The Case for Wardecs: An Appeal to Reason

Avatar
tldr
Avatar
I hate to admit it, but when i scrolled down and saw 8 pages.I've been reading entire books a day lately, but I don't want news article books.tldr
Avatar
Saw 8 pages...didn't care enough about war decs.
Avatar
Why even bother clicking on a James315 article if you're just going to bleat about your ignorance in the comments?
Avatar
This 8 is realy intimidating.
Avatar
Executive Summary please.
Avatar
When we went to help TEST in The South kill -A- and friends. We took it a step further and wardecced AAA, Nulli, and AAA Citizens as a way of denying them resupply or refuge in hisec or losec.
Avatar
Hmm I thought test said they did it on their own to 'prove themselves'.
Avatar
This is fairly standard James 315 argumentation, except for page 7. Read that one, it is actually pretty interesting.
Avatar
I think the issue is largely that wars don't really mean anything. From the 0.0 alliance under constant war in empire with no losses because they use OOC haulers, to the mining operation that shuts up shop for a week during a war to avoid having to fight.Yes you occasionally get people losing stuff because they don't know how to play the game, but as James and trebor have both said, that just is either well deserved and teaches them how to not be involved in wars in future (not really CCPs intention), or means they quit the game and CCP lose £10 a month.The only times a war means anything is when both sides live in the same place, and play the same style. And if this happens it tends to be in 0.0 and not need a war to be declared.What a war SHOULD be in empire, is when two corporations (or alliances) are competing for resources, and the only resources are asteroids. The way to fix wars is to have something other than killmails to fight over.
Avatar
James, your assertion (page 5) that "no one has ever offered a workable proposal for a wardec system with consequences or goals" is wrong. I have, and I am sure others have. You just don't know about it. I wrote it up on Poetic Stanziel's blog, here. In short: wars should exist to facilitate tax extraction from capsuleers. The strong don't fight the weak, they tax them. Wars happens between the strong.I am sure that other people have other ideas.You correctly note that for many corporations, highsec wars are consequence free with current game mechanics. (I would note that some corporations have highsec POSes; and these (or their moon-slots) are valuable even though they are not sov-structures.) But there is no reason it has to be that way. Consequences could be very serious; it is simply a matter of programming. You even note in the piece that for a while CCP frowned upon corps ducking wardec by dissolving; losing one's valued corp name may not be much of a hit, but it is something, at least.As for how to tell who "won" a war: this is easy. You are right that automatically doing this is impossible. But we don't have to rely on machines: we have humans -- the two CEOs -- to tell us. A war is "won" when one of the CEOs clicks on a "My corp loses the war" button. If that does not happen, it's a draw. See? Easy.
Avatar
Gee James, if only there was a place you could go to expound these ideas to CCP as an "emissary" of the players...Your 15 Minutes are up son...move along....
Avatar
1...2...3....zzzzz
Avatar
who the hell are you
Avatar
I don't think there's any way for CCP to fix the wardec system in hisec, and there is a place in the game for 'themepark' PvE (it helps CCP make money that they can invest in more interesting low/nullsec combat). Non-consensual wardecs should be removed from hisec, but the income from hisec should also be nerfed into the ground so that hisec's low risk activities consistently produce very low reward. Those wretches who enjoy the rat wheel of endless hisec PvE should be allowed to do so without danger, except from suicide gankers, with the cost that they'll make far less income than they would by taking on some risk in nullsec.It's a severe problem that hisec PvE, mining, and production equal or outstrip the nullsec versions of those activities in income AND risk. Fixing the risk/reward imbalance between hisec and nullsec will resolve a lot of the game's other issues. Nullsec PvE, mining, and production should be absurdly lucrative, but also vulnerable to raids by hostile gangs.
Avatar
You made it to page 5 ?
Avatar
8 Pages bitching about wardec's....really ?
Avatar
Something like "Carebears are bad and ruin my game and I couldn't be arsed to run for the CSM so I wrote eight furious pages of tears?" There's certainly something wrong but eight pages of blame and opinion is a bit much.
Avatar
Why is there no way to see all pages of this post on one page?
Avatar
Excellent article James. I do not believe we will come to the point where there will be wardecs no more anytime soon, but this whole back and forth nerf/buff tug of war has to stop and people have to come to realize that war is an essential part of the game, no matter where it happens. This is not up for discussion. It's how the game is. The reason i believe these people moan, even if they can avoid wardecs like corp jumping and what not, is the fact that they can't be bothered. Even that small change in their everyday gaming life that disrupts their daily (almost pathological) way of function is enough to give them a headache. It has to stop.
Avatar
The fact is that wardecing just causes pveing people to be more anti-social, why join a corp and mix with other people when you can just keep in a npc corp and rake in more isk?The other fact of the matter is most war decing are by people looking for soft targets and complain when the soft mining corp switch from mining barges to ruptures that there "blobbing".If you want real pvp, go to null or get involved in faction warfare. If you want to gank, get a Talos and hang around Jita.
Avatar
Oh shit, a James 315 article! Oh shit, an 8 page James 315 article. Better clear my schedule.
Avatar
The issue purely and simply is those silent war dec's where a single player corp war dec's an industrial corp with no intention of ever attacking and just using the war dec as an area denial strategy. Some High Sec corps are griefed like this continiously. Here comes the rub, that noob war dec is still dangerous to most High Sec industrial corps, because many of them mine on their own, so what could happen is that the noob trains up Thrasher skills and warps in on the mining ship, along with a high skilled neutral repper, even with the neutral repper getting a suspect flag its still likely not going to result in help for that miner in time.What normally happens is that a war decc'er like PRONS will war dec someone and if they are not happy with the fight or something they will keep war decc'ing with small one man corps to make them pay for not fighting etc. Who in their right minds goes head to head with PRONS as an industrial corp, but they would go after this small corp, but this corp is only there for area denial and to get some gank type kill if the industrial lets their guard down, so no kills and as lot of industrial players left with a war dec for an extended period. And then someone else starts on them, sooner or later those industrial players just get fed up and join a NPC corp with their own channel.The issue is that human nature being what it is, its impossible to develop a system that will not be exploited by either side, the system as it is actually works.
Avatar
8 pages.... Really???
