Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Read the title, can't say I didn't warn you!
TL;DR Remove Wardecs.

That's it. Read on if you dare...or just comment it's a bad idea. That's cool too.


No really, think about it - I didn't say remove ganking, criminal flags, bounties, killrights, or the myriad other ways to force competition in hisec. Just wardecs.

Wardecs exist only because of High Sec in order to create non-CONCORD combat. That's it. At one point CCP thought it would be used by one hisec corp to force another hisec corp off lucrative mining systems or trade routes. Needless to say that isn't at all how it is used these days. As far as lowsec goes, it just helps with gate guns to make gate camping less of a hassle. In hisec, it's no risk ganking.

If you want to force a hisec corp out of a system, you have only to harass them with bumping (no risk) all the way to ganking them repeatedly with low-cost ships (moderate risk). This isn't bad! That's corporate espionage at its finest in EVE and in no way needs to be changed. Disrupting trade hubs is plenty easy without wardecs - you have only to watch Jita for five minutes to see one corporation or alliance obliterate another's billions of isk with a simple gank of a freighter...or Kestrel (for those that remember).

Wardecs serve no purpose but to reduce the bill to kill. If EVE is as lawless as it claims to be in lore, why are Capsuleers having to pay fees to kill each other? Don't the empires want them killing each other anyways!? Let CONCORD do its job - reactively punishing - and let capsuleers do theirs: not giving a damn because SPACE!

Of course you may be asking, "What about criminal standings? Eventually ganking will radically slow down as everyone reaches negative standings from no wardecs." Excellent point...is that a problem?

Is that actually a problem? Regaining standings is not the chore it was in the past...but more importantly, do negative standings actually impede ganking? Last I checked, no not really. On a more serious note, what sort of hisec would be created from less ganking because of no wardecs? Oh right...High Security space. Now I know that sounds carebearish (that's because it is) but in all reality, ganking isn't going anywhere (nor does it need to), bounties and killright sales exist, and criminal standings has yet to stop someone from using hisec...it's called an alternate or don't-get-caught or pod over.

No this is not a stealth buff for carebears (though they would rejoice) - It's a call for the obvious: large scale PvP in hisec should be criminal but nothing else (i.e. still easy via ganks and detrimental to those unprepared). If you want fights and wars and resources, yada yada, then find them where they are: hunt high value targets or just blow up low and null...you don't need wardecs to do this.

"But what about the isk sink from wars?!" Ha. Haha. Hahahaha. You're funny. If wars were such an isk sink there wouldn't be so many. How about moving that sink to guaranteed lost ships in hisec and heavier fighting outside of it as tactics shift to where they belong: stopping enemy trade and logistics before they ever reach hisec or just flat out taking the criminal hit in the hubs. The sink will come from the increased fighting and losses between sides (as opposed to one-sided alphas thanks to wardec protection).

Now some of you may note this does not solve the greater PvP problem of docking up, regardless of system status. You're right, it doesn't. It solves hisec PvP problems and gives little guys breathing room while not depriving big guys their right to ruin their target's day. Short of creating a war quota system per character to prevent the mass overload of wardecs, this is the best option out there.

Wardecs are obsolete and serve no purpose but to reduce the number of lost assets in hisec - it's not an isk sink, it's an isk faucet by this definition and one that needs to be removed.

Now the last bit: wardecs do have the function of being necessary to remove towers and large objects in hisec space...because you can't alpha them before CONCORD obviously. My solution to this is simple: structures, ALL structures, become targetable just like depots and the like. You want to build a sand castle in space, be ready to defend it. Keep in mind this means you can rally a large defense force without fear of attack (except by gank, which then involves CONCORD), logi the structure and not fight at all, and then defend if logi isn't keeping up. The attackers obviously get to fight back when you intervene with them directly but even a small corp could just mass logi their structures with coordination. With the Citadel changes, timers will allow much of this to seamlessly replace wardecs for this purpose.

If you're worried about large alliances just steamrolling hisec citadels and the like, additional improvements or defenses could be provided for hisec or perhaps reintroduce wardecs based on structure rather than corporation (an idea I've seen proposed before) although this simply recycles the current system (and its problems).

It's that or Citadels will have to be permanently indestructible in hisec, require resources over time or they explode (not just go dormant) which allows aggressors to try and deprive corps from providing these resources, or simply give them some type of buff such that indiscriminate attacks will need to overcome a significantly more difficult fight than in low or null.

SO...that's my bad idea, hopefully there's a nugget in there that isn't too bad that can fuel one of you genius' actual good idea...whatever that may be.

