I’m certain they will not. Because they already have. I suspect you have already read the CCP statements on the problem, but considering the self centered small minded rhetoric you’ve used in this thread, I also suspect “this sort of gameplay will completely put us out of business” isn’t a good enough answer for you.
1 Like
See, that isn’t really a thing. Yes, there are player groups that camp trade hubs and shoot anyone and everyone they can, including newer players, but no one hunts two-day-old players who have nothing.
Highsec is chock full of established veterans brimming with riches running large and extensive industrial operations. There are also valuable Upwell structures that the larger groups fight over for control. There are plenty of highsec PvPers who specialize in fighting over these things, as well as farming the careless, who need to operate to keep some player content and player-induced risk in highsec.
Almost time. @Brisc_Rubal, is there some sort of outline or structure to this roundtable or is going to be a general free-for-all?
I’ve got a list of questions that I’m going to ask for comments on, and then we’ll do a free for all.
Well, that was an interesting experience. It appeared that the general consensus from the wardec aggressors was that they were having fun what they have been doing for years and shame on CCP on looking at changing things a bit due to something stupid as business reasons. They seemed to want to force conflict interaction; that people wanting to try involving themselves in corp life outside the NPC corps should be forced into joining corporations were they can be decced. Barring that, they suggested ideas of raising taxes to 11% or higher, having to pay CONCORD monthly, or even suggested that the current practice of extortion should be institutionalized by CCP if a defending corp wanted to have the conflict ended. Brisc’s sensible ideas of having known goals/objectives to choose from for victory conditions was generally dismissed. Interesting mindset was seen; business and population concerns were roundly dismissed in favor of don’t take away my fun and start to penalize people that don’t want to do what I want them to do.
I wish both the CSM and CCP good luck in trying to find a compromise that will satisfy both ends of the spectrum. In the past, I found myself exasperated and disappointed to find so many HS players vocally calling for nerfing HS conflict into the ground, a goal that greatly diminishes the gameplay and its intent. However, I just experienced the mirror image of them in the HS deccing community and their demand to actively punish those not willing to engage them on their own terms, no matter what the risk is to the long term survivability of the game. Just like RL politics in the US, those of us in the middle in the US and EVE find ourselves repelled by both extremes.
1 Like
It was mainly 1 guy talking over everyone else. Quit trying to “force conflict” into the forums when it was a small group of people only really 3 of which talked.
1 Like
Link to the video recording of the roundtable
Long term link youtube
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/359370735
Welcome to follow the Stream as well for more content.
2 Likes
It is fine that the professional wardeccers present their point of view, even if some of them them seem self-interested. This was a roundtable to solicit feedback from mercenaries, not some game design session. Naturally, CCP is going to listen to all points of view fully aware that players are going to be biased and lack the bigger picture, but there is no harm in each side presenting a case what they enjoy or want in the mechanic.
Top level, the biggest problem with wars is that they are still underutilized so it makes sense to ask both the few that do use them what is good about them, and the majority that don’t use them why that is. That said, crafting a system that offers good game play compatible with the core ideas of the game is going to be best done without pandering to either those that love wardecs or those that hate them.
Thanks to all that organized it.
2 Likes
I think the roundtable went pretty well. Glad we had so many folks able and willing to participate.
4 Likes
thank you for hosting and moderating the conversation.
I wasn’t able to attend the round table unfortunately. It was interesting to watch the discussion and some interesting things were said. Also one comment I found interesting which I feel was overlooked slightly was the idea of an inversely scaling war fee. The more members the war dec corp has compared to the target corp. I think this needs some serious consideration.
I spend a lot of time dealing with both industrial pilots and pvp pilots. I myself have and still do dabble in both. I’ve done High sec, low sec, wormhole and even FW across various characters. And I can speak from experience that (as someone mentioned during the round table) focusing one any one of these things requires specific sets of skills that must be focused on to be able to be successful and efficient and that leaves you lacking in other areas. This is why I have had dedicated characters for each one at one point or another. Even FW, though it shares a lot in common with PvP requires slightly different skills you’d find from a dedicated PvP pilot not in FW, though the main reason for separating my FW character from other characters is standing.