Avatar
blah blah blah you know why I dont like war decs? there pointless, i havent seen 1 war dec in high sec that was for gain, out side of kill mails, THAT's why people don't like them, in null there's SOMETHING AT RISK, in highsec a war dec is just another tool for greefers to get tears. thats the main problem.
Avatar
Could have at least given a 3-page tldr
Avatar
A real issue is the persistence of multiple pages.
Avatar
I'm not in favor of getting rid of wardecs, though I do think the mechanic could use some iteration to limit some of the more ludicrous "contagious forever war" issues which have popped up since Inferno.I would point out, however, that the author is being somewhat one-sided about the costs of dissolving wardeced entities: "For a long time, the latter two options were classified as exploits by CCP. However, CCP eventually relented, allowing corps to nullify wardecs with the press of a button. It now costs 50 million ISK minimum to wardec a corp, which can dissolve and re-form itself for 2 million ISK. Yet the carebear critics of wardecs don't hesitate to solemnly lecture the rest of us about how the attackers don't have enough "skin in the game".This is true as far as it goes but it fails to note other costs of doing trying to nullify wardecs. First if the corp has corp hangars or POSes (not unlikely for industrial corps), then these must be cleared out and decommissioned prior to dissolving the corp and set up under the new banner. At the very least this is a logistical headache, and in the case of POSes, potentially a source of significant ISK loss if the operation is discovered and interrupted. Also, current wardec mechanics allow you to dec entire alliances at which point the cost to dissolve and reform is not 2 million ISK but a whopping 1 billion. Finally, doing this sort of thing will be obvious to anyone who looks at employment histories and corps will therefore bear the social taint of fleeing a wardec. Which of course I'm sure the author would endorse and I'm not sure that I disagree, but it is a cost nonetheless and is worth acknowledging.Generally I think the author would be more convincing if he tempered his arguments with a bit more balance. Polemic has it's place, I guess, but I find it a weak cousin to nuanced discourse.
Avatar
The Gospel According to James. Well written. And you dropped out of the race why?
Avatar
I like James 315, but yeah, 8 pages is way too much.
Avatar
Many issues people have, with eve probably won't be resolved because eve has traditionally been very easy to meta game. If by chance, a similar game attempted to keep a one character per account rule (and possibly limited running clients like eve trial accounts are), you could enforce many more things on the game world. Because eve implements so many activities that require the use of multiple characters or accounts, many consequences can be mitigated.Also read all 8 pages to waste some time, and i gotta be honest, it did exactly that! :)
Avatar
I only read the first page but still have to say, as someone who spent a year in snatch victory, that high sec wardeccers are pretty much all faggots :)
Avatar
My personal view is that war decs shouldn't be nerfed, but if they are we need to be able to attack highsec POS's some how. Otherwise highsec industry will stagnate with dead POSs on moons especially close to trade hubs.If anything we need more ways to blow people up in highsec not less, I would prefer a system where you pay per kill on decs. So I put 1bil down and every kill 20% of the base value is deducted from this, when I exceed the 1bil pot the war ends or if the week ends the pot is lost.The flip side is that if the pot is exceeded then the target gets 1 week invuln before can be attacked again.This way the defender can look at the pot and go they paid 1bil screw them its worth us staying docked for a week for them to lose it. Also you're effectively setting the ante on your wars how much are you willing to risk for kills.
Avatar
I think a big item missed is the disruption to normal game play and isk generation a war Dec causes the defender. The aggressor is generally geared for war. They have isk sources external to or built into their method of operation. The defender should have this as a back up plan, but often do not. The defender is caught off guard, panics, and watches their isk source (and potential reason to play) hindered.I remember some if the first advice I recieved on wardecs, dock up, throw in a week long skill, and play somethibg else; drop corp to RvB to learn pvp; or drop to an npc corp.The problem, there is little or no reason for a defender to fight (at least in their mind). There needs to be some incentive to get the defender to want to fight or even undocks. In nul, you undock because you risk losing your space. In hi sec, why risk it when it's a disruption of play and you feel the deck is stacked against you?I think there needs to be a shift in thinking in general. Everyone talks about risk, no one talks about reward. Aggressors have a reward in the form of tears, killmails, and potential loot drops. Defenders, they generally do not care about killmails or tears. loot drops would be nice, but aggressors don't tend to fly faction fit ships. Bounty isn't much of a reward either. What if the cost of the war dec was put in a pull that the defender could earn through engaging the aggressor? Probably not a good idea, but still... If there is increased risk, shouldn't there be an increased reward? What incentive can we give to a defender to interest tyem in actually fighting? And perhaps the reward could be worked in some other manner.
Avatar
The reason wardecs are broken isn't because a single guy in an NPC corp can get a pubbie corp to dissolve/dock up for a week, it's broken because there are a dozen highsec "leet pvp" griefer corps that permanantly wardec pretty much every alliance more than a couple people strong.It would be one thing if they were pursuing a campaign against strategic assets but all they do is shit out as many wardecs as possible and camp the Jita undock, occasionally picking off the lowest common denominator as he undocks in his stupidly expensive ratting boat.Their actions aren't a major issue in the end because most people use an NPC corp market alt to move goods in/out of Jita but it's still evidence of a broken mechanic.
Avatar
In regard to resources: you're overlooking moons. There are even corps who specialize in attacking under-defended moons in hisec using wardecs.Also, you can think of access to trade hubs under CONCORD protection as a resource, as well.
Avatar
personally i believe wardecs need a LOT more granularity, needs a faction and concord standings tie in, and location granularity allowing for fun chases to the borders and allowing corps with high empire faction standings extra help or additional disincentives by higher prices for declaring war.
Avatar
Typical James_315 sperging. Apparently he can't say anything without wasting at least 6 pages for superfluous bullshit.
Avatar
YEAH WHAT GAIN COULD EVER COME FROM A WARDEC?http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...
Avatar
To run for CSM requires letting people know his real life name. He's made enough enemies that his life would be endangered. Read his minerbumping blog to get an idea of how badly he has enraged his victims. A couple of folks have been permabanned by CCP for death threats already.
Avatar
"The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must" The Melian DiolougeLife is not fair. Lucky this is not life. Otherwise those who oppose it would have been conquered. That quote right their is the best way i know to summarize all war/fighting in eve. It may not be fair. But it is natural.
