You totally nailed it with this post. Great post.
And this:
F
1 Like
It wasn’t though. It’s a hugely uninformed post.
We know new players weren’t targeted by decs before the change.
3 Likes
Strangely the post I referred to does not even mention new players once, is that a straw man I see waving frantically for attention. Did you even read his post that I replied to, it certainly does not seem that way. Just to check, I went back and made sure and not a single mention of new players in his reply, you are just bad, to call his post uninformed and then mention something not even referred to in his post is bad form and rather like trolling, are you trolling? F
1 Like
It’s in the quote.
Maybe i misunderstood that the quoted post wasn’t the post you were referring to. But you said ‘and this’ as though your praise for the first post applied to what was in the quote.
And what was in the quote was uninformed.
And now that I’ve looked at the post you were replying to, i was right, it is equally uninformed. Grief wars? By who’s definition? The ‘evidence’ he’s been harping on about that proves they were grief wars makes no reference to grief wars…
He did not mention anything about new players in what I replied to and called a great post.
But yes it is in the quote below that the bit about new players but he is not saying anything about them specifically targeting new player, though he evidently felt that they (new players) were adversely affected by the random blanket war decs for farming, which I basically totally agree with.
As a matter of interest what would you call a war decker continuing a war against a corp who did not bother to log in? Is that revenge for not partaking in the great content of getting caught in a pipe or at a market hub. So we will just grief you with another weeks aimless war dec, are they perhaps hoping that those people will suddenly log in and start playing, seems a real high level of wishful thinking.
Renewing a war deck on people who have no interest in fighting and are staying logged out is griefing simple as that. Yeah griefing.
That being said I did suggest to CCP in their design that they allow 5 war decs without a war HQ, because I have no issue with targeted war decs, it is just these blanket pipe and hub hunting war decs that are really destructive and in affect CCP had no choice but to really put their foot down on this. All you hunter types should treat the blanket war deckers with contempt for ruining the war dec system for you.
I will draw your attention to the unintended way which you highlighted. I do not believe that CCP designed the war dec system so that the war decker could continue to war dec someone so that they do not log in. So continuing to war dec someone who decides not to log in is griefing and those that do that to punish people for not logging in are griefing. Thankfully with the change to requiring the corp or alliance to have structures that game is no longer possible and it is a very good thing as it enables the players in an entity to keep playing and interacting.
Do I regret that you cannot use a war dec to chase other people mining out of the system, hell yes, but the blanket war deckers ruined it with untargeted war decs.
PS One hidden reply. I am merely advising you that I have your posts hidden so that you do not waste time replying to me. I will not be looking at your post and me pointing this out is not gloating or any such nonsense, but merely to advise you that you are wasting your time. F
1 Like
What are you even talking about. CCP did absolutely nothing to address this in the slightest.
Is this a joke? Everyone complained about them and there where multiple ideas around to address this. But that is not what CCP went with. They went for a lazy band aid that did nothing to improve the gameplay of wardecs but make it more boring and the problem everyone complained about even worse.
5 Likes
A war dec. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you were to ask me what would i call a corp that didn’t log in during a dec, I’d say stupid.
They can still log in and be vigilant whilst online mining, missioning etc. Or, if they really don’t like wardecs, they can create a chat channel called ‘i don’t like wardecs’ invite all their corp members and drop corp for a week whilst they mission and mine. When the decs over, they can rejoin corp.
There’s no good reason for anyone to log off for the duration of a wardec. This is the problem. Not the wardec itself.
As usual, this is a shitty leadership issue. Not a wardec issue.
Obviously not by any recognised meaning of the word. Not by ccp, nor Wikipedia.
We know the wardec system was designed to allow pvp between corps. It did just that.
Beyond that anyone is speculating.
Also seems like you are assuming wardeccers are deliberately wardeccing people with the intention of making them log off. Wardeccers are paying isk to not have targets? What truth is there to that?
Roger that.
1 Like
Or shitty game design based on the players actions, which CCP recognised and adjusted, obviously by taking this action they realised the negative impact to their game and peoples activity levels. I think that you are speculating here, are you not?
Well I think it was at best rubbish target selection, but to continue to war dec people like this created what exactly? Which is the real question.
But I explained my reasoning above as in using the game mechanics in unintended ways, because the war dec system was designed to allow combat in hisec, not to be a way to stop people from logging in which was the point I made. So as it was unintended use it was griefing based on the definition you detailed.
Does that explain it adequately, I thought I explained it rather well above, but…
But it did not in the majority of war decs because of this. The changes made to the war dec system are better then it was, at least there is a meaning to war decs as in you have a structure in space. Anyone with a brain will have one man alt corps to hold their structures and plan for them being erased at some point by a bored group of structure grinders at some point.
That is the question I asked, because it is nonsensical but that is what many of them did. Why continue to war dec people who did not log in during war decs, why else would you do it? But they cannot really do that any more and that is a damn good thing.
1 Like
I agree with a lot of your observations and opinions. Pretty insightful stuff. However, the mining “then and now” example is a little muddied. You admit you had friends playing eve before you started. Then you proceeded to compare your experience to people who don’t.
