This is the same crap as in countless MMO.
You cant just start a new corp/guild and expect it to rocket you to success.
Its never that simple.
You are going to have to work, HARD, to make it happen.
Honestly, if you are doing it right, wardecs are the LEAST of your problems.
So trueâŚ
So trueâŚ
Been playing for 3 months now.
Started trying the darker side of EVE so to speak and I am loving every minute of it. Wardecs are great.
As a matter of fact. I am going to try it on you if you did not hide your real character. Cannot find you ingame which means you are hiding ergo⌠your opinion means as much as your ability to actually post with your real char.
While I often use similar wording to defend the progress of large groups and explain that becoming large is essential to success in EVE, this ideology doesnt play out in highsec unless you are basically a pirate organization.
The problem is economics and not will. It isnât economically feasible to have a 20 man escort for your freighter run to Jita, the overhead just makes this impossible to justify. It is possible to justify using 20 men to gank a freighter though depending on circumstances, so one side can be economically justified and the other cannot. This imbalance is the issue with the wardec system and why it should be removed.
Highsec pve based players should have the ability to formally make themselves into large organizations (that according to CCP tends to increase player retention) but the economic realities of highsec under the wardec system make this impossible. As i mentioned highsec has the will to make large organizations; the freighter societies have work arounds for forming large tightly based organizations but they cannot get past the wardec system to become âformalâ large corporations and alliances and this hurts both them and EVE as a whole.
Fly the cargo on an NPC corp alt + other standard precautions.
Hell, in HS its a trivial matter to pay someone else to do it via contract.
Problem solved.
You donât need a 20 man escort.
You donât need even a 1 man escort unless youâve been mouthing off and/or making it know that alt is associated with you.
You do. But you are going to have defend your â â â â just like everyone else.
Letâs look at this in a bit more detail. So it isnât economical to have an escort for a freighterâŚ
Which freighters get ganked? Ones full of loot typically. Empty freighter ganking does take place, but it is actually rare once one takes into account war decs (WITF are you doing flying a freighter during a war dec), LS & NS kills, and people carrying double wrapped packages. Even then this does not take into account kill rights and flags.
Now how full of loot do they have to be? Enough to justify thorwing an entire gank fleet into CONCORDâs guns. So, how much is that? This can be determined. Suppose a 0.5 system with CONCORD pulled and 700 DPS A single catalyst will thus put out 17,500 damage. Now, the rest depends on pilot in questionâŚare you anti-tanking your freighter? If so then 10-12 catalysts could probably take down the freighter (going by memory here). Thus, the cargo has to be worth at least 2Number of Catalysts10,000,000. Now this number is a bit low, but it hinges on achieving max dps. Dropping the DPS to 500 increases the number of catalysts to 15. So that implies about 300 million ISK in terms of minimal cargo. Now if you fit bulkheads, then the minimal cargo value is 800 million ISK. considering that gankers usually gank for profit and not just replacement costs, you can probably go to 1 o 1.2 billion ISK.
So, if you tank your ship, limit the cargo value and use a couple of friends/alts you could move around HS with a pretty good level of safety. You donât need 20 guys, just not anti-tanking your freighter and limiting your cargo value. In short, donât take on too much risk.
Now how you suddenly veer off sharply to the left and war decs is beyond me.
There is nothing stopping them except themselves.
Players in other parts of the game, NS, LS and w-space, work together and cooperate. Having been in both HS and NS I can tell you that HS players are far less likely to cooperate. The idea of doing something that is of no immediate benefit, but have long term benefits rarely works in HS. As such, HS groups are quite vulnerable to hostilities.
Now, I donât think this is the case. They have the mechanics, their problem is outside the mechanics. Think about it. What would it take to be a large group that can take on a war dec group.
NowâŚwouldnât such a group also do well in sayâŚoh, I donât knowâŚLS or NS? Whoops. Once a group gets to the point where they can organize like that it is in their best interest to head to NS. If they are big enough to carve out their own chunk of space or join another group and help them in holding a chunk of space. Now they have access to resources and ISK that one canât find in HS. Once a group gets to this point staying in HS will most likely just hold them back.
Itâs called an Alliance and thereâs a lot of large highsec alliances.
And like everyone else they have to defend their assets from wardeccersâŚ
Lol
This.
Also joining an alliance is BY FAR the best way to incubate your corp through its initial growing pains, for dozens of reasons.
[quote=âSalvos_Rhoska, post:306, topic:46871â]
It isnât economically feasible to have a 20 man escort for your freighter run to Jita
Fly the cargo on an NPC corp alt + other standard precautions.
Hell, in HS its a trivial matter to pay someone else to do it via contract.
Problem solved. [/quote]
This is exactly the bootstrap workaround the explains the problem with the wardec system, it isnt, âproblem solvedâ, it IS THE PROBLEM.
Where in my argument did i say that you would not have to defend your stuff, âjust like everyone elseâ?
There are gank operations operating in highsec that do NOT depend on the wardec system but rather the much better balance of cost / benefit.
Cost / Benefit ganking is to be encouraged but ganking using the cheap work around of a wardec should be removed, since any large organization of highsec haulers that actually fly under the same corp or alliance banner will be perma-wardeced and even if their ship is totally empty it will still be attacked which is NOT a good game mechanic since it now prevents highsec players from forming large organizations and flying that organizations banner since economically it is impossible.