I think one thing that was missed, and this comes from most industrialists I know, is that industrialists for the most part don’t want 100% safe space. What they object to is the fact that most wars and ganks aren’t from people with legitimate reasons, but just from people who are essentially bullies who are too cowardly to pick a fight with anything that can fight back. And the issue is that the game rewards this type of attitude over conflicts with legitimate reasons. And before you roll your eyes no I’m not in favour of sov style pvp in high sec.
Another huge problem is these bullies are the most vocal on the forums, so any time someone suggests something which, if you give it some though, is reasonable, they get chewed up and people dismiss it without any form of rational debate, reasonable consideration or polite criticism with potential alternative. If I’m honest this whole attitude is why I avoid the forums, though recent events have caused me to pay attention and I may have an invested interest on how the course of these discussions and implemented changes go. If I’m honest I find bullies distasteful in real life and even games, and the justification “it’s a game” holds no water with me, you’re still a terrible person. I also think the whole “it’s a sandbox” argument, which is the resort of people incapable of rational and reasonable discussion, holds no water. Sandbox =/= no rules or regulations.
Also many of the suggestions I see to prevent such griefing flat out don’t break the sandbox, they simply add consequences to the actions you take which makes sense. I was talking to an industrialist I’ve known from a while back the other day and she basically said something I completely agree with.
She said ganking in high sec should give you an automatic -10 security standing and -10 standing with the faction whose space you gank in. This doesn’t stop people from ganking, it adds consequence and risks to the ganker. But if she were to suggest this on the forums all you would get are “sandbox” etc and I can see the horrific toxic responses now. And she said, the truth is such a thing isn’t against the sandbox. You can still gank. What you mean if that you don’t want to gank because it’s inconvenient to you. And she’s right in saying this. I’m not saying I agree with the -10 sec standing and -10 standing but I do think there should be consequences to ganking. What I agree with is that such changes are not against the sandbox. Doing something illegal should get you in trouble with the war. Gankers always talk about risk vs reward but the simple fact is gankers hide behind the protection of concord in cheap ships that are easy to replace taking out targets that can’t defend themselves. Where is the risk in that? The reward is sure good (unless you’re just being a bully and doing it because you enjoy ruining the experience of other people). What gankers are really saying when they mock people for suggesting changes is that “I don’t want the sandbox to inconvenience my style of play. Well I’ve got news for you, what they are suggesting is about as against the sandbox as you ganking them for trying to play their way. In the sandbox they’re entitled to play their way too.
Now I make use of gankers, I won’t deny that. And I will kill industrialists who are part of a corp we have a legitimate conflict with, though I never condone unwarranted attacks on indy pilots, that’s just cowardice.
Now I know this is about war decs and I don’t want to take the discussion away from that. I merely used the ganker conversation as an example of the attiude of greifers and how they’re wrong in saying that regulations, penalties and difficulties are against the sandbox. And how such regulations making it difficult to play your way is no different than you picking on corps that can’t fight back and making it difficult to play their way. I’m not saying all mercs and high sec war decs are greifers, but the problem to industrialists is that the majority are. And I’m not just getting this from discussions from industrialists, I’m getting this from all the killboards I see when I’ve been doing what I do. Probably 90% of what I see is people going around killing ships that can’t fight back and that’s the issue. The system favours this. The entire game favours this. It’s why the wider community is so damn horrible and I have a hard time tolerating the people on these forums and don’t really participate in them, because the majority of the active vocal players are bullies and nothing more. And this is where the problems are routed for most industrial corps. The war decs they get are against corps that they have no real of fighting back against and the people declaring these wars know that. Chances are even if they want to fight back their skills mean they can’t do so effectively. And this was touch don in the round table that many worry that feeding kills to the enemy will just make them extend the war. This is where the doc up policy of most small indy corps comes from. And as long as eve remains a passive training game that’s going to be the policy against war decs you can’t possibly stand up to.
And all throughout the round table there was one rather vocal individual saying “just pay for mercs”. Most small corps can’t afford that. People really over estimate the amount of money a high sec industrials makes. Most are lucky if they earn 30-60 mil a day and that’s with a 4 hour or so play window with a properly trained miner in exhumers. Some can boost that by about 10-20 mil through manufacturing but then you have to bear in mind that their blueprints have cost them possibly a billion to buy and even more in research fees and almost a year to research a battleship BPO to 10ME, so really that’s not profit at all, they’re still paying of their BPOs, and that’s ignoring what they had to invest in a structure if they have. Anyone who claims to earn more is likely multiboxing and you can’t balance things around that, you have to balance around a player having 1 account. And I guess another point is corps don’t see any of this money so if you have pubbies rather than just friends then you may never see any of their profit. My corp taxes its miners through our ore purchase program but there’s nothing to say they MUST sell to us (though corp ops are automatically bought up by the corp).
