So maybe highsec players should stop being useless perma-victims and fight back. Stop demanding more nerfs to PvP when you aren’t even bothering to use the tools you already have.
2 Likes
Im not being disingenuous when I say that. Like I said you can browse my post history if you wish to prove me wrong, but this behavior is what I said would happen back when the Nullsec CSM was trying to best figure out how we should play our game.
—-
If you look at our killboard you’ll see that most of the isk is made off of someone from a Nullsec group, not some small new player group that we’ve decided to bully (we don’t do that, really). The isk dropped is split between members on the killmail and all of our wars are funded via contracts and such.
So let’s say we use your cost method for wars… the cost would just get passed onto the price to hire us.
I can’t speak for anyone else in Pirat, but I can list a few reasons why Nullsec has little appeal to me:
-
I don’t see much room for a smaller group to outplay a larger group and have actual meaningful impact.
-
I don’t want to play in an area where an objective is going to won according to who has more capitals.
-
Don’t want to have to deal with Intel reporting programs working against me.
That and more that we can discuss in depth if you’d like. I’ve already admitted that I hate what Highsec, Wardecs, and this game in general have become. I’ve tried to quit plenty of times and have even gone to the extremes of extracting my characters a few times (yes I’m dumb). There are still things I enjoy about the game, but they are also probably things that you dislike about the game (lol).
I have always enjoyed Highsc because of the many ways I can choose to operate and interact with other players all while being able to control my level of commitment and risk. In the past I enjoyed guerilla warfare tactics where I’d hit and run… hunting higher value targets with the watchlist. It’s an area of the game that provides very unique opportunities and I enjoy it.
2 Likes
If the extra war fee of 2-3 bill is passed onto the customer, considering you probably need two weeks of paid decs for the average war/takedown, that’s an extra 4-6 bill you’ll need to charge. Seems fair to me.
Fair enough about not wanting to commit to null and prefering hisec. I think some of your suggestions are bad though.
If you make structures expensive, people still won’t fight you to defend them. They just won’t place them in the first place and you’ll have less enemies/targets as a result.
If you make some way to fight over and control areas of hisec, it will become like null. And it’s highly likely the null alliances will take over such areas anyway.
The great thing about hisec is that what happened to null can’t happen to hisec. Unless they make some dumb change to the game that enables it.
Why? You still haven’t established any reason that a nerf is needed.
1 Like
No matter how any of us feel the sad part is that we’re wasting our times here trying to beat our ideas into each other’s head.
CCP has already made their changes to Highsec and have likely washed their hands of it. The CSM asked CCP for data and it’s what started all this. I wish that CCP would have taken inspiration and “expertise” from more than just our Nullsec CSM at the time, but they didn’t - so we’re stuck with these changes.
I understand your frustration in that you see flaws in these mechanics and I assure you that I do as well. We just look at it differently and have different solutions to what we believe are problems. I don’t know why CCP is incapable of making changes, then following them up with small balance patches but they seem to take YEARS with this stuff and by that time hemorrhaging has taken place and players are disgruntled.
——
I’m so defensive about this stuff because historically I’ve really enjoyed playing in Highsec. I’ve tried everything else just about and even if I hadn’t there’s enough people complaining here and on Reddit about every other area of space for me to know that the problem with all this is CCP.
2 Likes
Just to be clear, we are still listening to threads and feedback like this.
Well, a lot of energy was spent trying to improve wars over on the Wardec Project Discord:
And the results disappointed some.
Perhaps drop by to see some context.
I appreciate your reply. It’s something that Falcon would have never bothered to do. There’s a lot of frustration when it comes to CCP and “balancing”. Not everyone has the right idea that will work, and I admit that my ideas can have flaws.
Something that I wish would happen is to bring back focus groups. I remember reading through the convo logs for the capital changes focus group as well as the contracts and hauling focus groups around the time when Upwell structures were first coming out.
I don’t mind anyone have suggestions and feedback because everyone has a right to be apart of the discussion, but it really bothers me that my expertise and experience in the subject gets drowned out by people telling me that my ideas and opinion don’t matter because I’m not playing in Nullsec.
A good example of this was recorded during the Bumping and Ganking round table hosted by Toxic Yaken when it was announced that CCP was considering a 3-minute bump timer. Warr Akini (Miniluv founder) approached CCP Rise and offered him his insight and expertise on bumping and ganking. CCP Rise refused the offer. That is frustrating mostly because we know well that most of the times it’s the players that are the subject matter experts on gameplay and mechanics and the Devs and GMs that are not up to speed.
My rant is over! Thanks for responding here and let’s hope you can get some kind of community involvement setup (FOCUS GROUPS PLEASE).
2 Likes
I hear you guys, I know it can be hard putting a lot of energy into something and then not feeling it’s been heard. There are a lot of restraints on the development side that can be hard to explain too (one of which being time).
To my understanding, the wardec changes were one of those things identified as an issue and tweaked in a very short time frame - that doesn’t mean we can’t return to them at some point in the future however, and feedback on them is of course always welcome.
I’ll be happy to hop into your wardec discord server to see what you guys have been talking about - as highsec wardec mechanics have long been an interest of mine as well.