Avatar
eight pages of drivel from Eve's most prolific null-sec whiner. Pathetic.
Avatar
When you have an alliance comprised of thousands (literally, thousands) of bored nerds with alliance-level AFK income from moons to keep them all stuffed into ships, the sky's the limit as to what you can do.
Avatar
I'm supportive of all those changes. Especially the bombs on 4-4. That'd be fantastic.
Avatar
delete concord, problem solved
Avatar
I spread love through the warm embrace of plasma hitting the hull of your maximum yield miner.
Avatar
I have seen a trend for some carebear groups to not be incorporated at all. Mining groups especially since the tax doesn't hit them. They have a channel, they do fleets, and they sit in the NPC corps.
Avatar
And/or don't allow the dissolution of a corp during wartime. I like the "Lose war" button but what would be the incentive for them to not just press that at the beginning of the war?
Avatar
His real life name is Richard Cranium.
Avatar
There's going to be 8 pages of comments soon.
Avatar
You are a true sir, I have walked a similiar path myself. Null sec ends up being safer than high because you're aware of the danger, of how to look out for it and how to protect yourself. It becomes a way of life and instinct to understand the basic combat mechanics of the game. In high sec you never pick this up and are left amazed at your smoking wreck.
Avatar
So the Aggressor gets their money back that they had in the first place? Why not just suicide gank corp members and be done? If no ships are lost it means the defending corp has gone on holiday - so the aggressors lose out twice - no kills (or losses) and putting up their Isk in the first place - way to kill of the broken war dec system.Here's a fix.War Dec system relies on criteria being set in the first instance by the aggressors - This is their victory conditions with a blank box for an Isk Amount. The defenders get the mail stating the victory conditions for the aggressors, their victory conditions could be Prevent it happening within a time frame, some other condition, or a you win here's Isk to go away.It doesn't have to be all about damage done, it could be prevent x amount of M3 mined from a constellation/region - Limited to actually renting a corp office, or owning a tower out there in the first place - Or preventing the completion of missions on a corp wide basis (assuming missions can be counted as a corp activity).What is the appeal of declaring war as it stands today? Conversely what is the appeal of defending a high sec war today? Writing a list of pros and cons and simply reversing them isn't what will make a good war dec system. Perhaps aligning it so that both the pros and cons are closer together will kill it off altogether, but there has to be a reason for the defenders to actively defend or should there be?
Avatar
Not bad.
Avatar
so roughly 20 people have been paying not to play Eve, because they can't be bothered to train combat skills (which would allow you to do missions and get faction ammo at the very least) and fix up a few cruisers or frigates that you can make yourselves and learn pvp the same way you taught yourself to learn how to do industry.You are not a cookie, don't allow yourself to be baked in one design only.
Avatar
That's pretty good pun-wise haven't heard it before.
Avatar
James 315 doesn't live in nullsec though?
Avatar
I get why pagination is there, but your pages are too short.
Avatar
That's your perspective. Maybe your a masochist or something, but the thought of throwing ships at someone with more sp, more isk and far more experience in combat doesn't strike most sane people as fun. Since direct counter attacks are not fruitful and just give the greifer what they want the only option is to stay docked and blue ball. There is no incentive for me to go out there and lose ships to justify their existence.
Avatar
"That hounding people out of the game is a goal of wardecs." 70-80 percent of the time. It is the result. The goal of "gudfites" is a farce at best. You want fights in highsec? join RvB.
Avatar
lol... then a supercap pilot keeps his stuff safe by cyno'ing into highsec and joining an NPC corp.... no way!!!
Avatar
Read the lot. With this kind of attitude its a shame you weren't able to be a part of the CSM. With this article i would have voted for you :)
Avatar
The preverse thing is WARDECS are not usually consenul .Its usually an experianced PVP corp declaring war on a industrial corp,with little or no PVP experiance what so ever.The PVP corp usually have better warships,and the skills to use them ,while the industrial corp usualy has better mining/transport skills and ships..So the industrial corp is at a massive disadvantge before a shot is even fired.Given this is it any wonder a corp will fold and then be reborn after docking up for a week or two.Why should they become cannon foder for more experianced PVP players,and lose ships and implants ,so a bunch of players who arnt good enough for 0.0 can feel like big shots.Wardecs are just not worthwhile in high sector space,its as simply as that.If one side just doesnt want to fight ,they are totally pointless.A better system would be for corps to pay for a PIRATES license,so they can attack ships in high without CONCORD intervention.Perhaps issued along empire lines .So a Gellente pirate corp could atack Caldai corp ships in Caldai space ,and vise-versa.or in Amarr and vice-versa..It would mean beefing up the empire navies though,so they can help protect their corps ,and theres still risk for the attackers apart from the defending corp and any alies.But an extension to the FW game component to allow pirating activieties in another empires space. is i feel a better option than the present WARDEC system.
Avatar
"The preverse thing is WARDECS are not usually consenul (sic)"War. Not consensual. Being perverse. Mind. Blown. So tell me how many of the wars which have occurred throughout history were consensual, with all involved parties agreeing to fight until the bitter end?
Avatar
1. It should be possible to wardec individuals in NPC corps2. It should be possible to activate a wardec only in a system of your choice at a reduced price.3. Wardecs should be inherited if you leave your corporation.OR4. lvl4 missions and barge mining should be possible only to those who are in a player run corporation.
Avatar
Someone has to wrong you first, isn't an 'unjust' wardec exactly the reason you are looking for?
Avatar
Wall of text, feeling a little space important.
Avatar
Read to end of first page, 1 of 8. TLDR.
Avatar
A different angle.How about, once a character reaches a month old then it is no longer able to be in npc corps.This would mean true carebears would either have to form their own corp or join one. All corps must either join an alliance or be in faction warfare. Alliances are at war at all times. An alliance must have an enemy. If no alliance is it's enemy then it is auto enrolled in faction warfare.This will mean indy corps and miners will need to prepare for war by either skilling or joining alliances with defence divisions. An alliance tax will pay for expensive defending and mining corp will benefit from protection.Care bears get their (relative) safety and war deccers get to find the fights. This would allow arranged warfar and fleet battles in high sec. Whilst forcing carebears to expect a little pvp without obv griefing by war decs
Avatar
So he does this because he is a pussy in real life? I'm not saying that actions online should have repurcussions in real life but who cares if some autists know your real name. It's not like Mittens has been killed yet and we know his real name.
