There is a reason you don’t fly what you cannot afford to lose. This is a non-issue.
1 Like
I’m afraid the context of the discussion is lost on you. Whether you can afford them or not is irrelevant. Virtually guaranteeing their loss with a non warping radius means people won’t be using them anymore. What for? You can’t get your pod out. And if your changes dumb down the game rather than add complexity, you’ve failed to produce change that is in the spirit of Eve.
That doesn’t stop null from using them.
Also Steve is pretty awesome only guy out there that’s run for CSM more times than me. (And hes got a way better record at winning)
2 Likes
People solo capitals through lowsec all the time too. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Nothing guarantees you’ll find a fight that made it worth it either.
Hi there,
I wanted to ask a few questions focused on your understanding and opinions of Highsec PVP:
What do you think the core issues are with wardecs?
Do you agree with with the suggestion made by (some people?) on CSM XII to change wardec mechanics so that only corporations that have anchored structures can be wardecced?
Do you think there needs to be an alternative intel tool for wardecs now that watchlists have been removed?
Would you be interested in joining the Wardec Project discord to further discuss wars?
Do you think ganking is balanced?
Do you think there is a way to make ganking more interactive for those looking to prevent ganks?
Do you think having a cap on how long you can keep a ship bumped before it can safely warp off would be a good change?
Good luck on your campaign (though I doubt you will need it 
)
Toxic
I’m currently at fanfest, and nursing a little bit of a hangover, so you’ll have to forgive me if this is shorter than my regular replies:
The core issue, as I see it, with Wardecs, is that the ‘correct’ response is often considered to be ‘log off and don’t do anything until the wardec goes away. Don’t feed them kills’.
There’s nothing the defender can do that affects the duration or scope of the war. (Other than make it mutual. Nothing to reduce it)
There’s also nothing the defender can do (normally) to force a fight. They might have structures which they wish to defend, but the reverse is far less likely to be true. (i have no statistics on this, so it’s an educated guess). The attacker has far less at risk.
The ‘only wardec corps with structures’ is an option. It’s one of the (possibly) lower effort ones. I’d prefer something where you can get a name and flag, but no structures/tax break. Effectively a player run npc corp. (most of the limits of the NPC corp, few of the PC corp benefits, but you can’t be wardecced. You do get a name though. And that’s a big deal for some people. I’d love to see red frog actually able to run freighters in their own name, rather than the kludge of how it’s done now. (contract alts in red frog, freighter alts in npc corp))
While you’re not asking, I’d also like to see the attacking corp have some skin in the game. Right now it’s “You pay the fee, go have some fun blowing stuff up, if you want to.” I would like to see a structure which they own, which if destroyed ends the war. Possibly even holding some isk in escrow. (far shorter attack period than other structures) Something so at least one fight can be forced. It’d give Mercs something to do as allies, for one.
Intel, as a whole, is something which needs to be worked on in Eve. Perfect intel tools are bad. But you need someting.
I would be willing to join the discord, yes. But bear in mind that only so much is worth doing, until CCP has war decs on its radar agin.
Ganking is relatively balanced. I’m not a fan of the unlimited duration of bumping, because it’s a next to zero risk activity, with the potential of a decent payout (as part of something larger) I do want to see that cap put in place. Long enough (and interruptable, with a loss in highsec), but not too long.
As for making ganking more interactive, that’s very very hard to do. Because when you gank ‘right’, it’s pretty much already done by the time you start.
3 Likes
Think this has been done already. Announced at Fanfest 2016:
Ship bumping - at maximum for 3 minutes
A small, but important change is coming. A ship will get into warp no later than 3 minutes after the warp was initiated, regardless of any bumping, as long as the warp engines aren’t disabled (warp scrambled, bubble etc.).
Unfortunately, this change has not happened yet.
Apparently it broke things. It’s still being looked at and I generally agree with it.
2 Likes
Oh! Thanks 
confirmation of ‘no confirmation’
“But I want to see more dynamic options for PvE in all space, where you can chose to have to think and react to what’s happening around you.”
and thats where u got my vote =)
1 Like
Please support Steve. Utterly dedicated CSM, an amazingly helpful techie and all round top app developer.
1 Like
Got my vote as always. Don’t care about what you are for or against. Just love the tools. Good luck.
1 Like
Hello Steve
I wanted to ask about Standings with Factions. With the loss of Jump Clones and Anchorage as value to having Standing - will there be some replacement benefit?
1 Like
Its been a month, but this idea just occurred to me. Something interactive for the victim to try.
If you have enough time during an attack or bumping delay while the attackers gather more ships, to run the hacking mini game successfully on your ship’s engines, (add a button somewhere, perhaps just to freighter-type ships) the ship would immediately enter warp. The button would only work after some time (perhaps a minute after starting to warp) elapses, to prevent abuse of a method of bypassing normal align time. The hacking puzzle itself takes time to solve. Failing the hack could stop the engines (warp attempt) completely, for another minute.
This would give the victim something to do, but because it requires a new button on certain ships, and code and testing, I don’t expect it would happen.
Steve is the most beautiful cinnamon roll too good for this world, too pure and thus has my vote once again this cycle.
Highsec is a thing, I guess, and definitely has a few areas that are in dire need of some love. But we all know that what Steve is really running as is the official CSM for the Third Party Devs and we don’t deserve the wonderful he does for us.
1 Like
How do you feel about ESI?
More specifically:
- The need to have a paid account in order to use ESI?
- The ease-of-use of ESI?
- Making people register their own application id for every Evemon installation?
All of my accounts will likely vote for you
1 Like
1: This isn’t strictly accurate. The requirement is that you, at some point, have paid CCP with a credit card for the account which you use to create an application on the developers site. I’m not entirely happy with the requirement, but it’s coming out of Legal, so it’s not going anywhere.
2: As a developer, ESI is much easier to use than the XML api was. It’s in active development, new features are being added, and there’s actually official documentation. It’s unfortunate that some tasks, like some spreadsheet work, have become more complex. But there’s been work done by our third party community (So Blacksmoke16’s GESI library for example) to make using it pretty simple with different things.
3: There’s work being done here to make this less of an issue. The core of it is that the developer is liable for ‘bad’ things done with their key. As the key is immediately visible on the client, it can be easily stolen. Hence, getting people to create their own.
Steve have voted for you before 1 year. What i would like is a newsletter about what is happening inside the game, and where the game will go.
Thank you.
1 Like
votes casted on you Steve
Just did…your rock bro. May you win