I havent visited the wardec mechanic in a while. Why do suicide gankers not use it more to pick valuable targets more profitably?
What fun can we have discussing wardec?
2 reasons âŚ
1 they donât want a fight , they want kills.
2 much targets are wardec immune
Not sure what you are even asking here. Different activities in game attract different types of players who gain a different kind of personal reward/motivation from the things they do.
It appears you are asking âIsnât wardeccing and hunting legal targets more efficient than suicide ganking and losing your ship each time?â.
Except for most people, it isnât about efficiency. Plus, any efficiency calculation would have to take into account the cost of the wardec, the time spent locating a viable wardec target, the fact that the wardec announces your intent in advance and lets the targets start countermeasures or avoidance. I doubt it would beat standard suicide ganking even from an efficiency point of view, in the average case.
PvP in EVE is designed fairly poorly, so people engage in it less because the activity is interesting, and more because it scratches some personal itch for them. Some people will do it for a grudge, some will do it for their killmail record, some will do it to salt mine. Quite a few, whom you see regularly stroking their egos on the forums, do it because it convinces them they are âbetter peopleâ than their targets.
For those people, wardec or suicide gank or low-sec/WH hunter will be a playstyle choice, not an efficiency choice. A number of players do of course engage in PvP simply for profit/drops, and some do it just for the challenge.
With any luck, maybe you can get some of the âfor profitâ types in here to discuss the economics of wardecs vs. suicides. I suspect you are going to see a lot more of the âplaystyle issuesâ responses.
1 Like
Heâs just attention whore trolling like in all his threads.
4 Likes
Watching people cry and make posts like this is pretty great. I love how they try to make arguments about isk efficiency or ship values, etc.
Turns out some people play video games for fun, not to min max efficiency. Who would have thought!? The salt and tears are also a great plus.
2 Likes
Whose crying you loser? Go back to your null hole. You couldnât make it top dawg into the biggest markets in the game so go live in the super cap umbrella.
Because CCP screwed up wardec and made it structure owners only.
So now many are just immune.
I try 
1 Like
Because most haulers (especially professional ones) are in npc/wardec immune corps specifically to prevent that.
Thanks. Didnt realize that about the mechanic at first.
Is there anyway to make wardecs fun?
So wardecs;
-
You can only wardec corps that have a structure, which means the vast majority of players are immune to decs. As a result wardecs tend to be targeting structures rather than corps.
-
You must have a structure yourself (not a poco). So thatâs at least a 500mil EC. And if you lose the structure the dec ends,
-
They cost 100mil isk per wardec per week.
Compare that to the freedom of ganking. Any target in space, any time, anywhere.
Wardecs are in a bad state at the moment. But thatâs a long rant.
1 Like
Well we just had a war with an Amarr tornado ganker that ended up with him losing a bling fit Leshak because we located the two structures he had on final timers and he made a few errors. We therefore saved the two structures timer and we put his war HQ into its final timer before he dropped the war and joined CODE. We had a decent fight on his first armour timer where he did rather well when aided by three neutral bumpers and we lost 2 x BC and a BS and failed to put it in structure.
They can be fun. And this was a ganker who was war decking low powered structures as a side line.
So many negative thoughts, this guy was up for it.
You can suicide gank pretty much anyone who isnât docked.
To wardec you need to pay additional fee to concord, target must be in corporation that is war eligible (at least one structure anchored in space), target can actually engage first - assuming itâd not simply dock when you enter local, and then all miners will be more than willing to simply jump the corp as soon as they are wardecced.
Because itâs silly. Why would people waste millions of ISK for a declaration when they can just put these millions into ships achieving the same thing anyway? Outside of structure bashing wars seem to have become meaningless.
Suicide ganking has gained momentum as war declarations have gotten increasingly prohibitive. Like Solecist mentions, it is relatively more cost effective in many situations.
Thinking of this as profit driven, I believe, is a mistake. Ganking and war declarations are, more basically, tools used to provide the user with agency. The ability to shape the world they live in according to their will. It could be that a person desires profit, or it could be conflict, or it could be that he or she feels you have violated some moral standard, or it could be they feel they own the space and want to force people in it to obey.
Ganking is always available as a means of enforcement. There is no ship in space you canât gank, given enough pilots and ships. War, though, is only applicable to well defined targets who use that definition to exclude most of their valuable assets and all of their personnel.
The only things you can for sure shoot at for the expense of a war are structures. People seem to lean towards structure warfare as being not engaging nor profitable relative to the time invested. You have to account for the 100M isk loss for the declaration, and for the cost and upkeep of the structure the declaring corporation or alliance must own, but may not actually want to make use of.