I didnt bother to read the rest of your post im just going to stop and address this statement since it is the problem im trying to point out.
If you are a large hauling alliance in highsec space (not a bootstrap alliance that uses alts to haul, you are actually a member of an alliance and you pilot a ship flying that alliances banner) you willâŚALWAYS, ALWAYS,ALWAYS,ALWAYS,âŚbe wardeced.
Therefore; using your advise, you stay docked up eternally !!!
This is not engaging game play, it is simply preventing large alliances from forming in highsec space.
It is my policy to not respond to posts that amount to nothing more than trolling, if that is the type of post you make and i dont respond, i did read it but it wasnt worth a response.
The economics is the problem, hauling organizations cannot afford the overhead of having a standby defense fleet, it costs too much that is the problem with the wardec system on the surface it seems balanced like the rest of EVE but hidden in the problem is basics economics and that is what is preventing people from openly forming hauling (and other types) of highsec corps and alliances.
Pirate organizations make profits and im happy they exist, piracy is second in my love for EVE only after scamming (because scamming is the most unique thing about EVE; in my opinion, and therefore its most interesting aspect).
But cheap piracy using the wardec system is not engaging, it is preventing highsec alliances ability to function openly and needs to end.
There are a number of posts directed at my general thesis that wardecs prevent highsec corps and alliances from forming due to them being perma-wardecced, if they become large enough to matter (except piracy which economically does work and even works better with the wardec system in place).
One general response i have received revolves around using some paid method of protecting your; for instance, freighter to get it to its destination. I will address these as a group since i have discovered so many of them basically saying the same thing.
Current bootstrap system of organization of haulers where an umbrella organization uses alts to do the hauling:
economic overhead is minimal so transport costs are minimal and competitive and why this bootstrap system exists.
Current system where you fly using your alliances actual banner on your ship meaning that if your alliance gets wardecced you cannot fly your hauler without either an expensive escort, or you simply die.
Not feasible due to the high overhead cost of having hired hands defend your ship, so you adapt and make bootstrap workaround system.
Proposed elimination of the wardec system:
Now, you CAN fly using your alliances banner as you do not have to pay the untenable overhead of bodyguards. Piracy still exists but is based mostly on the cost benefit analysis which is a health balance between pve and pvp players and encourages interesting and engaging options for both player types.
If youâre dumb enough to haul while under a wardec, you deserve everything you receive.
There are numerous 3rd parties who can move your stuff around âsafelyâ, most of them even offer insurance in the form of collateral; alternatively use neutral alts.
Stupidity is the problem, not game mechanics.; CCP canât fix stupidity, even if their current development direction seems to be pandering to it.
Low sec offers better mineral extraction, better sites, a chance for better facilitiesâŚ
Maybe the war Dec system is designed or has been adapted over the years to encourage larger groups to move out if hi sec away from the general deccers?
But NOW youâve created a problem for a rival alliance.
The only way for them to stifle your operation is to use some sort of bootstrap mechanic such as using alts to suicide gank your freighters; and Iâm at a loss to wonder how they would take down a structure having to endure CONCORDâs interference. Also, without the war mechanic, the rival canât attack you in its own colors without a serious loss of standings.
If you want to carry a flag, be prepared for another organization to want to collect it.
âGadget - Eagle Stealer
Wardecs provide the ability for limited, controlled engagements between smaller groups. Removing that so players can haul stuff without the tiny step of contracting it to an alt or other player seems like removing a significant space for player interaction, not to mention the gaping game design hole of how to contest highsec structures it creates.
Sounds like though you would support the creation of a âsocial corpâ or something similar so players can form player groups with the risks of wardecs (or the rewards of a real player corp). Giving players to form pseudo-NPC corps seems like it solves your problems: it gives groups a way to be social in highsec and still enjoy the economic protection CONCORD affords.
Tossing out wars wholesale is a non-starter though. There absolutely needs to be a way to allow unfettered fighting and remove/contest structures in highsec.
Well at one point I was looking at hisec to see if it was possible to develop something for more fun gameplay, I wanted to create a coalition of willing people. The key part was that it would be a loose coalition of hisec entities that wanted to defend themselves and their assets against the protection racket in hisec.
At the centre of it would be a group of hardened experienced players who knew how to PvP and they would have to be able and willing to move to different corps as needed. The intention was to start reacting to war decs, by coming in as an ally before a key timer, and then suddenly have a large number of pilots join that corp to then get into a fight, plus other none-involved corps to go after neutral RR. The objective was to cherry pick which decker to go after, and by doing what I explained one could go after one of the blue donut war deckers without having their chums join in, except by going suspect and then a mass of people could blow them up.
However I came to the conclusion that hisec was mostly made up of hisec indy alts, hisec mission alts and hisec incursion alts of nullsec and lowsec players and that the few remaining active hisec players were in total avoidance mode.
As such war decs in hisec are horribly broken because hisec in terms of gameplay and the environment is horribly broken, and there is not much more to say about it than that.
This could be a viable alternative, i certainly dont wish this to go to structure ownership and the ability to contest them.
As to the limited engagement thing its use this way is far outweighed in importance by the ability of the entirety of highsec to form alliances, in my opinion there isnt even a contest between the importance of the two.
Assume that we get rid of all alliances everywhere vs keeping the wardec system in place and youâll see i believe that alliances are far more important that limited engagements between small groups.
Nah
Theyâre fineâŚ
Itâs not the attackerâs fault people are not fighting back 