No, back when I started the game in 2k5 when I mined for 6 months before joining a Null Sec alliance and never had one attempted gank in that timeframe;
And then I try to same thing with 3 new characters as a test a couple years ago over several months and get attempted ganks on all three within 10 days of creating each player.
What you pointed out was a exploit and got fixed, what I’m pointing out is ongoing current game-play.
While it does seem a bit odd regarding the differences, I understand the 2015 data was more to do with ganking rather than wardecs.
Differing tools for the same basic purposes. Ganking is more single player focused while War Decs are more group focused.
Calm down man. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the current wardec situation is ■■■■ and needs fixing and the people who asked the loudest for it are the ones who actually do all the trade lane camping.
The problem I and many others have is that this fix is lazy. It will do exactly nothing. The stats with the 50x more kills if a structure is involved is a joke. Why do they even think this will stop people form spamming wardecs? Absolutely nothing will be achieved by this in regard to the problem they say they try to address.
If they want to actually address the problem they need to look at locators and watchlist and make those tools interesting for both sides so that the defending side can screw with the intel and it’s not just free, but hunting may again become viable.
I disagree. Wars are very possible to do solo and ganking is easily done in groups.
You are speaking as to the aggressors, I was speaking as to the targets.
I agree but the only difference is that this will help protect newer players and casuals, which I don’t mecessarilly have a problem with. I don’t wanna kill some idiot in his Vexor. I wanna kill him in his Kronos.
Ah I see yeah. You’re mostly right, although there have been cool stories of whole Incursion fleets getting ganked… it’s not very common.
Yes, but as CCP stated they are not targets of wardecs in the first place. So why is the only effect this change has on a group that is not really affected?
Yes, the aggression “issue” in which concord would take out an entire fleet of remote reppers if one “accidentally” shot one of his buddies. Classic.
You mean that time right back then when CCP showed that if players master the mechanics of highsec enough to seriously affect retention and be able to dominate other players too much they will alter the mechanics.
Just like they are this time.
Now yes, this fast change is not going to be a dramatic deal, I’m going to wait and see what they put forward for future war mechanics before deciding if I’m for or against.
But we have reached a very similar point again where a small group has achieved that level of disruption, and the mechanics need addressing just like they did back with MoO
Safety flags stop this… Poor use of safety = this.
Yes, CCP nerfed highsec agression countless times, which means Highsec is now more secure than back then. Thanks for iterating on my argument.
I just hope we don’t wait too long and this “fix” was it.
No I’m referring to smart bombing entire gank fleets or warping Talos in and ganking a few of them.
Except you’ve missed the whole point that you’ve also put forward along side it.
It’s not “More secure”.
It’s “Players worked out ways to sidestep around the security, and now to return to the intended level of security we have to add in an extra measure to maintain it”.
Because any mechanical system in place to provide security, players will work out ways to minimise it’s impact, thereby creating an effective reduction in security.
I wonder if you said that with a straight face. 
Players have adapted to the changes which is why we have new PvP behavior in Hi Sec, and they will adapt to any future changes. The conditions will never be static or ideal, but they will eventually be altered. That is the only true constant in this game.
Making structure ownership a requirement to be wardec’d isnt intended to stop dec-spamming it is intended to provide an optional type of corporation / alliance to grow that doesn’t care about structures, or at least that is my take on it. Saying this fixes nothing is just patently false and you should be ashamed to have even stated this as a truth.
Im all for a discussion of what YOU want to see in the early part of next year when we get there and more importantly WHY you think your proposals will be a clear solution to the problem but I will not sit by at let you claim even once that the current ‘fix’ doesnt improve the situation for a significant number of players in highsec that want pve based corporations and alliances.
p.s. Anyone that wants to remind me that EVE is a pvp based game, spare me the worn out rant, pve players exist and their needs must be considered, not above pvp, but rather beside it in a fair and reasonable manner.
So I wonder if there will be “wardec-specific structures”. Such as, you need more than a structure in space, but can set up structures specially for war. Imagine that. If putting a structure in space equals being exposed to war, then would not a corporation want a structure geared for war?
InB4 “carebear deathstar” - of which I have seen many in wormholes. Good times.
Personally, I’m always saddened to see Eve heading in the direction of having pvp zones and non-pvp zones. I think the only reason any of the ships and assets we strive to collect have any meaningful value is because they can be lost or taken away by other players.
Maybe it’s true that players unwilling or unable to keep their assets safe, aka losers in a game that has winners and losers at times, do stop playing. Is it really necessary to dumb down the game for the sake of keeping the worst around? Turning Eve into a game with dedicated pvp zones and a Space Farmville in the middle could even turn out to be the business decision that grows Eve, but it’s not anything close to what attracted me to Eve in the first place, nor is it a game that would keep my interest.
I realize a single wardec change doesn’t turn this into a game with pvp and non-pvp zones, btw. I’m just worried by it heading further in that direction.
Please do tell me what these were!
War Dec changes
Destroyer buffs
Tier III BCs
…