CSM Campaigns

In fairness, they may not be a newbie in terms of time played, but they are a newbie in terms of experience with the game. They're targeted specifically because they don't know how to respond.

And now it's not an exploit. Things change, get over it. It used to be possible to use dec shield alliances or shed wars too, now it's not possible to do either.

The problem wit ha surrender mechanic is that it puts full control in the aggressors hands, and they already generally have the vast majority of the control. If that were the case, there would be nothing stopping the main wardeccers deccing a corp and demanding 500m isk for example to surrender, which gives them 2 weeks grace and they are back again. If there were no other way out of the war besides waiting it out or not logging in, it would simply get rid of most highsec corporations or cause people to quit. It wouldn't suddenly make them suicide themselves for all eternity into the waiting blasters of what would definitely be a superior force.

So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying.

We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful.

Your suggestions on war decs are stupid, you talk about locking people into conflicts that they have no fun doing, no interest and no reward, so they either stay docked or go play another game for a week, possibly deciding not to bother at all and yet your carrots are a few extra percentages of yield, big deal, what a complete idiot!

If you want people to fight against war dec's then give them the benefit of immunities from war decs based on how many hits they get on enemies and how many kills they get, and then add that up and apply a block to all new war decs and then a block from that to the value of the benefit from fighting, then there is value in fighting against a war dec. Even giving them blocks of time for going out in space and not being cloaked!!!!

Thank you for agreeing with me

Sounds like a plan. I was there last year and am there this year, so all likelihood will be there 2016 too, so you're on.

I think on precautions they are there, but that's all they have. Once they are in the fight they are sitting there waiting for the gankers and their escorts to duke it out. I'd love to take some of the passive defense away, lowering their tank, and give them some form of actively defending themselves, be it some kind of ecm pulse (which doesn't make concord go nuts) or something else. Haven't really considered it enough to go into great detail. But the idea would be that if you are AFK, you are pretty likely to get pasted, but if you are there defending the gankers have to put in considerably more effort. Ideally I'd want it to be than a perfect fit AFK freighter takes about half the gankers it currently does, while a perfect fit active one takes 1.5 - 2x on average.

For wardecs I really don't know what can be done working with the current system. I'd be really tempted to consider going back to the drawing board altogether and looking at a system which causes wardeccers to fight over space and in-space assets on a smaller and more flexible scale than things like sov, with industry players playing a support role on either side. When RvB and the merc groups went all out over POCOs, that was some great content and I'd love to see more of that kind of things, and less of "I crush you because you can't do anything about it".

Read this for entertainment and lolz, yet you made arguments in line with my thinking. You have my vote! You should campaign on Reddit sometime, do an AMA.

I know I already endorsed Sabriz, but I think given my new situation that it's appropriate that I reaffirm that.

Good luck in your campaign, Sab.

Sabriz, after a discussion with another player I've been thinking about wardecs and it's made me want to revisit something we discussed earlier. Within this post and in your wardecs recording, you state that wardec evasion (via disbanding and reforming a corp) was deemed an exploit. Do you know where this was stated? At first when I've heard this said, I just accepted it and didn't really think about it, but since then I've been thinking and can't actually remember anything official or even coming from an official that confirmed it was an exploit. I've searched around and can't find it anywhere either, and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011, so I'm not sure when or where this was said.

No problem.

Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.