Avatar
Sounds great until you remember that eve is a place where trust is not given lightly and people start getting scammed by the alliance that supposed to be "protecting" them.
Avatar
For all we know it's not for lack of trying either, just saying.
Avatar
How many people are going to write an essay defending wardecs?'Well, you didn't write an essay defending wardecs, but you still wrote an essay examining the arguments for and against wardecs.
Avatar
Mittens had a very thick skin. Don't know about James.
Avatar
Unless you are Chinese, then it's a lucky number.
Avatar
That is the sad thing with MMO gamers of the current generation: They aren't interested in the Multiplayer Online part of MMO. They rather be soloing all day, then wonder why soloing actually seems to hurt them.Also, we need more mining corps that are closet Rupture enthusiasts.
Avatar
I wronged you by offending your sights with my officer-fitted Machariel.
Avatar
We stick to the New York Times standard, and paginate after ~800-1000 words typically.
Avatar
I'm pretty used to death threats by now, but then again I have an ironclad ego and sense of personal supremacy, not to mention financial independence. Most people look at the flak leaders in Eve or CSM members get and say you'd have to be crazy to volunteer for it.Spoiler: I'm completely insane.
Avatar
Agreed. James315 has long overstayed his welcome. People are tired of (not) reading this tripe.
Avatar
Main reason why people do not go and live in lowsec was because of the impression that the lowsec is scary as hell. Guess what the majority of lowsec dwellers are flying (and losing, daily): Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers. These aren't things you can't take on under most circumstances. It's not that terrifying, but their belief is, yes, it is actually terrifying.Your argument about 'people not going into lowsec for a reason' shall be deemed invalid. The reason is risk-aversion and ignorance, not weakness.
Avatar
How about getting WiS live and fully implemented, and sneak a gun into every station dweller's hands. Then nowhere is safe. Undocking doesn't stop assassination in the canteen anymore.
Avatar
You do realise you could get someone else to join the war and fight on your behalf, right?
Avatar
Has Jesus ever ran in politics?
Avatar
The sad part is, if modern society is any indicator, you're probably right.
Avatar
Might a suggestion toward "Try your own word limit"?Not saying the New York Times isn't a bad source...but I believe they tailor their word limits to their audience..
Avatar
Much like your posting, luckily we won't have to read it anymore from you.
Avatar
I would assert that it takes 6 :smugdog:
Avatar
And six (seventh on hand to be safe) I would buy, if the pilots know every little trick to maximize their time in which to do damage and were well skilled. For a freighter. For a JF it takes more...
Avatar
Why do you say he doesn't have credibility? Because he decided not to run?
Avatar
Not that many more~
Avatar
Then he should grow some balls and wardec a pvp corp. Bitching about no fun when the only people he targets are none fighting toons is retarded. Seekers of pvp can always find action if they want it. Griefers on the other hand, target the easy, then somehow feel cheated when they toons untrained in combat, refuse to engaged in combat.Colour me shocked,
Avatar
Well we could lose about a paragraph and a half I suppose from that sequence in the summer house, but the rest is totally essential.
Avatar
Tell me more about high sec wardecs and 'the strong'.
Avatar
Read almost the entire article (skimmed pgs 7 & 8) and this is what I took away from it:Griefer (James315) is upset that he cannot force players to play a sandbox game HIS way. You always see comments everywhere about carebear tears, but this entire article is nothing but a tear-fest by a griefer (James315) dressed up to be a long-winded "pros & cons" article that seriously lacks any resemblance of a reasonable debate and is instead slanted to the greifer's (James315) opinionated view.Seriously, what a crybaby...
Avatar
Because he ran and quit instead of standing up to Trebor and Ripard
Avatar
You failed to see that nullsec corps/alliances are knowingly taking the risk to be there, thus making your war dec comparisons to them null and void entirely. War decs are without a doubt used mostly as a griefing method. Period. Yes changes are needed.
Avatar
Griefing is more personal. You're attacking a corp, not a person.
Avatar
Most war decs are started by high SP corps against corps that are advertising themselves as newb friendly. I have seen this too many times for there to be any arguement. I have personally seen hundreds of players leave the game because they couldnt do anything in game due to war decs, and that is just in the last two months. I dont see any rational arguement that war decs shouldnt be changed further to make them more difficult to start and possibly impossible to start against soft targets. That would mean making war decs have to be agreed to by both sides.
Avatar
I have never seen a war dec that wasnt from a PVP centered high SP corp against newb corps and carebear corps that dont want to PVP and have no incentive to do anything but log off. They are looking for easy kills and not good fights. Make war decs mutual and allow those that dont have an interst in PVP to go about thier activities in peace. I personally dont see the point of ganking T1 ships with faction BS's and then docking up if anything shows up that might be a challenge. Yet this is the exact behavior I have observed over and over again. If someone whats to play station games and gate camp high sec then more power to them if they can find someon else that wants to as well. Or they can learn real PVP and meet me in low sec.
Avatar
How about just make a new player have to fight for their chosen faction for ~2 months prior to allowing them to join a Player corp? Call it mandatory enlistment. If they want to opt out of that then they have to specifically link their character account to another account they own where they have already done that.This would have the effect of:1.) Make sure that new players have at least some tiny knowledge of combat skills. (or at least one would hope)2.) Give a nice meat shield buff to the different factions.3.) Get players immediately involved in PvP to some extent and perhaps quell some of the fear of it.Hopefully at that point High Sec corps would be composed of people who at least have a limited exposure in PVP and would be more willing to fight it out. Having spent some time working in Faction War they would likely also have a bit more ISK to start off with and some reasonable idea of how the mechanics work. Might also make for some rather interesting FW battles due to the large number of Scrub Swarms.