I’m actually not against the structure change but saying “just avoid a war by not having a structure” (which was another point this person made) again isn’t really a valid argument. Small corps don’t invest in these structures in high sec because it’s profitable they invest because they enjoy the process of running these structures. I don’t disagree that this should have a risk, but they should be able to defend them more easily (I’m in favour of auto turrets for Upwell structures like the old PoSs now that we have 24 hour shield vulnerability and modules offline when shields are done).
I guess the point is that it doesn’t matter how many ways you can avoid war you’re essentially saying “my way to play is right and your way is wrong” but crying “oh no sanbox, every gets to play their way” when a reasonable alteration is made that doesn’t remove your content just makes it so you have to jump through an additional hoop to access it, but when you’re griefing an industrialist with war decs for no reason you’re doing the same. Worse, if you actively hunt them you’re actually locking them out of their content.
I don’t know how this is to be fixed in a fair way. Perhaps there should be a system where concord invalidates a war if no kills are made in a certain window and if the war is made invalid then there’s a cooldown before that same corp can dec them again? That way you CAN just starve out greifers and can access your content for a while before they try again. Lets face it high sec war isn’t a legitimate war. As the point was made in the round table you’re bribing concord to look the other way. Lore wise it should really undermine their authority and the empires kick them out if they are so corrupt to allow you to repeatedly war dec the same corp again and again. I honestly don’t know. But it does need fixing, I agree with that.
I also agree with the CSM rep’s view that incentivise the conflict for the defenders is a good idea, and the best way to create PvP content. And a way for them to fight their way to a forced stalemate and cessation of the war would be a good idea (though again I agree that mutual wars should remain and be active and so until one side is revoked) with a cool down before the aggressor can initiate a new war. This was objected to because it breaks the sandbox but again I’d say no, it’s adding more options to the sandbox, what you’re objecting to is it inconveniencing the way you play. It’s not preventing you from decing a new corp if you’re truly after just the PvP. What you really mean is you can’t inconvenience them into an endless war unless they pay you a ransom. What you mean is you want all of the control in the situation. Well I say to you that’s not a sandbox. I say adapt and get better at avoiding allowing them to complete their objective.
And again I find myself getting around to the conclusion that the only people who are really vocal about outright opposition to changes are greifers and bullies. If you really wanted a fight you wouldn’t be war decing indy corps who have done nothing to anybody to provoke such agression. If you really wanted PvP content you’d be fighting people who can fight back. You just want the cheap thrill of a kill even though they can’t fight back. You just want to pad your killboard. You just enjoy making someone unhappy. I’m not saying that there aren’t valid reasons for an indy corp becoming a target what I’m saying is most of these war decs aren’t for valid reasons and are for the reasons I just stated.
The industrial community isn’t saying they want to be immune. They’re just tried of dealing with people whose only objective is ruining the enjoyment of others. And as someone who actively encourages PvP and takes part in PvP I find it impossible to say that I don’t whole heartedly agree with them.
3 Likes
War bonds are a terrible idea, you are just going to force extortion on people within the game mechanics, most casual hisec people will give up playing rather than pay that. Ah I have seen you realised that when you said not forcing the defender to pay it, good man, 57 minutes in.
The player who did not like the concept of enabling allied repping on the defenders side and used the complexity of war deckers relationships to say no amazed me. It should be possible to structure it on the defenders side, does not seem too hard to do.
PIRAT saying that their wars are mainly for profit is incorrect, most of their wars are for easy passing targets.
Also previously people can be in NPC corps and mine without being war decked previously, so the structure base to war dec just keeps people in player corps. There is a dude in Raravoss who has all his ice miners in NPC corps. Keeping people in corp is a great idea, the key thing is to enable people to have localised conflict which the structures cause an issue with. That is what you need to deal with.
In terms of Athanors make the grid act differently in that if people are not allowed to dock or tether then mining the stuff there will make them go suspect.
