate while you’re at war with me griefing? Surely not as I’m just playing the game within its rules. It is entirely reliant on the players as to when and how someone is griefing. Yeah if I were to gank you and then convo you in order to “harvest tears” I’d called that griefing. To say that an activity in eve is griefing though… I dunno about that.
I’m with Faylee here. How have you decided there are “too many”? I mean, it isn’t zero like any game, but I have seen little evidence of actual “griefing” in my years playing. I’ve seen people get angry and seeking revenge, I’ve seen them cross into the world of real-world threats, and I’ve seen people engage in many acts of piracy or scams that enrich them at the expensive of another player, but I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen someone actually go out to randomly “grief” another player for the sole purpose of annoying another player. I’ll admit that I guess someone seeking that could hide behind one of the other reasons to force an interaction with another player, but I see no evidence that griefing is rampant or there are “too many” griefers.
I think much of this reputation as a griefer haven comes from the fact the reasons and motivations of the other players are sometime opaque to the “victim” couple with the core mechanic that you are always open to attack which is not common in other games. But there is very little evidence I have seen that griefing is more widespread than any other competitive game.
Further, CCP has clear anti-harassment and anti-griefing rules in the EULA which they aren’t shy about enforcing and when they do it makes news which also suggests “griefing” is more of a boogyman than a real thing.
As to the OP, +1 to most of it. As with any war mechanic in an open world game like Eve, PIRAT and the other large highsec PvP specialists will come out on top of any changes to the system. You’ll be fine. I kinda like it that there is something your opponents can kick down and score a symbolic win against you, but I also kinda like how they can’t reasonably shut down your wars or make themselves immune from everyone via their blobs without at least dealing with two long timers.
Guerrilla wars do suffer of course and I am mindful of that. Maybe there is room for some balance there, but in general I think at least something should be on the line but maybe a full Upwell structure is too much. But guerrillas can resort to crime at least, so I think this might work out well enough.
I really think what is lacking now is reasons for non-specialists to go to war. Conflict drivers. But I guess a core war mechanic is a prerequisite before more reasons for war are added.