Assembly Hall

A few ideas that might give both sides of the wardec issue some partial satisfaction.

1. Concord, as a law enforcing Navy, falls very short on getting those with security standings that are low. The same for different major faction Navies. If I can easily out-fly the Ammatar Navy while it declares I'm a dead criminal in Derelik in a Procurer of all things, there's something a little slow on enforcement boats in general. KoS doesn't seem to mean much nor is it much of a concern overall in highsec. Perhaps upping their reaction speeds and they Enforce those laws on criminals could give the highsec smaller corps that moment of breathing room to do more than either get ganked or spin ships. That breath can save a ship, save a pod, and possibly save a new player from ragequitting, leaving all of us with fewer new players to fly with and against. We're all losing on this one. Enforce the law, Concord, or get out of the law enforcement business. Inept is worse than corrupt, as least the corrupt can be bought off.

2. As a relative R00kie, I would like to move and spend more time in low, and eventually null. However, that would mean signing my clone's soul over to an already established corp. and it's alliance. For those of us still in that first year, them's the options to get out of highsec and out of the poisonous teachings of a few carebears that set newbies up for later repeat failures when out on their own. There's simply not a lot of successful opportunities in low and null for a smaller corp of people playing for under 2 years to set up a stake to defend. So low and null stay stagnant, the constant wars there bring pirates up to high for easier targets. We're both losing by winning on this. Breaking up some of that stagnation, well that would be an overall win for all.

3. This character tends to spend more time with industry than PvP. I don't neglect those skills, for the continuation of my ship's lives no matter if I'm in a mining barge, hauler, or more combat orientated ship. I came into Eve knowing others will shoot at me, at the most inopportune times. I did do some research before downloading the client and going for the trial period. Expecting highsec to be completely safe defeats one of the reasons I joined. However, an expansion on what the EULA counts as 'griefing' would assist on complaint tickets, along with giving a more honest idea of what a new player is signing up for when they undock. Right now there's not much in the way of a serious explanation other than "it's Eve, you get ganked, deal with it'. For those coming over from less... sudden destruction of stuff/more hand holding MMO's, that will keep many of them from resubbing after their initial time purchase is made for an active account. At least let the fresh frozen meat know with a smidge more detail what they just signed into when it comes to the daily insanity of Eve? Forewarned is forearmed in many cases. This is one of them.

Just a couple of my wisdom pennies, use mileage may vary.

>Jeven

Wrong,
Yes, the defending party can dodge the wardec by simply sitting in the station and effectively deny you fights. That results in people being unable to play the game for which they pay, which effectively will ruin corporations. So far, interdiction and such is good and that, but let's be realistic.

A majority of the wardeccing groups in high-sec deliberately target as many small groups as possible to try and get free kills from them. They target players who aren't big enough to stand up against them, and the second a fleet is formed up the aggressor docks up with no risk as result. When there's a lot of allies in a wardec, they simply stop paying it and a few days later it is gone.

*camera switch to the defender*. Now look at the defenders. Their options are trying to find people to fight you, which often isn't worth it from a defensive point of view, or to sit in a station not being able to play. That's all they can do, meaning your silly wardec effectively stops their corporation for 50 million from being able to play the game. That's an awfully low cost for such a high impact.

Let's assume that there's a corporation that's five members big. They all are active players but not yet invested in PVP due to their situation. You spend 50 million ISK to extend a wardec for seven days. Defenders are unable to deal with you and forcibly decide to stay in station/offline for the seven days. Now what would that effectively cost the players?

5 players x 7 days = 35 days between the group.
If we assume one PLEX is 780 mil, then techinally that wardec of yours costs them 850 million ISK in "wasted" gametime.

That's a little steep for such a cheap method of wardeccing with no way to end it from the defending side.




You are the one who wants to wardec people but the second they can fight back you back out.
The attitude you display is exactly the problem!

Yes,

They could disband their hard work on building something unique, just because some little splerglord with only 50 million ISK can have his e-peen stroked because he picked on weak groups trying to make this game fun. You want a free pass to mess with people who honestly can't fight back against most of the highsec wardec groups, simply because they do not have the manpower.

You prey on that, instead of taking on a meaningful entity. You aim for the weak people so that you get free kills with little to no risk in return. That by definition is the problem you pretend to fight against. And the whole spirit of this topic is to allow a more comprehensive system to be in place which allows a defending party to end a wardec as well, rather than putting this immense power into the aggressor's hands.

If you would be a highsec wardeccer, go after Marmite and fight them. They will have the numbers to deal with you.
But don't be a little splerglord hitting the small people, while yelling "ITZ PEEVEEPEE, U NEED DEFEND URSELFZ", knowing they can't.

