She reminds a lot of Balos, just with a different facade.
I understand “BTWs” as statements about a general opinion not necessary related to the rest of the text, don’t you? So I answered to that part because it reveals your overall mindset.
I don’t mind if we discuss griefing and all that but let’s keep it on topic please.
Pedro
We’re never quite going to agree, but I doubt we’re all that far apart either 
It can only be “griefing” if the intent to to annoy the player, and it has to be successful. This makes it a good bit harder to grief experienced players in general, and especially in EVE.
My particular interest is the effect of griefing on new players - i.e. people who don’t have enough game knowledge, capability (SP, equipment), and income to be able to walk away from anything, no matter how large the tactical loss.
I don’t provide specifics in general, but since it’s you (you write consistently interesting and polite posts), a hint: When she was still a little puppy, with her eyes barely open, Elena shared her opinion about selectively targeting new players in a public-domain forum. It can be found via Google. One comment: I could have gone for a much higher temperature in that thread, but I wasn’t looking for change - I wanted to “test the water”, and see what EVE players really thought about what I described.
So I’ve been pulling ESI data and did some counting in python:
Since the changes on the 11th of December 2018, until today:
I did not yet care about resolving the IDs to names and when someone asks me to, I will have to assume that you’re only doing so, because you want to torture me. GRRRRR!
Please note that those who ran more wars are not included in the numbers of those who ran less, aka the ten unique entities that ran over 100 wars does not include those who ran over 500.
1 Like
I’m not really wardec-savvy enough to properly interpret that, I think. On the one hand, it roughly indicates that 12 entities run somewhere around 50% of all wars since the change, and that 680 entities run roughly the other 50%.
Overall that distribution looks somewhat like my standard view of "percentage of the gaming population that are “579 a-bit-more-than-casuals, 101 Getting Serious about the game, 10 Been-Serious for a long while now, 2 Alliances-of-near-fanatic-players”, given that unshown is the “10,000 casuals and part-timers who don’t participate at all”. So that sorta matches what I would expect from a typical gaming population.
Do people who care about wardecs see that data as good, bad, indifferent? I suppose a comparison to the previous 6 month period would be handy, but I think it unfair to ask Solstice to do all that effort for little reward.
This file includes the names of the entities …
… but not the exact amounts …
… because they’re meaningless anyway.
Please be aware that the numbers are for EACH entity, aka both Marmite and PIRAT ran over 500 wars EACH, and not combined!
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/247912985870336000/556485636539023374/warcount.txt
The top 12:
I’m so high on coffee right now, I have no idea what you were asking for …
… but I appreciate this one line. 
I can tell you that we dropped the number of wars by around 30% initially as we had specific contracts to focus on and content seemed to be good.
More recently we increased the number of wars as we had a influx of returning players and a US timezone we want to get off the ground.
The changes stopped us from deccing those without structures and there are still lots of people to dec as there will be come the summer!
Even this info is misleading in one respect, I believe Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse (in the 100 plus wars category) have inherited most of those wars. I understand they are no longer actively war deccing…so, Hollow Chocolates wars were initiated long ago (relatively speaking).
If you check in game, their wars are all mutual and it appears as if they originate when the war decced party leaves an alliance Hollow Chocolate war decced, some time in the past, when they (Hollow Chocolate) were active.
At least that’s my interpretation of what I see in game.
Perhaps someone from Hollow Chocolate Bunnies could provide more insight?
Hollow Chocolate’s wars might be more properly considered “legacy wars” rather than actively pursued wars, initiated currently.
That’s my opinion.
I suspect it would be difficult to identify that specific edge case of wars/war deccing.
Thank you Sol for pulling that info.
1 Like
I don’t know. All I know is that they were running these wars as aggressors. From my perspective it doesn’t matter if they were legacy wars, or if corps joined with wars, or if they were set mutual. We would have to cover all potential edge cases, which is no option, so instead it makes sense to assume that they willing run (keyword) these wars and that’s why i used that word.
A big factor is that the data is heavily skewed towards the beginning, because the changes are only three months old and that time will tell us more eventually. I agree that the lack of deeper insight is misleading and now it bothers me… thanks. grrrrr! : - )
Before this post I thought about making a proper tool more people can use to look at data themselves. Sadly not in python, because windows users don’t have it pre-installed. HTML/JS it’s going to be.
Never mind the thread-subject, I just think that’s the most magnificent name…
1 Like
Glad I’m not the only one thinking that! 