Peace tax, rofl, the income from hisec players is too low for that bullshite, same for hiring mercs. 1bn a month, oh dear. If it is a bribe to CONCORD then the fee to avoid a war dec must be linked to the cost to war dec, like a bidding war. This is similar to my point which I made in the war dec discord, that when you have excellent contacts with a locator agent yourself that they give you the heads up when a war decker does a locator on me.
That CONCORD bribe bidding idea linked to war dec cost could be a good way to deal with it.
Sandbox game <> PVP game amusing reply 
@CCP_Falcon thank you for putting such a long timer on edits, made writing this while listening to the steam a real damn chore, that is really stupid, your forum sucks big time.
I have to say the person making reference to real life bullying is losing the plot, in Europe as such we used to be a civilised society so bullying is not something that should be ignored in civilised societies, though if you become a soldier you should expect to be bullied as in terms of the system of training soldiers is bullying. It has no relationship to Eve which is a sandbox game where you chose to play in it. I understand the point he was trying to make but it was idiotic to use school bullying as an example.
Getting the balance right to make it more fun and doable for both sides is critical.
The PIRAT guy trying to push mercs was amusing, because is he really going to do convoy duty, no he does not, there is no defensive merc contracts where a PIRAT guy sits there to defend a group of miners. It is a silly argument to make as they just do not do that.
Will you write minutes / a summary?
I listened to the roundtable, quite depressing really. We all play eve but everyone’s game is different. I’m an industrialist, my game is optimising the production chain. If I want to PvP I’ll go and play ED. If you force me to PvP in Eve then I’ll unsub and just play ED. Fuckin’ idiots.
I’ve got my list of notes, and I’ll try to turn it into something readable.
This wasn’t a roundtable for you - it was a roundtable for the pro-war dec team.
Wrong. Every changes to wardec will afect not only pro wardec players. Industrialist already take part of pvp in industrial part of sandbox. Forcing anything will have opposite effect.
In simple terms: don’t force your vision of sandbox on other players, or your gamestyle rather.
The point of this round table was to solicit the ideas from the pro-war dec community. We already have the perspective of the anti-war dec community. This was specifically to hear their complaints and concerns, their ideas.
This was a listening session.
Hey Brisc, I can’t seem to find either a recording or minutes from any previously held Wardec roundtable soliciting views from the defenders in a wardec, would you please offer a link since search in the forum doesn’t turn up anything? Thank you.
was the previous one a while back admittedly it has both viewpoints though there have been a number of other ways this is been communicated.
once can assume the exact opposite of what was said from pro dec side… is the approach from defense, give objectives, give a way to make wars meaningful, and give a way for defense to win other than log out and starve content. I’ve been holding this torch a while and i think brisc and the current CSM have a good idea of how to help with what both sides say they want and what might be healthy for the game… in the end CCP will do something hopefully ti makes both sides happy.
Thank you for posting the link, interesting listening there,too. My comment earlier was firmly tongue in cheek; I knew there hadn’t been a roundtable based from the defender’s perspective. Listening to the linked roundtable, it appeared that it was mainly filled with deccers (since they introduced themselves and their affiliated corps as such) and the lone person arguing about the defender’s point of view was almost universally smothered by the rest of the group, despite his valiant (and well communicated explanations) attempt to express his views, The phrase “you are lying” was directed at him numerous times and certain members of the deccing group were even more dismissive.
I guess my concern is that the wardeccing community are some of the more aggressive personality types in EVE who are passionately advocating for their style of play and this personality trait is evident when any discussion from BOTH sides is held. I sure hope that both CSM and CCP doesn’t consider that meeting with Jin’Taan to represent a fair and balanced discussion, because it wasn’t. While I appreciate that some of the participants seem to understand at least part of both sides, there was a core of deccers who came across as less than trying to find an equable solution and more on how they can force people to either participate or pay stiffer in game penalties. This was the same way of thinking evident in the meeting this week.
I truly don’t envy CCP on finding a solution that will satisfy both sides. Perhaps a high sec only war target location system would remove station hugging and blanket wardeccing, but some players seemed reluctant to remove the trade hub target shooting. As Black Pedro mentioned earlier and I echo, I only hope that CCP finds a good middle ground that encourages far more people participating. Viewing posts on the forums, I find myself chuckling at the observation that we are all seemingly playing different games within EVE…but perhaps that is what makes EVE so great.
1 Like