Yes.
It is hard work if you want to build something lasting with a lot of member retention. It takes a lot of time and effort that people like you ignore blissfully.



It has been you who ignores honest problems that people who like a different playstyle bring up, because it doesn't fit in YOUR need to grief people.




Player represents a group of high-sec players who enjoy the PVE aspects.
Player poses the following problem:

- How are we to fight a war that we virtually can not end unless the other group decides to stop paying?

Then player asks to set in motion a change that will allow people to continue wardecs, but allow players who are on the recieving end to have a potential method to end the war through participation. Essentially, the principle of a wardec being continued one-sidedly without a way to counteract that bothers Player, and that's what he hopes to adjust.

Summarizing:
- Wars are not able to be countered on a fundamental level.
- Wars are limited in "risk" to the initiator. After all, they decide to continue it or not.
- Wars should need a component that gives the defending party a more impactful method of dealing with them.

Quoting for emphasis.

Back when I was a newbie, my corporation (which was about 80% newbies) would operate in groups and use LIBERAL amounts of ECM and Sensor Dampeners to cover our asses (usually while running missions).
When the enemy had a fleet up and bearing towards us we would run back to HQ (where we had all consolidated ourselves), jump into ships we didn't mind dying in (also equipped with liberal amounts of Ewar), and sit at the gate they would have to jump through to reach us.


Point is... everyone has access to the same tools and tactics. It is up the individual and groups of players to use recognize that and use those tools and tactics to their advantage. And that is more of a mentality thing than a game mechanics issue.

Players who have the mentality that they can't "win" unless they are "just as good" or "firmly established" won't survive anywhere in the game... regardless of how much time you give them. And the reason for this is that no matter how "good" or "established" you are (or become)... there is always someone out there "better" in every way.

And players who have the mentality that they are entitled to be left alone because, on principle, they should not be forced to do anything they do not want to (or because they are "special" or "new") are simply playing the wrong game.
Everything is designed to conflict with everything else. PvPers are forced to perform industry and PvE in some capacity... Industrialists and PvEers are forced to PvP in some capacity.

No one is entitled to be "left alone." No one is entitled to build things (even abstractions like corporations) and not expect to be "pushed around" by others. And more importantly... NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO SUCCESS in this game.

I think you're missing my point though. So let me write it down in a TL;DR fashion:

Yes, I believe that wardecs in core concept are a rightful and needed thing to prevent ultimate security from being reality.

Yes, I think that people need to be able to fight, and bring their fleets upon the aggressors.

No, I do not support more security in high-sec.

No matter how many other corporations there are, plenty of them were made from a specific viewpoint and that makes each and every one of them unique.

It makes no difference if you spent 1 day or 1 year on your corporation. You work to build something up.

Due to the current nature of war declarations, there are some things that bother me:

All the power to initiate is in the aggressor's hands. When you want to pay you keep it active, yet you get to close the wardec when you are losing without the opposing party having a say in that.

The current system highly incentivizes the harrassment and abuse of groups who are too small to field a fleet capable of dealing with your wardeclaration. This abuse can be an issue for players to enjoy the game, which in the end is more important for the health of this game. Yes, even carebears matter.

There's no way to deal with the wardec other than trying to fight them on their terms. I feel there's a component missing that allows a bit more control on the defending side in terms of how the war plays out. Influence over the process is too one-sided and I believe we really need to look into that while preserving the integrity of war declarations.

I am all for a good PVP system with the ability to keep people on their toes 24/7. But I do not think that the power to engage should lie with one party. So for example:

We could consider making it possible to allow defending parties to prolong a conflict, even if the aggressor wishes to end it, by paying a similar fee per week as the aggressor. This would result in the ability to choose if you want to fight people, as well as giving a little bit of a consideration for the aggressor before they wardec people. Right now, if the aggressor loses their fights they let it slide and stop the wardec. But why should they? Why can't the defending party choose to extend the war declaration just to mess with you?


Edit:
A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer )

While you use intended methods, the mentality and approach of many people engaged in high-sec wardecs borders on griefing. Sure, that IS part of EVE, and it does matter to our game. But there's a point where your actions become harassment. Be mindful of that, seeing that CCP does take fairly actively to harassment.

That being said,
My point regarding griefing is that a lot (not all) of the high-sec wardec groups think they are hot ****, but the second that a competent opponent meets them in battle they either run away or dock up. That's what I despise about most groups, they harass and annoy people but when someone finally fights back they run like little cowards.

You might want to edit your previous posts then, because you've actually posted the complete opposite of these three things.





Well duh. That's how it works in a predator vs prey situation. If you don't like that, fortunately unlike nature you can just decide to stop being a prey animal.


Oh, and the defender can have a say in whether the aggressor closes the dec or not, when they're the ones paying for it.