No, they are not “normal” wars.
If you are so afraid of putting something on the field (war hq) getting dunked on by nullsec superpowers like goons maybe don’t declare war on them?
this reveals your true purpose in these wars, you want to gank people without taking any risk(nothing more risk averse than living in an invulnerable npc station and running away at the first sign of trouble, on top of always exploiting every little flaw in the wardec system cough-neutral logi-cough). You declare war on them because you just want more targets, with no other goal than you don’t want to risk anything in typical PvP.
Why would a small group ever declare war on a superpower? If you know you can’t defend it then don’t.
Sure. Give it a whirl. It don’t work, except when it does. Which is not often, but enough. Ignorant aint got not no cure, most of the time.
Yeah you’re absolutely right. I don’t think the OP reads in such a way that makes me seem afraid of the large Nullsec groups. Most groups like us will end up having to adjust their strategy when it comes to who they dec and how many wars they have running, which isn’t a bad thing.
We aren’t afraid of the losses or the fights we’ll have and it’s understandable that a large group would be stronger. I personally wish there were dynamic mechanics like booshing and such that add a tactical advantage to those groups that are able to compensate their lack of matched numbers with skill and finesse. That’s said, all of us are super excited if this results in actual fights. It’s something we’ve gotten tastes of and enjoyed thouroughly (even when we welp) and we wished it happened more often.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any group that doesn’t use / abuse mechanics that are available to them in order to gain an advantage. Suspect logi isn’t a Wardec issue, but a Crimewatch issue (if you really think it’s an issue). I think it’s a shady and underhanded tactic that falls right in-line with what Eve Online pvp is - Fights aren’t always fair. I will concede that it can and has snuffed potential conflict prematurely just because of its existence.
I don’t think the OP at all reveals what you say. The Wardec game we play around the trade hubs is all about interdicting people going to and from the busiest area in the game. My suggestions aim to give incentive for other people to fight us more often rather than just when there’s a timer.
Sure we run away at times or choose not to fight when it doesn’t favor us, but plenty of players and groups do this so why is it terrible that we do?
For us it’s about the hit and run tactics. We can pick apart groups and nab kills when they are far from an actual fleet to protect them. We’re pirates that enjoy making a nice living off of this. Again we have no qualms with a large group coming to kick our sandcastle over, so I’m just wanting to find ways to make it more enjoyable and better for everyone.
In the end is there really any difference between what we do and a Sabre sitting in a hostile groups pipe, trying to nab haulers and players that are weak / alone?
Oops double-post.
Faylee
The OP is an excellent post by any standards (not just this forum, which sets the bar rather low). And IMO you’ve added good material since.
I still have a problem though. Not one we can actually discuss, but I can make a comparison:
I happened to be playing during a period where piracy for ransom as a profession was falling apart. It may have changed again BTW - I didn’t stay long.
It was quite funny to read the forums, but of course the discussion was too late:
- Players had observed that paying a ransom was pointless because the pirates were quite likely to destroy their ship anyway
- People who claimed to be old-school “honest pirates” were arguing that these were just isolated incidents by people/groups who weren’t “real pirates”, and that things could and should return to how they were before. Pay the ransom, and trust that you’d be released
- Names were named. but no groups, notably including the self-described “real pirates”, were hunting the Corps and/or individuals who were destroying ships after a ransom was paid
- For a while (but this is judging by the forums of the time, which were even less honest than they are today), ransoms stopped being paid
“In EVE, you can’t trust anyone ever”
In fact that piracy/ransom thing didn’t matter to me at all. Nor, as it’s turned out, does the wardec change.
But I find that, due to EVE’s general trust problem, I have to assume that everything you’ve said is intended to provide an environment that’s as “griefing-friendly” as possible given the wardec change.
It doesn’t matter that your posts are well-written and plausible. It doesn’t matter that you could be telling the truth. This is EVE - I have to assume you’re misusing your superior knowledge to your own advantage.
3 Likes
Whatever is changed someone will be unhappy with it.
The wardec change where a target corp needs to own a structure protects corps that don’t own one and they are now happy. And everyone rejoiced! Except for the small (or large) corps that own a structure for making money (or just to have one) which are still war eligible and now among a far shorter list of targets. PIRAT has 120 active wars, and now they’re all against someone who owns a structure.
Sneaky CCP move against structure proliferation you say? Sure, in places PIRAT can dominate…