Avatar
Corp A and B get wardecced. Neither corp particularly enjoy PVP or else they wouldn't be living in highsec. Corp A is a savy corp. All pve stops without being very well scouted. Members turn to alternate projects for wealth generation that do not put them in line of being ganked. NPC alts are used. Smack talk is kept to a minimum denying the aggressors tears. A week later the dec is dropped because paying money to deal with the boredom that is corp A isn't worth it.Corp B is a competent group with a few members that like to fly 0.0 and lowsec on occasion. Under their guidance Corp B manage to defeat the aggressors in a small battle. They proceed to camp the aggressors in until the wardec runs out.Both corps A and B have successfully held off wardeccers. Neither enjoyed the gameplay particularly. Neither corp got any significant award beyond having the wardeccers go away. Corp A took 0 risk and got 0 reward. Corp B took a larger risk and got the same reward. In fact corp B is more likely to be wardecced in the future. Corp B has just picked up a reputation for fighting wardeccers. A better group of pvpers may be encouraged to dec them and hope for a fight. If corp B had lost the fight the wardec would have likely continued, and more people would have been inclined to dec them which is significant risk for them.A mechanic that rewards not playing the game is bullshit. A mechanic that forces people out of the game is bullshit. When the optimal course is to just turn off the computer and go do something else something is wrong. When a corp is wardecced there should be some reward for taking the risks that fighting against the dec entails. Somebody should give corp B a pat on the back, or some money, or something. If they take the risk, they deserve some reward.
Avatar
You realizethat there are not this many PvP Corps which A. stay in HighSec and B. willhelp out some Miners, for free or a agreement that’s not ruining them*. Andeven than, the miner have have to stay docked/logged of, because who wants toplay guardian for a miner. Who will not fall asleep or kill itself in this lineof duty?*Scams/ too expensive.
Avatar
Former CSM in "thinks being on the CSM is a sign of credibility" shocker!
Avatar
True true but it wouldn't really work out in an alliance's best interest to be biting the hand of the corps that feed the isk
Avatar
"maximum yield miner" damit!i knew there has to be a reason why nobody loves me.
Avatar
Sir, the idea to use tax for wardecs is the best one i have read on the forums/comments in the last months. A lot of work on the exact mechanics, but this could definitely be the way to go.
Avatar
From what I understand, he backed out so he could continue posting like this, without having to worry about adhering to an NDA.
Avatar
Gotta be honest.. this crap should have been kept on minerbumping.com...Nobody cares James... nobody cares....
Avatar
tldr: I cannot grief everyone. Remove hisec.
Avatar
Surely something he would have been aware of .. and should have thought through BEFORE he indicated his intention to run ?
Avatar
It's not just 8 pages.. it's 8 pages of James 315 rattling on about something nobody cares about..No .. I didn't read it, I've heard it all before...Move along, nothing to see here.
Avatar
Or how about let every new player start far away from highsec at x fixed NPC Station in 0.0 and they can only transfer the Clone to another Station with a 7+ Standing. It will have pretty much the same effect but is a lot easier to implement and a lot of funnier for older players.
Avatar
Came looking for the name 'Trebor' on every page, left not disappointed.
Avatar
With James it's more of the journey rather than the destination - if he came out stating he wouldn't run for CSM because of the NDA and his real life name coming out, how interesting would the subsequent posts be?Not very because they couldn't really be written in the same context.
Avatar
I think being able to go to people willing to cannibalize the core philosophy of the game and telling them "no, you're wrong" gives you credibility. James was a virtual guarantee to get elected but instead he decided to stick to the peanut gallery and post to a blog only fans of his read."being on the CSM" isnt credibility in itself, but both standing by your convictions and taking the chance to actually DO something about it are. I might agree with almost every word in that post and he might still be a special snowflake to the CFC, but no average player or CCP dev would take him seriously anymore.
Avatar
i heard James 315 and the Mitanni are adopting a child (in real life)to prove gay couples have what it takes to raise a child in a gay home,very cool guys,gay rights for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Avatar
fuck that!way to long to read
Avatar
Why are you claiming that there is risk-free highsec PvE? Can you give an example? And if it exists, why aren't the defenders of wardecs engaging in it?Your argument is internally inconsistent.
Avatar
You mean James315 isn't Mittens weak skinned ALT :D
Avatar
+1 Good point brought up: for the defender there is all too often way more RISK and 0 reward (70-80& of the time )Maybe a Wardeck game mechanic is needed to fix this: Have the agressors put up an escrow of 10-50 million additional ISK and i they get 0 kills or less kills then the defender get then the defender gets the escrow as a sort of I win reward.... conversally if the agressor has 1 or more ship kills then the defendor then he gets his escrow back & its documented in the Wardeck hisory as a wind for him
Avatar
I'm going to have to disagree with you here James. As a new player leading an organization mainly composed of new players, I found the wardec mechanic to be both unintuitive and an incentive for perverse gameplay.War declarations are essentially the equivalent of non-consensual duelling at an organizational level. Sure, someone has to pay for the War dec, but as we soon found out, there are vast amounts of players with enough AFK mining accounts or (whatever it is they do) to make wardec costs trivial to the established EVE player, even to wardec a 1500-man newbie corp.The problem, the main issue, is that a Wardec is not a "way to enable PvP" in highsec. It's the equivalent of a mobster paying a police officer (CONCORD) to look the other way while him and 20 of his friends beat you to a pulp. It creates a form of PvP where powerful groups can selectively pick targets that have no chance of deploying any sort of power parity while being completely protected from anyone else interfering, short of paying someone else to maybe help you with the problem. This fosters a special kind of PvP mentality. I watched wardecs literally camp a station 24 hours a day, just waiting for a lone rifter rookie to undock so they could get a killmail, and hastily dock when anything more than 5 rifters went out to meet them.These same people who showed such dedication in camping inexperienced frigates who had mistaken highsec for a haven of a sorts (a point game mechanics hammer into a new player over and over again) did not dare to do a single jump into lowsec once we moved our HQ there. Why? Simply because of the fact that they would not be able to predict who or what could attack them in an actual sandbox environment.It's simply an aberration of everything EVE stands for when you look at those cool game trailers with starry-eyed dreams of space adventure. No. Off with the regulations and obscure rulework of engagement. Make safe safe, and make what's safe smaller and less profitable, so that unsafe is where the game actually starts to happen. "The butterfly effect" trailer is a brilliant idea that the profitability and size of highsec kills before it's even born, and on top of that players with vast resources have the privilege of paying off the police to shoot you at will in the one place you thought you could learn the game and get on your feet.