If not, like I said just tell me it's a bad idea...though I kinda already said that.

All that isk and for what? Protected ganking? That's my point, wardecs are pointless and if they exist solely as an isk sink incentivized by killboards, that's terrible game design.

You're a wardeccer - you can't tell me you like the process of wardeccing? Why not just show up and kill who you want. Screw paying CONCORD. Keep the isk and keep ganking. Use that cash to kill even more folks and give your corpies bigger better free stuff.

And the defender can neither anticipate an attack because of the flag of a wardec, nor touch the attackers until they actually open fire. Meaning the attacker can fly up, deploy drones, get everyone into position, lock all the targets they want to deal with, and then open fire before a defender can do anything. The defender also has to be on guard during every single vuln timer ready to deploy, because any attacker could attack at a moments notice, bashing a citadel into reinforced in as short a time period as 25 minutes from firing the first shot.

If your suggestion was supposed to help the defender, you went about 20 steps in the wrong direction.

Well technically, you're right it wasn't supposed to help defenders. It's supposed to help general PvP in hisec.

Like I said, don't build the sand castle if you're not prepared to defend it. Also, you mentioned timers - so you lost the first round because you're weren't prepared and only visit your space fort once in a blue moon. That's your fault, but it doesn't prevent you being ready for phase 2. Just like low or null. The mechanics of Citadels were built for this precise concern.

You're right, the defender has to be on guard - just like any other structure. If structure safety in hisec is only guaranteed by CONCORD, that's a bad idea in and of itself. Wardecs used to be the solution but now they're the problem - and structures have almost nothing to do with them. Last I looked, there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of POSs floating derelict because it's not worth the trouble to wardec and remove them.

The real reason behind wardec removal isn't about structures - it's about small corps and newbros getting blitzed constantly because the current system is just pay-for-ganking. Keep the isk, take the criminal hit, and the rest works itself out with current mechanics.

You can take POS's down before a wardec. You don't have to be on guard to defend a highsec POS under the current system, you only have to appropriately respond by either taking it down or putting up heavy defenses and preparing to defend it.

POCO's? As far as I know you need a wardec to hit those too in highsec, meaning that you don't have to be constantly on guard there either.

Stations, IHubs, TCU's in nullsec? Scheduled vulnerability timers and drawn out process to attack them.

Exactly where are you getting this line about "Just like any other structure"? The only structures you can attack at a moments notice are lowsec and nullsec POS's/POCO's, and nobody stores anything important in those.

You complain about people using wardecs to just pay for ganking, and then propose to remove that system and add in a new one where they don't pay for a wardec which allows the defender time to prepare, they pay when they open fire on the defender, allowing no time to prepare or get ready, unlike every single other non suicide ganking aggression system in highsec, ever.

The only side this change benefits is the attackers who get to hit whoever they want, when they want, and the people who like to third party onto fights between two other sides. Of course, if the group attacking is the strongest group in the area, they basically get to go around kicking over everyones sandcastle without even the courtesy of a wardec.

Losing security status is not a deterrent when you can get it through missions, through skills, through buying it off market, or ratting. Doubly so since under your system 15 minutes after they stop bashing a structure they can go right back to missioning until the next timer. and since they are not a legal target for anyone, you would have to suicide gank them to prevent it.

Just terrible.

Ask the question - where does the isk go without wardecs? You say it is a faucet but you don't think ahead on where the isk goes. You think wardeccers will just sit on it? Buy plex years in advance?

Maybe that's the problem - sinks aren't the issue and isk being disposable to other means than arbitrary administrations is. I know if I had billions...no, trillions as you and others say...of isk I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting on it. I'd be building insane fleets and getting myself and others blown up on a daily basis BECAUSE THE RISK OF ISK WOULDN'T EXIST.

Nice little phrase there huh?

Think about it - why is the extra isk an issue? It crashes markets to lower prices? Oh no...I can get more crap and lose more crap. Gee, I hate playing this game more and not caring if I lose. Next you'll say the crash in prices will stop mining because it won't be lucrative...yet that's happened multiple times now and yet there are still miners everyday.

I care what that isk is for, shouldn't you? I mean, it's your money - it pays for everything in EvE. Why waste it on this system that serves no purpose. The amount being spent on it far exceeds the costs of just ganking. It already IS a macroeconomic disaster...maybe this is why. Think of all the fights that would happen if the isk risk was radically reduced not because it costs less to gank but because you have that much more to spend?

No because under the current system, in order for a large conglomerate like the CFC to attack a citadel, they have to first wardec it with each alliance who wants to have members involved in the bashing, against each corp that they want to attack a citadel of.

