Jita Park Speakers Corner

Hello- Seeing that you believe hisec pvp should be a launching pad for aspiring pvpers, I'd like to know how you envision hisec wardec mechanics should be fixed? And consequently, how hisec pvp should be enhanced for those who are just starting out.

I like you point of view.



I see who you mean by that...

Hey, good question thanks.

I apologize if this is a disorganized answer, as I just started coming down with the flu from the flu shot I got like 10 hours ago (ain't that nice). Here we go.

Right now one of the largest new challenges facing young hisec wardeckers is the legitimization of alliance hopping, particularly to Dec Shield. Once your target jumps to Dec Shield, so does the war. In addition, the war does not immediately shut down as it did before: you can actually pay to continue it as long as you like. While this is good on the surface, the problem remains that the corporation will leave the alliance again in around 24 hours. If you are not on top of the ball with canceling the war, you will be completely unable to be at war with them again at best case for 24 hours due to the mechanics of voting (cannot put up a war if you have 3 or more, even if they are ending; cannot put up a war against a corporation or alliance you are already at war with; cannot vote to declare war on a corporation that is currently in an alliance).

Another tactic that used to be illegal that (I believe) is now allowed is completely dissolving your corporation, then re-forming it under the same name with the same people, ending the war for at least 48 hours (24 for the vote, 24 for the war to go live). While this leaves control towers and other corp-anchored assets abandoned, that is not a major problem for most carebear corps.

If your targets do not jump to an alliance to end your war or completely reform their corp, then you are no worse off than you were in '07; however, this is not to say that those mechanics were good either.

Joining and leaving corporations is fluid and easy for both sides, though it favors the aggressor, who is prepared to engage by already having no roles, and perhaps not even starting out in the corporation that is at war. Joining and leaving corporations at any time is fully sanctioned by senior GM staff, as long as you go through a very basic and minimal process; currently, the bare minimum amount of time to be in the corporation is 15 seconds. While these tactics are fun for the aggressor and can provide surprise ganks against reticent targets, they seem reasonable more and more in ruling only, and the rules that allow this have only been fully clarified by the GMs in the last year or so.

Changes I would probably like to see:

There have been various suggestions for changes to mechanics that will force members of corporations to remain in their corporation, or at least not be allowed to leave, that seem to be heading in the right direction conceptually. I think a model where only the aggressors are allowed to leave their corporation and only those who were declared upon are allowed to recruit could be successful, as long as the corp that was declared upon is forbidden to hop to an alliance for the duration of the war through forced game mechanics. The corp that is set upon would be allowed to hire free-roaming mercs to fight for them, and the aggressors would not be able to grow in numbers; the biggest problem the set-upon would have is scammers and enemy AWOXers being recruited. (I do not think this should allow or disallow recruitment or expulsion of corporations from alliances that are at war, but I do think that there needs to be a better notification of acceptance to an alliance so that all parties know when it will happen. Lots of people die because they suddenly find themselves in alliance at war while they are travelling, just as the 24h timer finishes.)

However, this also holds its own problems. Whenever I come up with a change to game mechanics, I think to myself: How could I exploit this to ruin someone's day? That is my calling in EVE, and I have spent years practicing it.

For instance, with a rule like this, I could recruit mission runners to a corporation that is having war declared upon it; they would then be unable to leave, ever, and I could grief them straight out of the game for a few paltry million isk a week! There should therefore be a way for you to forcibly leave a corporation that on a long timer, say 4 or 6 days, notifying your corporation members and their war targets. Corporation recruitments on behalf of the aggressive corporation could perhaps also be similarly delayed, say 24 hours with (again) a notification to both groups that the timer is beginning when the recruitment is set in motion.

Always remember! Any condition in a game mechanic can be exploited in your favor. You can meet any guidelines; if you were allowed to leave a corporation immediately when you're getting teamkilled while at war, then corporations could immediately be dissolved by just blowing up their own members in shuttles. When someone offers a proposal, always think about the worst thing you could possibly do to someone with that change in place.

I also think that corporations should be able to declare war on other groups while they have less than three ACTIVE wars, not less than three wars in any state whatsoever. If you declare war on an alliance and it collapses two corps at a time for a whole week, you cannot declare war on any of those corporations because you've always got three items on the list. This is counterintuitive to the way alliance wars work, where wars that are already ending do not count towards the total cost of adding a new one.

In short:

Hard restrictions on the movement of corporations that are at war, long-timer restrictions on joining and leaving for the aggressors and the victims respectively, and lots of notifications for when when timers begin and corps join warring alliances.

One thousand times yes

You have my votes too!

Project Nemesis was my first war dec, during my first few weeks in Eve. I hated them back then, but now being an older and wiser pilot I appreciate what they did for me. It was definitely a trial by fire.

Also, they mega-trolled my terrible former CEO EthanPow, for which I am forever grateful.

Definitely have my support.

This speaks volumes.

I've seen Widders gracefully navigate EVE's mechanics with unmatched efficiency. If broken mechanics are going to be fixed properly, you need someone with the ability to see how things are going to be exploited, and the desire to make changes that are for the better of the game and not personal interests.

Iam has both of these qualities.

+1 for your reputation and apparent good intentions. Good luck.

Only 96 "likes" ?
Until I read that thread.

You're short of 3 "likes" now.

I've flown with Iam for years in Project Nemesis, and he's one of my favorite PRONS. Very capable guy, with an extremely well-rounded knowledge of most aspects of EVE - would be truly excellent on the CSM.
Also, he's rugged.
Absolutely has my vote.

<3