Avatar
"Some may say, "If you want a fight, go to nullsec." There are plenty of reasons why some people prefer combat in highsec, including the possibility of limited engagements and the lack of supercaps. To the carebears, I would respond, "If you don't like wardecs, go to nullsec, where they don't matter." The only counter is to say that highsec is a place for PvP-free income, and we know where that philosophy leads"This is a load of hooey. The author and his ilk are nothing but a bunch of griefers who attack players who are not interested in PVP and dont have they training or the proper ships. If James wants to gud fights why does he not declare war on RvB or Noir? Let me answer this for you. He will get his ass handed to him. He prefers to stay in high security space where he is protected, and attack miners, noobs. haulers and the like. It is idiots like him who drive people away from the game. Those are people who down the road might some day have come out here to null sec and had a chance at proper pvp. I have a better idea...if you are such an elite PVPer, why not declare war on merc corps? They exist in high sec and would love the gud fights. But dont hide behind the " I dont want to be dropped by capitols while you shoot a skiff with a faction fitted Tornado and call yourself a PVPer
Avatar
So much shitposting in the comments over the length of the article, and so few people providing constructive counter-points to it's content. We get it. The article is long. It probably should have been posted as a multiple articles. How about some meaningful posts now?
Avatar
That is very true. Yeah hell even make members not be able to leave, it would make them really choose what corp they wanted to join but I am sure this would cause problems or be exploited somehow.
Avatar
Wait I thought your real name WAS Mittens...
Avatar
Are you going to institute a paywall next, as well?
Avatar
My guess would be twelve with a couple extra on hand in case he has monster skills or implants...Gank style is effective and tempting, but I think part of the fun of wardecs is the hunting aspect. It's a rush finding a valuable hull lumbering along without CONCORD protection.
Avatar
have not try it in Retribution. Tested in Inferno though
Avatar
It is if they are red.
Avatar
My patience for people posting tinfoil bullshit comments on TMC is very thin. Don't do it.
Avatar
Heaven forbid the poor players have to interrupt their AFK mining to dock and drop corp.Wardecs are absolutely consensual these days. There are very few corps that will not respond to a wardec by disbanding and reforming or having most members drop corp.
Avatar
Who the hell are any of you to tell someone else that they have to PVP. If they are not interested in PVP then leave them alone. They pay money to play the game however they want. Bring your pussy asses out to null and fight us. I get tired of roaming around all night not finding anyone to fight. I would love to have a bunch of high sec wimps come out here and do non consensual pvp with us. Instead of harassing miners, noobs, and haulers, come out here and harass us. We would love it. Instead of whining like a bunch of teenage girls about making non PVPers PVP, come to where the PVP is at. I think there should be no war decks against anyone who does not want it. Then you high sec woosies will have to come out here and fight us. You remind me of the bullies in school beating up in the kids who cant fight back. You are a sickening lot of cowards who hide behind your concord in high sec picking on non pvpers and then crying to CCP when they make it hard on you. Quit your bitching and come here. We will love it. maybe you will kick my ass. I dont care, just come out here and fight instead of hiding in high sec behind Concord. Why is this even a discussion? Low sec and null is made for fights. you dont even have to pay.
Avatar
What's fair or fun aside, wardecs are basically bribing the cops to look the other way while you pick a fight. CCP should implement a ranking system that ensures the stronger "PvP" corps, or rather, dickless noob campers, can't pick a fight with the noob corps who still find NPCs to be a challenge. The CONCORD is there for a reason. they are the police of a nation and the fact that they can be turned away by throwing money at them is appaling. Forget making people pay to start wars, just find a way to restrict stronger corps from trolling the weaker corps in highsec. PvE corps should be PvP free WHILE IN HIGHSEC. In lowsec/nullsec, it's anyone's game and I wouldn't want to see anyhing less than the bloody pirate wasteland of anarcy it's suppose to be. In highsec, there has to be some sembelance of law and order. let the noobs wardec eachother and fight it out and let the pros wardec and fight amongst themselves. I'd also like to see highsec rats with slightly better fits or perhapse just more of them but that's just me.
Avatar
Of course they can be free from non-consensual pvp in this case. They just don't undock for a week.
Avatar
I'm impressed that you take the time to comment to feedback.
Avatar
Pro-tip bro: All of EVE is made for fights, always has been. Additionally, ranting against James for telling someone "that they have to PVP" (that's not what he did anyway) and then telling him he has to go to only the areas of the game you want him to if he wishes to PVP is ridiculously hypocritical.
Avatar
Are you surprised? If someone tried to screw you over would you not screw them over right back? I call that greifers getting what they give.