While that is true, it is much easier for new players today to get in touch with people. “Rookie help” was not a thing back then, Corporations that specifically focus on new players were pretty much non existant. And at peak times there were only 2500 players online.
The propblem just nowadays is: There is actually no need for new players to team up with new people. The fact that quite a lot would reach out to others can be seen, by the amount of times they ask for help with defeating dagan for example.
I’m not speculating that players are told to log off during a war. We’ve all witnessed it someway somehow. I’m also not speculating that you can still play during a war in or temporarily out of corp.
Aggressors having a structure, sure. Made sense to me since we had the opposite problem of many small corps deccing big corps using guerrilla tactics.
The rest of it is terribad. The cheapest structure costing 500mil, the defenders needing a structure…
What we had before was bad. But it was better than this.
Activity per dec is up. However the number of decs is down. The number of groups making decs is down, it’s going the same way as ganking and that is definitely a bad thing.
It’s bad because rather than tell the defenders their options during a dec and providing them with personal responsibility (aka agency) we are moddycoddling them and pandering to their entitlement.
Everytime we’ve done this, the richness (and activity) of the community has suffered. It’s the same this time as well.
2 Likes
You suggested that it was shitty leadership which is just pure speculation, in fact if the corp has no real combat skills then it is the better decision for certain players.
It is the players on both sides that have played it badly, those deciding to log off at the sniff of a war dec and those that blanket war dec.
You did not answer my question on why war deckers would continue to war dec an entity where the players did not log in.
In regards to what you said here however blanket war decs destroyed the richness of the community in my opinion and that they cannot continue to do this is a good thing.
We can just agree to disagree.
1 Like
Anyone who asks their corp members to log off during a dec is shitty leadership. From my perspective it’s not speculation as much as A=>B.
Even players with no combat skills can drop corp and continue to play the game in a public chat channel with the corp and then come back after the dec.
Cause they want to? Maybe they didn’t notice their targets aren’t logging in (thank you buddy list). Maybe the war is about area denial for several weeks. Or mercs were hired for several weeks. Maybe they really wanted to kill some dude and will keep a dec going for as long as it takes. Maybe they are maximising targets for as long as possible.
Given how wardecs are opt-in, none of this is griefing. I am a full believer in deccing for whatever reason you like, in a similar fashion that anyone working in service or retail can refuse service for whatever reason they like. Trying to police it is too clumsy and results in heavy handed and restrictive policy shifts that does not serve society. In the same way that what we have now is heavy handed nerfs that do not serve the game and it’s community.
3 Likes
Is it? It is not what I would do or what you would do, but you are making pretty wide assumptions on player attitude and ability here.
From what I saw people who did that often did not return to the corp they left.
You mean that they did no target analysis before the war dec, just saw them passing in the pipes perhaps? You just rely on the watch list which is about as sad as those people staying logged off. Area denial I understand that reason, but when you talk about wanting to blow them up I would expect them to hunt, not sit waiting in pipes and hubs? Or am I missing something here?
They are opt in now at a corp level, they were opt in before at a character level, there is a difference. If their intention is to punish them for not playing then it is griefing, but that is my opinion.
The change to war HQ and for corps having to have a structure serve part of the community, after another part of the community had the whip hand for so long. I think that the majority of Eve players will adjust and develop their play to take this into account, some will give up. It is just game balance.
In the end the game was being damaged by this and CCP adjusted it, so the adapt or die attitude seems to be what is needed which seems to be fine when it applies to carebears, but not to people who seem to think that they are not carebears. In fact as the OP showed, I wonder who the real carebears are? After all he is too scared to put a structure down and have it as a war HQ.
In any case the changes need time to develop, how many years was it that the previous system of opt in at the player level was left as it was? Now people should see how this works. Initially I thought there would be a big clean out of structures at least initially, but it seems most war deckers have already given up on that, which actually is a good thing. So the balance might get interesting.
But it does seem like the so called elite players of Eve known as war deckers are giving up. Something I sort of expected, but not as quickly as this. I don’t mind structure grinding, I had a fair share of shooting SBU’s in the past…, but they must be rather weak willed.
1 Like
Not always a bad thing. There are a lot of low quality corps out there (something else that can be attributed to wardec nerfs).
Poor leadership spoils the game experience for line members. So players leaving these corps is not necessarily a bad thing. Some players from these corps will then be in a more knowledgeable position to find a better corp after leaving or may decide they actually don’t need to be in a war eligible corp at all to have their fun.
You may be missing that the proliferation of hub humping and mass decs happened because of watch list nerfs.
Yes it happened before then, but as the graph offered by black pedro shows, it was greatly accelerated when the watch lists were changed.
I do understand this difference. I was the strongest supporter of social corps for years on these forums. But the defining part of war eligibility shouldn’t be structures. It should be a corp wallet and/or corp hangars.
The difference is that before the wardec nerfs carebearing it up wasn’t unsustainable for the majority of high-sec players. Quite the opposite, there are thousands of miners and mission runners who could do their thing quite easily.