All of your problems seem to stem from a pigheaded refusal to actually take the initiative. How about you actually play the damn game? Ever thought of that?




No. The core principles of this game matter more than people who are deliberately playing the game wrong.




Unbelievable.

You could, and I know this is a shocker... fight on your own terms? Stop acting like you're some kind of victim here, you have access to each and every mechanic in the game that the aggressor does, and more besides.




IT DOESN'T! People like you are literally giving it away!

I've made a conscious decision to see major wardec groups that declare wars on other groups and actually fight, different from the small groups that wardec as many people as they can, yet run into a station the second opposition comes up. You want to fight a wardec? Be a man and stand your ground when the defenders do bring a fleet to fight you.

It's these risk averse groups wardeccing people but hiding when they are seeing any form of opposition, that make the whole system feel weird. It's these people who simply do it to annoy others, that get people riled up against it. Is it a legal and acceptable method? Oh yes. But does that mean I have to find it a respectable activity? No, not at all.

As for you, Kaarous Aldurald, I like how you blissfully ignore suggestions that could be discussed while sticking to the points you want to pick apart, simply based on a different perspective. I gave a solution in my last post that might be an interesting dynamic to not only give defenders means to act back, but also to make a war declaration more meaningful. Since you ignored it, I will quote it for you again, just so that you don't need to search.




I am definitely not the perfect player, I do not live in highsec at all, but I do feel that it's not a good thing to force people to either fight (which is good), or disband the corp/logoff for a week. That will only force people into larger and established groups, leading to stagnation in the long run. Look at 0.0 and how four large groups dominate the scene with any resistance squashed before anything can happen.

Also:
If we do not question mechanics occasionally to discuss it and keep the way open for progress, you will stagnate. We will not get a perfect system, and no one is 100% safe. Awesome! But in the end, we are well within our right to question the systems in place and think of ways to improve it for all parties. Not just the one that has the power.


Edit:



From an earlier comment.
The underlines comments are my problems with the way wardecs work these days. It's not about people getting wardecced, but about the way people go about it. Each time you bring this argument up, the wardec players begin to scream and yell how EVE should be a sandbox. Yes, it should be. But EVE isn't about you being a special snowflake. If you fight when you wardec against defending fleets, props to you and I have nothing against you. If you dock up when the defenders show up, you've lost my respect and will be marked a hypocrit.

He doesn't even have to Wardec the aggressor... he just has to make the war "mutual." This cancels out any war fees and "locks" both sides into the war until one or the other "surrenders."

Yeah... the defender has LOTS of options at his/her disposal. The trick is actually using them and not being so stuck in personal principles or ethics (which shouldn't have been brought into the game in the first place... because it's a game... and games don't care about you FEEL about a mechanic... it simply "is" and you either use it or you don't).

Part of what keeps highsec much more 'profitable' is how the range on raw materials has been set. I can, with time and some luck, get most of what this character needs for his Industry OCD without going under a 0.5 rating. Perhaps seeing that space in the 0.6-0.4 as an amorphous mid-sec could change things just a tad for either end by placing more of those raw materials there. It draws the highsec only toons into the grey zones, while those that live more full-time in low and null have a slightly better access to the possible profits to be made. Then it goes to the risk vs. rewards on both ends of the security spectrum ratings. How lucky/defended/offensive do I feel tonight, huh punk?

A second character of mine is the Founder and CEO of a very small currently highsec based corp. That combined with a little time with both a highsec and lowsec corp are my training grounds for learning for what at least Doesn't work for me and a few others in a player run corp. There's a few reasons I haven't followed any promptings to pull Jeven out of the NPC corp. Number one with a bullet would be moving all of his crap again! Whugh, that was pricy to Blackfrog his hamster hoard before, it would be a higher bill to move it now! It's one of those things, I have a better idea what I'm looking for in a corp and I'm not too fond of signing on with any crew without having more than a vague idea what I'll be facing in other players' personalities, the management style of leadership, locations, and overall goals from the short/medium/long terms, activity levels, etc.

Entitled to isolation to run a PvE corp without risk... got to give that one a big fat NO vote. That was one thing I didn't think existed when I joined. The only thing I consider myself 'entitled' to in Eve is a client that gets more of the bugs fixed before the next mini-expansion is launched. CCP, did you read that line? I'm paying to play, so pleeeeze, fixie more than you break. (and quit trying to make my skull esploode from all the updated shiny graphics unless you plan to pay for my prescription pain killers and new glasses) If I want isolation while playing a game, then it's time to fire up the PS3 and spend more time on the save file for FFVII. That's pretty play game isolated, I play Eve for some socialization along with spaceship build and break fun times.

>Jeven