Avatar
If I read/hear that people are too 'busy'/'lazy' to read 8 (small) pages of well formulated text I get a bit sad. I feel sad quite often lately.As to the article itself (and it's reply in the form of the newer article by Hilmar_Keller), while I think that most people should be allowed to play the game they wish to be playing I cannot imagine an Eve Online where there would be complete safety everywhere in Highsec (outside of a possible newbie starting constellation - more on that later)... Or I could, but it would be incredibly boring and I'd rather imagine myself in the embrace of two lovely ladies wearing scant all for clothing, but I digress. High security space should be secure, but not perfectly so. While 10-minute old players should get an environment that allows them to learn how to get safe and how to digest all the different types and sources of information the game throws at you, anyone over that period should be (brutally) introduced to the hardships of what is a war-torn universe with factions at each other’s throats. Introductions can come from numerous things; through missions, lore, but most importantly through groups of players duking it out in large spaceships. It is a dog-eat-dog universe out there and CCP has done a kick-ass job of putting down the fundament but it is up to the players to add the finishing touches. Finishing touches like metagaming, like market undercutting, like miner bumping and like player run storylines. I consider the mechanic that allows (a group of) players to declare war on a corporation part of those storylines.Playing this game you are being a part of someone's storyline, by buying modules and ships from the market you are putting yourself in someone's storyline, mining/missioning/hauling in high sec makes you part of someone's storyline. You might not know who the protagonist of the story is, but that is what this sandbox game allows us to do, tell our own tale, our own adventure, our own powertrip. All these tales are told against a background of knowing that anything you do could lead to dire consequences. If it's not 'dangerous'/'exciting' to do, why do it? If you could run through a game on god-mode (or super cheater-mode), would you do it? Would you do it more than once? Some of you might, some of you might with some games (like GTA, I highly recommend you do it at some point). Here's the crux though, would you do it if the other people in the game would be running god-mode too and there would be nothing in all your god-like arsenal of god-like powers you could do about it? Ask them nicely to turn it off so you can shoot them? You think they would, knowing they would have to replace their god-mode-given super items without the bonus of god-mode-given power/money? I hope your answer is no so that we have established what (for me) makes a fun game, a good game.So now that you are part of someone's story are they allowed to have a method of shooting you, scaring you into staying in your safe haven or employing other methods to force their story on you? Yes they should, but you should have readily available means to defend/arm yourself against such methods and maybe twist their storyline to suit your own. Hiring a corp to wardec your aggressor might sound like a good idea, but it will basically boil down to boring station games and you'd still not be able to mine since you'd still be at war. Hiring a corp to defend you sounds more reasonable, especially if like James said the allied corp is bigger than the aggressor corp. How about CCP implement an in-game mercenary market which allows Highsec corps to put out contracts on their aggressor corp and that mutually accepting the contract means the defender corp and their new allies both declare war on the aggressor for as long as the contract lasts? Knowing EVE players there is such a market already, just not yet one easily found for the newer players - so maybe there's something to be done in that aspect. You could of course set a (very inviting) bounty on the aggressor corp that would lead to the same result.Docking up and boring the crap out of the aggressor corp is also a good idea, albeit perhaps not fun, it is tedious for the aggressors and they might drop the war. You could also stay with the NPC corporation until you are space-rich enough to set out on your own or able to replace any ship you might lose (remember that golden rule?). I wouldn't be surprised if CCP allowed for a small constellation per faction of starting systems where you slowly get introduced to PvE, PvP (tactics) and safe (minimal) mining, all the while supported by a (small) team of dedicated Customer Managers who do nothing but answer questions, help stuck players on their way and run small events. In this constellation wars are not allowed to be fought (Navies being especially watchful and since every war gets registered with Concord the factions could have easy access to which corp wants to shoot who). Being at war might even disallow you to enter (that means the defender corp as well - you are only supposed to be in the newbie area if you are a newbie – or helping them out – or passing by). Everything in this constellation is managed (by the owning faction) so the belts won't allow large exhumers, trade volumes cannot exceed certain levels/prices, scamming might even be disallowed (Oh no!), etc. It's an idea, but I am sure you get the gist of it in how it could help stop the war mechanic to 'grief'/pick on new players. Stepping outside of these constellations armed with the knowledge you gained from experienced players & staff would allow you to step into that dark world where you can get killed/shot at/scammed/grieved/bumped to no end. It would be the job of the staff responsible for the core-constellation to ensure new players know the dangers involved in going towards those rewards that await just beyond the borders of these starter locations. Especially if no one in the starting constellations is lying to you that it’s all peaches and cream in the ‘regular’ world but tell you all about what makes EVE such a wonderful game with thousands of storylines intertwining and unraveling all the time. I know this idea goes against my original remark of anyone over 10-minutes old should be introduced to the full might of EVE's learning curve (in all aspects) but through a safe-zone with less content but maximum education you might stop the newer potential members from not subscribing to our lovely hobby because he was grieved/shot/forced to dock up. I think you will still get enough impression of what EVE is all about to pique anyone's interest (providing there's that initial spark). And if you think you are tough enough to skip the starter constellation, go right ahead buddy, I hope James is there waiting for you to make you part of his New Order. Welcome to EVE.Overall I tend to agree with what James wrote, but there should be a large caveat concerning newer players. However, if you have finished your initial trial, maybe subscribed for a month and learned all you could from the safety of the starter constellation you should feel very invited to reap the possible rewards and consequences of what is beyond that initial safety. To become part of the story, to involve yourself in the storylines of others and allowing them to become part of yours.TL;DR? Well said James, but not without allowing/creating something for the newer players that allows them to grow in a managed environment.NB: please forgive any spelling/grammatical errors I might have overlooked.
Avatar
(meh, double post... sorry)
Avatar
I agree with James, trying to "gameify" the wardec system is a futile endeavor. As you mentioned, everyone gets told to simply log off or go do something else for the duration of the war; the solution here is to make people more aware of how shitty their corp is being. They should be working together and actually DOING something about the war: being the defender in a war can be a hell of a lot of fun, but when your corp leadership are being pussies and shirking their responsibility to make things interesting for their membership then it's time to go find a new corp.But people just don't realize this.
Avatar
Another resource being overlooked: When a corporation is bad enough and fails to defend or teach its members, the corporation itself becomes a resource to be harvested, in killing its members and scooping their loot. There's actually a lot of ISK in that, even disregarding the boundless quantities of fun it entails. Wars against these entities serve to force them to become better or cease to be at all.If we weren't allowed to wage war on them, the only pressure forcing them to not be shite would be suicide ganking and AWOXers... and if someone was of a mind to remove wars, how long would that last before those too were removed, do you think?
Avatar
There's a big difference between "wardecking someone for no reason" and "wardecking someone to scoop their loot." One implies you are some kind of senseless button-pressing mushroom, the other means you are acting as an entity that gives others a reason to actually become better at the game.
Avatar
You say it's like paying a police officer to look the other way; the problem is, though, by even playing EVE in the first place you are walking into a dark and seedy bar on the bad part of town. By having lots of members and undocking a lot, you are wearing a sparkly outfit and bumping into people.If you wanted a form of organizational PVP that was entirely honourable and concensual, you're in the wrong game. If you want a game that challenges you to create an organization that can withstand a harsh, brutal, and uncaring environment... well, then you have the right idea.If your members were being brutally ruined on the very undock 24/7, it is regrettably the fault first of them (for not knowing better) and secondly of you as the leader and organizer for not doing more to inform and organize them as your membership.
Avatar
This may seem simple but maybe it makes the most sense. Simply make member minimums to war decs to be declared. For example (number out of my ass) only a 100 man corp / 1000 man alliance or larger may declare war on another corp/alliance that is of at least that minimum size. This means that you could still be a small entity and be safe from war decs but as you grow a particular size you are now a bigger fish and should be expected to protect yourself.Size maters in eve and larger groups would tend to engage in fights but most small corps or alliances avoid warfare for good reasons. By limiting wars to larger groups of people this would create more chances on both sides for fights instead of just a week of staying docked up.