If they wanted to be completely immune to decs all they had to give up was 11% bounties and shared assets.
It’s nothing compared to putting down a 500mil structure and then 100mil/week/dec only to do boring structure grinds.
Unsurprisingly the playerbase find this unsustainable and are leaving.
Is it good leadership to just throw yourself at someone when you have no chance, perhaps you might want to look at Panfams strategy here too, isn’t that the same thing.
Now they have the option to be in corps without structures which is good, I think you are sort of accepting this.
Not at all, the Orphanage started doing this a long time ago, do you chaps believe your own propaganda. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the watch list, all that did was end the weaker hunters.
I don’t think that proved anything much at all, as most war deckers were blanket war decking before the watch list change.
You post as if you don’t, you seemed to post earlier that the opt in was the same, it most definitely is not.
So not be in a real group of close friends then, yep, way not to go.
Well if they had not so over done it previously we would not be in this mess now, it is a long way back from this.
It is what it is that some of the player base will be leaving the game, I am pretty sure how this will develop in spite of people thinking otherwise, only the stronger war deckers will be left and they will adapt.
1 Like
No where am i saying this.
I am saying continue to operate whilst under a dec. We all know this is not impossible to do. And we all know it’s possible to drop corp and operate that way too.
No one needs to throw themselves into one sided fights.
One group, out of the hundreds of deccing groups at the time.
It’s not propaganda, Drac you’ve literally seen a graph showing a massive increase in the amount of wardecs made by a few groups right at the time the watch lists were nerfed. This was the real shift towards mass deccing.
If there’s any ‘propaganda’ it’s yourself trying to say that mass deccing was the norm before the watchlist nerfs when it so clearly wasn’t.
It most definitely is not the same you’re right.
That’s why I’m complaining that there is no meaningful choice for starting a corp now.
I’ll try to be clearer:
I don’t want a meaningful choice for starting a social corp. That should be available to everyone for no trade off.
I do want a meaningful choice for having corp wallet, corp hangars and structures. These should come with the trade off of wardecs.
So even though i did want the level of opt-in to shift, it has moved too far.
We both know you can be in a close group of friends without a structure, without corp hangars and without a corp wallet.
It is what it is and players will leave…
Weak carebears leaving = bad. We must pander to these players.
Weak pvp players leaving = good. Even though these are more likely to form bonds and stick with the game longer, it’s still good that they’re leaving because…shrugs
Yeah. I don’t get it.
At his point they can stay in corp and operate, they only opt in if they want to develop their indy to a higher level or have their own base.
So I was a mission runner is Osmon and I got a war dec, so that went out of the window, so I had to go and develop standings somewhere else with agents that are not run often because their rewards are naff. I guess people can’t be bothered to do that just like people are not bothered to actually do any leg work to hunt for people and moan about the watch list. Both are the same.
They started the approach and refined it, people copied it and before the watch list changes blanket decs were the main way of doing war decs.
It is propaganda, I remember all of the war deckers saying that they would do mass blanket decs to make a point. All that proved was that they did what they said they would do which was in fact a failed effort to influence CCP.
Nope, I watched all this unfold and the playing of the narrative by war deckers, was pathetic and I have little respect for such meta gaming.
The opt in is better indy and your own castle. I happen to think that the indy should be enhanced a little in hisc to make more people want to do it, but it is fine as it is now. It has moved as far as it needed to be to stop the abuse of it by mass blanket war deckers.
Yes but developing a shared corp with an identity adds so much more to it.
I noticed the carebears leaving the game years ago, they had bonds and had stuck with the game up until certain changes changed the game balance against them.
In terms of weak PvP players I had suggested that CCP enable up to 5 war decs without a war HQ, in fact I wanted that to be open to all corps even those without structures, so that focussed targeted war decs with personal conflict points could happen, because I think it was a good idea to enable the more focussed hunters to still operate. But CCP must have felt that the situation was so dire they had to go as far as they have. I would have hardly suggested that if I was unware of that style of play which I actually wanted to develop. But pipe humping hub humping mass war decs are so meh.
1 Like
Can we please stop pretending CCP is doing it wrong? They’re not! They’re doing exactly what they want, which is reducing PvP encounters in highsec.
It’s the same in real life politics. People are stupid assuming politicians are dumb. No, they aren’t. There’s no politician out there who makes decisions on his own, it’s always several or a dozen people helping making a decision.
What people in real life apparently are suffering from, is the delusional belief that those who govern them have the people’s best interest at heart. They ■■■■■■■ don’t. Only under this assumption it makes sense that people believe CCP/politicians are stupid, when it’s pretty plain ■■■■■■■ obvious that they’re not!
Both CCP and politicians only care about themselves, not about the people/players. As long as everyone assumes that those, who govern us, have our best interest at heart, things will just keep getting worse because people fail to make the obvious leap from “they’re stupid” to “we’re continuously, deliberately getting ■■■■■■.”
It’s a completely different perspective, opening up a whole new world of reactions and possibilities to deal with the situation.
4 Likes
Have you considered that you’re doing it wrong?