Gankers will declare war where it becomes practical. I am sure at least some of them would prefer to. It just isnât feasible or sensible except in very specific cases under the current rules for a joe average to do.
3 Likes
There issue was always to put something at stake for the war decker so that the defender had something tangible to affect if they could shake themselves out of their stupor. There are people who do this, not many, but it happens.
One can argue that one has to earn the right to war dec by being able to defend your stuff, and if you canât defend it then you do not deserve to be able to war dec anyone. I come from that point of view, they need to put up or shut up. And all this whining because of a cheap Raitaru which they do not even have to fuelâŚ
And this change which ends the ability to pick your own day will make it a lot easier for attackers, in my view it makes it too easy to go after indy corps who by the way are told that to do this higher level indy means that they have to be able to defend it, I often wonder why this concept only applies to them?
It doesnât.
But Iâd rather see the ability to wardec people who donât have structures and for there to be a cheaper option to use as a war hq. (and much cheaper dec fees)
1 Like
Good because previously a lot of war deckers would start going on about their bling boats being what they risked in war decs.
I would not disagree with that at all. Cheaper option but heavier penalties in terms of ability to re-start the war after a loss of such a HQ. I certainly think that 100m is way too much. I would do 10m.
I do not encounter a lot of complaining from those who suicide gank, and I am of the opinion that wars are prohibitively expensive, and very limited in their application.
Ideally, yes, I would like to see more âbalancedâ fights, but I think that making wars more difficult and expensive has done more to harm that than to help it by making life harder for small groups to go to war. Itâs small groups fighting other small groups that would make for a more balanced fight. The larger groups of players are going to be able to afford to wardec whomever they please unless the costs become ridiculous.
I have heard CCP speak of how wardecs negatively affected retention. That activity levels dropped and did not return after the 'dec was over. I believe this is the case, but I also believe that these players who never return did not understand the game they were playing to begin with.
I am personally a big zero in the PvP department. I donât like it. Even the idea of winning the engagement does not appeal to me. I want to be nice to people, and I play Eve because I have the opportunity to be nice where it is not required of me.
What I do have going for me is a stubborn quality. On the occasions someone would wardec, I would do what I wanted to do anyway. Granted, it was harder, but not impossible. That I can survive being at war and a gank target makes me very suspicious the people declaring war or ganking are a problem. I think the problem is attitude, and an unwillingness to adapt or face a problem/setback at all.
I live far from Jita, and I dislike the notion of one universal hub, so I go out of my way to avoid the place and stay in the boonies. This may account for my difference of opinion on the matter. I also donât have any real ambition or aim to be an industry powerhouse, but aim to produce or provide what I can that my friends want or need.
When I think about Eve, and my accomplishments, it is my friendships that Iâve made that Iâm most fond of. The people who think well of me are my measure of success. Since itâd be hard to take these things away from me with war or ganks, that, too, could be the reason I do not find them threatening or problematic.
Anyways, those are some of my opinions, and what I think my biases are that may be affecting my judgement, the crux of which is that if you elevate war requirements out of reach of small groups it shouldnât be a surprise that wars are only used against them and that theyâd turn to something like ganking instead, and that FacPo and CONCORD make exacting your own payback so difficult people complain it is risk free because destruction of the enemy is assured and theyâve accounted for that.
I preferred war as it was. I felt I had options in the form of allies and I was willing to go out and be at risk to provide content for my retinue, or, indeed, for the wardeccer. The changes have just made it harder for me to offer content to people who would have wanted it. Maybe they were good for the game as a whole and Iâm missing the bigger picture because Iâm a small potato, but it doesnât seem that way to me.
The rules are what they are, though. Nothing to do but put on my best pair of shades and deal with it.
1 Like
I think this is the key issue that CCP has been missing for so long. For years, CCP pushed players into the bigger corps, the bigger ships, the Null donuts and farming grind, because they seem to think itâs the âbig battlesâ that âmake headlinesâ that drive EVE. (And of course probably because their metrics tell them people who head that direction spend more money.)
The average player, however, benefits from reasons to log on and interesting things to do every day. The big battles occur a couple times a year. People need reasons to log on every day. âEvery dayâ would imply small scale activity - small corps, small gangs, solo fights, solo players who can join a larger activity (sort of like FW or Incursions if they were more accessible).
In the early years of EVE, there was a lot more opportunity for interesting smaller scale action. I think that is one of the reasons it grew faster back then. Once people moved into the big ships, the giant alliances, the null donuts⌠things really bogged down.
2 Likes