Avatar
No, you are wrong, like really really wrong.The game mechanic shouldnt be designed that it gives unfair advantage in one way, if you create an unfair advantage without it given to you by default by game - its okay, but in here its not the case.At the moment you are saying, be docked first 6months into game and then if you come out, be out for 5minutes and then dock again.
Avatar
Not at all. If you know what you're doing and/or have some decent leadership to direct you in the right way, an group of total noobs that size can completely tear a new asshole in just about any organization out there that even thinks about fighting them.Stop trying to victimize yourself and realize that you could, in fact, be doing a lot better. This might mean you're in totally the wrong corporation because the one you're in now isn't taking care of you: so be it.
Avatar
I am not whining, I am stating the complete utterly fail fact of a game design.If one side is given unfair advantage because they have higher sec status, its fail.
Avatar
Sec status? I'm actually not sure what you're talking about now. This has nothing to do with sec status. We're talking about corps with newbies being wardecked by opportunists, right?
Avatar
Yup and the fact that we cant actually fight them, is because our members who have been in game already dont have sec status to enter high security space, which means that the war deccers just grief in high sec, new member noob ships get killed around the gate (which are worth nothing, they just whore killmails) while trying to make it to our HQ to learn the game.They are making there, we are not whining really, we just state that this is broken.But whenever we find enough people to have fleet in high sec, the griefers flee quicker than a overheated fast tackle ship.Its nothing more than just annoying and broken towards new players, old players dont care about the gate camp.
Avatar
You know you can rat up your security status to go back into hisec, right? I ratted up one of my toons from -10.0 to -1.7 in 4 days just the other week.I agree that the consequences on your sec status for fighting in lowsec are a bit much, but I think you're complaining about the wrong things here and it doesn't sound like you quite got what the original argument was.If you don't have a way to protect your new players in hisec, maybe you should GET one. If you are always getting people trying to fight you in hisec, then clearly there is some PVP to be had there and you could probably get a couple characters that could help out in that venue: it's a great place for your newer members to learn about the kind of shit they'll encounter if they plan to move to lowsec. But you can't just complain that you're unable to protect your own members; that's entirely your own doing. You can't just do things the way you want, then complain that the game mechanics make it hard for you to succeed: you should have planned.
Avatar
I hope you also realize that total inability to defend yourself as a corporation is your fault, not the fault of the game.Complaining that anyone can declare war on you and that this makes you lose THEREFORE THE GAME IS BROKEN is like saying EVE is a stupid, broken, and poorly thought-out game because you tried running missions fit 100% for DPS with no tank and you weren't able to finish.

THE GROWING DISCONTENT ABOUT WARDECS

For most of a decade, wardecs have been a prominent feature in EVE. Over the years, wardecs have suffered from many different nerfs and restrictions. Yet wardecs are still around, and it's difficult to imagine an EVE without them. Despite their long-standing place in the EVE universe, it seems wardecs have lately fallen out of favor with many. Wardecs are perceived as a problem to be solved; it's taken for granted that something is seriously wrong with them.

Even people who enjoy wardecs would agree that there are flaws in the system. The most nagging problem with wardecs, historically, has been the ease with which they can be evaded: Long after the problem was supposed to have been addressed, players still drop corp or dissolve wardecced corps at will.

But the new feeling of discontent about wardecs has nothing to do with making sure wardecced targets can't escape the effects of being wardecced--quite the opposite. There's a growing sentiment that wardecs unfairly benefit the attacker, and that wardeccers need to suffer more disadvantages. (All the previous wardec nerfs, it seems, have not been enough.) In addition, wardecs are being subjected to vague new criticisms about the lack of "consequences" to wardecs. As CCP Fozzie recently put it during a Crossing Zebras interview,

"What really needs to happen with wardecs is that we get to a point where, when one group wardecs another group, at the end of the day, something gets resolved... When wardecs happen, both sides get to have potentially fun gameplay, and the end result has an actual end result." (1:22:12)

According to Fozzie, opinions vary on the specifics, but the disappointment with the wardec feature is universal among the CCP development team:

"The one thing we can pretty much all agree on is that wardecs often don't serve the kind of, any, purpose for anyone involved." (1:20:35)

In the midst of this ennui, some have suggested that non-consensual wardecs be removed from the game entirely. In his own interview with Crossing Zebras, CSM member and candidate Trebor Daehdoow explained why he has proposed CCP get rid of wardecs:

"If non-consensual wardecs are costing CCP a lot of subscriptions, then that's resources that could be used to hire more devs to fix other areas of the game. So maybe it would be worth slaying that sacred cow and going back and actually looking at the numbers and figuring out, are non-consensual wardecs doing what we would like, if they effective in achieving the conflict goals that we want, and if not, what could we do to fix them, or is it worth fixing them? And to their credit, some people at CCP have gone and run some interesting numbers on that, of which I'm not at liberty to tell you." (22:15)

Of course, only the most devout advocates of a highsec theme park could hold to the opinion that wardecs should be removed from EVE. But while the extreme anti-wardec position is held by a radical minority, it has become fashionable to accept the criticisms concerning lack of risk for attackers and the lack of wardec consequences.

It's worth taking stock of the environment in which this new anti-wardec sentiment is taking hold. For example, consider the criticism that wardecs unfairly favor the attacker. Thanks to various wardec nerfs over the years, wardeccers are subject to more restrictions and costs than ever before, and defenders have more options than ever before. So why is the concern about unfairness growing, rather than diminishing? (I've noticed a similar phenomenon with the need to "protect new players" and boost CCP subscription revenue; the concern is growing despite EVE's subscriptions reaching an all-time high.)

The main problem with the anti-wardec sentiment of late is that it's devoid of rational thought. The traditional criticisms of wardec mechanics--mostly concerning the ease of wardec evasion--make sense. It's hard to argue against the idea that defenders shouldn't be able to nullify wars by dissolving and re-forming the exact same corp. By contrast, the new criticisms, coming from the more "carebearish" perspective, don't hold up to anything approaching serious scrutiny. At their best, the criticisms are flawed, and at worst, they're completely nonsensical.

James 315
James 315 has a distinguished history of combat in nullsec, mostly fighting against the Band of Brothers alliance, which was a bad alliance. Recently he has moved to highsec, where he currently serves as Father of the New Order and Saviour of Highsec