2 Likes
@CCP_Aurora
Dear CCP_Aurora, in view of player retention it would be welcome if the harassing behaviour of cyber bullies in this forum, or in the game, is not encouraged. Thank you. Kind regards
You should have quit the game 15 years ago."
Just doing my part to clean up space trash. Sure has gotten pretty filthy around here. 
3 Likes
Same philosophy used by your mega hisec wardec coalition in game? With massively broken war dec system resulting in your group having a 97% ratio of kills to deaths.
For the third time, wars are completely consensual now. They can’t declare on your group of any size if you don’t throw your hat into the right and deploy a structure making yourself war eligible. You can even use an alt corp and benefit from both owning a structure and war immunity!
But I guess I should give up as you clearly don’t want to hear any advice or tips, and just want to vent and complain. Well have at it, but really just setting up your corp and structures properly to cheese maximum safety will save you a lot of angst.
I guess as long as threads like this keep appear wars aren’t completely dead, although I really wish the system encouraged wars between veteran groups rather than letting the veterans have near complete safety and only clueless and foolishly brave new groups getting swept up but… well that will always be the case I imagine until CCP can bring some real conflict drivers to highsec.
1 Like
Black Pedro, Does having a structure, that isn’t acting to claim territory, moons, or compete for market services, really need to equate to throwing your name into the come at me bro pvp hat? I don’t think many players, mostly newer players, would see it that way.
Perhaps the smallest category of structures should not automatically make you war eligible. Apart from if they claim a moon, or are used as a war HQ. Small structures can’t use market modules anwyay. And their refine efficiency can’t compete with larger structures.
This would open up structures to small corps, without them being called “stupid” by some toxic players of this forum, for wanting to try some of the basic features of the game without getting squshed by groups such as the mega hisec wardec coalition, whom they stand no chance to defend against.
It has been said several times that the biggest corps, of any size, as Pedro has just pointed out, circumvent the war mechanic by keeping their structures in alt corps anyway. So it’s only newer players who don’t understand the mechanics or have a desire to play the alt corp metagame that suffer from having all structures make you war eligible.
I think given these circumstances, it would be a really good change to make it so that the smallest structures do not make you war eligible. Apart from the case of where one is used as a war HQ or an athanor claims a moon.
1 Like
What is it doing then?
And why do you think wardec mechanic exists?
@Namtis
Good constructive post 
1 Like
Thank you. I don’t know why they didn’t do this in the first place. It makes a ton of sense for it to be like that.
In addition to removing small structures from war eligibility, a second change I would consider is to add a ‘derelict’ status for structures. If a structure remains unfueled for something like 30 days, it becomes derelict, loses shield, and can be destroyed by anyone, no war necessary. That’s just so that unused/abandoned small structures can be cleaned up. Gives players something to do as well.
See, it kinda does.
Everything in New Eden that is player-owned needs to be contestable, AKA explodable. It’s like a core idea of the game, and necessary to prevent the universe from filling up with spam. Also, all player-owned structures can influence the economy somehow, whether it be through influencing the industrial index, offering a market or industrial service, or creating resources like moon ore. As long as these things are true, there needs to be a way to fight over them.
So no matter what, there needs to be a system to contest player-owned structures. Now that doesn’t have to be a war mechanic like we have now, but that is the reason why wars are currently indispensable. So even if there is a new system to fight over structures and CCP deletes wars, a group deploying a structure will still be throwing their hat in to the ring signalling they are ready to compete when they deploy said structure.
As said above, this is impossible, unless these smallest structures don’t really do anything beyond what a ship can do. There needs to be some trade-off and risk for benefits, but ok, if the smallest structures offer nothing more than storage and a cool club house to hang out in, then fine. The smallest deployables - MTUs and Mobile Depots are already like this.
Yes. The war changes missed the mark. Or at least didn’t improve anything really when it comes to this.
Structures should have benefits only accessible for members of the corps/alliances that deployed them. I get the desire and intent behind offering public services, but it totally circumvents risk vs. reward as implemented. Sure, some services could be public, but there should be additional benefits to encourage players to stay in, and fight for, corps.
This was discussed to death before and during the last war revamp, but it went nowhere, so I really don’t feel like going over it all again. Just use the planet-sized hole in the mechanics to dodge wars as CCP seems to intend. You can have your space toys, and keep your war immunity! Isn’t that good enough?
2 Likes
Newer players don’t own structures.
As I said, small structures can’t run markets. Small structures cannot compete with larger structures refine efficiency, so even if they do offer an industrial service, it will only be basic and never the best. If they claim a moon, they’ll receive warning that by doing so they will become war eligible and they’ll have to accept that warning in order to claim. The war eligibility would last until the moon claiming athanor is unanchored or destroyed.
Sorry, the industrial index? Is that even a thing in hisec? Not as far as I know. You don’t need a war to destroy structures outside of hisec.
So I see no problem with this suggested change.
So we agree the structure system for receiving benefits/risking war doesn’t work. Even the largest corps and alliances circuvment it entirely by having their structures owned by an alt corp yet still they control and receive the benefits of the structure as if it was in their main corp.
The system isn’t fulfulling its purpose. It just creates a situation where smaller or new corps, who don’t understand or don’t want to play the structure alt corp metagame, make themselves vulnerable to attack from war deccers whom they never wanted to fight and stand no chance against.