If that's say 10 alliances hitting 5 citadels, that's 50 wardecs that have to be sent, and the wardecced groups get 24 hours to prepare, bring in allies or mercenaries, swap out citadel utility mods for a full combat fitting, prepare ships, and get ready to deal with the attackers.

As opposed to "Surprise, your citadel is under attack by a 200 man fleet comprised of pilots from a dozen different alliances, and this is the first warning you have of it, have fun"

And on a side note, I'm ignoring the first 90% of your entire proposal about the removal of wardecs, because A: It's not going to happen, CCP having many times confirmed that wardecs are a desired and important part of the game, and B: you seem to think that ships blowing up is an isk sink instead of a faucet, and C: You seem to think there's some way to interdict low/null - Highsec trade before it reaches highsec. JF's exist you know, and unless the user is a complete idiot, they are perfectly safe to travel with through lowsec and nullsec. I jumped in an Anshar onto a station 50km off a Ragnarok the other day because I wanted to jump in before he killed my cyno. My JF was never in any danger.

TLDR: You don't know what you are talking about, and this thread is the most confusing combination of "My corp should be safe from wardecs as long as we put up the citadel under another altcorp, whine evil wardeccers, whine" + "Everyone's citadel should be bashable by anyone at will, because that will somehow promote even PvP"

Here's a tip: There's only three kinds of people in highsec: Prey who all they do is hide (you), Predators (the people you don't like and want protection from), and people passing through.

Although a better analogy would be grass + herbivores + birds, since there's no incentive for the predators to fight each other, under the current system or yours.

Congratulations, you are now one more poster child for completely misunderstanding isk sinks and faucets.

Sinks take money out of the economy, not out of wallets. Faucets add money to the economy, not to wallets.

Lack of sinks means that there is more money in circulation. More money in circulation drives prices up, not down, because money is now a more abundant resource. You're idea has exactly the opposite result you predict: higher prices, less buying power, and overall stagnation. You would need more money to be as rich as you are now in relative buying power, all because money has become too abundant.

And that's why we need sinks and want to avoid faucets. Welcome to basic macroeconomics.

Considering I rarely deal with wardecs as a solo pilot...and generally enjoy ruining other folks' days...I'd have to say your attempt to label me isn't exactly on point.

As for your rather elaborate explanation in favor of wardecs...it can be simplified as: "Wardecs provide better defenses by being so expensive and time-consuming to set up that defenders are safe by way of red tape." Gee, what a wonderful system.

This isn't about protecting people from wardecs...besides, as I've stated several times now if you really want to kill someone you don't need a wardec. Your elaborate explanation for wardecs actually incentivizes ganking for those of us who would rather keep the isk and just kill folks. This change is about retooling how conflict is engaged and what risks are tied to it in hisec. Alliances already will do what you claim when Citadels land in hisec...with wardecs, not without.

Without wardecs, you're cutting the costs and keeping that isk in their wallets to be sent on more meaningful combat. You know why you don't get more awesome fights in low and null? You know why: station games and fear of loss. That fear of loss is because of the costs. If these alliances are generating the enormous amounts of isk to fuel thousands of wardecs (which they are, see thousands of wardecs) the removal of wardecs radically increases warchests and increases the desire for conflict where it matters: the resource-rich nullsec and WH, not piddly hisec.

This idea that isk faucets and sinks are being warped by removing wardecs is silly - if prices do rise, industry becomes that much more important where it can thrive: in null since hisec produces too little at too much risk (currently). Wardec removal shifts this conflict of resources to where it belongs: low and null. Prices too high in Jita? THEN BUILD IT YOURSELF...oh wait, that's what nullsec alliances ARE MEANT TO DO.

Man this is hard...this is an awful idea, I need better reasons to abandon it.

We're going to focus on this one as the other two are debatable.

Firstly, you know nothing of Eve Online insurance and suck at math.


A makes ship
Sells ship for 100 mil isk to B
B insures ship for 20 mil
C makes modules and ammo
C sells modules and ammo to B for 20 million isk (going cheeeeeap)
B fits modules to ship and places ammo in hold

Now, B loses ship and insurance payout is 50 mil isk.
The loot drop from the ship totals a random amount, but we'll be kind and assume all 20 million in loot drops.
120 mil isk was lost but only 70 mil in isk was returned to the system...

Again, this assumes half payout (which is unlikely for any ship costing that much) and assumes all loot drops.

If people could make money by losing ships, there'd be a whole lot less hesitation to do so, and a whole lot less incentive to destroy said ship.

For the love of whatever, please check your facts. (or lack there of)