OOC Granularity

I am following a discussion on the Eve-O forums

[no mike, don’t do it, it rots your brain]

It’s ok, I am immune.  It’s not like I hear voices or anything . . . anymore.  Anyhow.  There is a person asking for Wardecs against a specific person, not his corp or alliance, JUUUUST that guy, that guy right there, I wanna kill him.

A day or so later this comes up on the Big Country show on Eve Radio.

[no mike, don’t do it, it rots your brain]

Hush, I know, I know.  But they taker the idea of granularity up a notch where you want to dec a corp that is hiding in an alliance.  You don’t want to pay the fees or even fight the alliance, just that corp, that corp riiiight there, I wanna kill them.

Now I wear a monitor so that I do not have too long an exposure to the forums OR BC’s show.  So the beeping told me to back away and return to something safer . . . like stocking shelves in the Fukushima gift shop.  But while I added to the ceramic mushroom collection I had time to reflect on the basis behind the ideas.

We band together FOR safety.  It is one of the reasons for pack mentality, mobs, and obsessive fans of boy bands

[he means you Xander, YOU]

And it is the benefit of ‘bending a knee’ to some higher order or organization.  Safety, security.  This is what the people asking for the granularity of kill and wardecs are trying to make an end run around.  They want to remove the protection of the herd.


[That’s it?  No?  No explanations or anything?]

Ok, they are trying to remove a mechanic that was made to encourage the gathering of players into larger social organizations.  Why would we then remove the mechanic?  So loners can have free reign to target and kill anybody without having to make the basic predator effort of ‘cutting them from the herd’?  Work for your kills or find easier targets.  Ask around, there are TONS of ways to ruin a players day or even a corps without having a golden ticket to avoid any and all consequences.  So . . . no

[The opinions expressed here are probably partially due to Mike being at end of the school year and a bit stressed.  But if he wrote this another time of year he probably just would have said it nicer and with some rp story-line wrapped around it.]

fly it like you won it


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to OOC Granularity

  1. Harri says:

    I like how you think Mike. It’s why I put you at the top of my ballot. Cheers

  2. Noizy says:

    It’s a known fact that alcohol slows down brain rot. Why do you think they always drink on BC’s show?

  3. RobAryeeArc says:

    I think the current wardec system has never worked when it comes to wardec-ing null sec groups. Wardecs exist so groups can fight other groups in high sec, so in theory there is no reason to wardec a null sec group. Yet every null sec group is wardec’d constantly so people who don’t want to risk anything can shoot industrial and get rich from the loot.

    If anything, adding a restriction on the number of systems a wardec applies too would be interesting. The idea being that cost scaling would make selecting systems like Jita as an engagement zone would cost a $h!t ton but balance risk and reward.

    Another idea, using the same concept of engagement zone restrictions, is to have the engagement zone determined by where the first shot is fired aka strategically placing the wardec where you want it and giving you a potential advantage for the remainder of the wardec.

    One more idea would be to create UI specifically for wardecs so you can broadcast sightings to the whole corp/alliance on the in game map. Other things like boardcasting number of ships, ship types, etc would be nice too. Basically CCP needs to work on actually giving players intel UI tools when redoing corp/alliance mechanics rather than forcing players to rely on intel channel chats which are limited to a single region.
    Hope I didn’t make the voices even louder Mike o/

  4. I agree. I’m tending to argue from a “Does it help immersion?” POV these days, and declaring war on a person doesn’t make sense to me, from that perspective. You send hired killers after the man who shot yer Pa. You declare war on Antarctica.

  5. Dersen Lowery says:

    Alts make any reworking of the bounty system borderline impossible. In fact, they make wardecs absurd. Consider the high sec alt corp that gets fired up whenever someone in deep null sec gets bored, and decs a bunch of players who foolishly believed that because EVE guilds are called “corporations” they should in any way resemble actual corporations, and prominently feature manufacturing and logistics and ISK-making PVE instead of hiding it all behind plausibly deniable alts. (This is why metaphor is so important to get right: one bad metaphor can ruin your whole game.) The target corp has all its crucial assets exposed; the alt corp has nothing to lose, and therefore nothing to risk.

    The “smart” solution for people who “understand the game” is to have shell corps and alts everywhere, with only corps consisting of PVP pilots actually doing the recruiting. But those aren’t “corporations,” are they? You have to disbelieve what the game tells you in order to play it correctly, and if everyone plays the game correctly than the game is much poorer for it. Highsec PVPers already complain about the way Red Frog is structured, but they’re just responding to the game’s incentive structure. Imagine if every high sec corp was structured that way. Would the game be better for it?

    There was one time when war decs did work against the big null alliances, and that was when everyone could pile on to a war dec. For obvious reasons that didn’t last long, so the future is a profusion of alts and risk mitigation as the primary form of gameplay.

    …which is why I’m in a wormhole.

  6. Chanina says:

    Your take is good. War Dec a single person? Well in that case we could just stop building corporations and alliances. Removing all the mechanics that allow corp theft. It isn’t necessary if a single person can be target of a war. That’s not a WAR, that’s an assassination. You can already do that its called gank (or awoxing if in 0.0).
    If you want that dude forced out of corp, tell their corp that you will keep the war up as long as that guy is with them. If you fear his friends and/or can’t effort the war against his corp/alliance? Seek other ways.
    The war dec system should be specialized so you have to define more specific what you are fighting for. Like “I fight your Alliance so they won’t be present in this region of space”. That’s the region where you can shoot them. If they can keep up there presence in that region, you loose your war. If they just evade that region its a draw. If you suppress them (killing those ships and/or structures in that region) you win and can offer a peace treaty for a tribute. If they don’t accept it war continues.

  7. Marc Callan says:

    Naturally, predators want mechanisms to reduce the defenses of their prey, just as the prey want mechanisms to improve their defenses. Fundamentally, though, a war-dec is basically a bribe paid to CONCORD to look the other way for a time, and if I fly with a corp-mate on my wing and CONCORD is looking the other way as some jagoff tries to kill me, why would that jagoff have any right to expect CONCORD to stomp on my corp-mate for trying to save my skin?

    Actually, thinking about that, and about “peace-decs”, another inverse to the war-dec came to my mind while I was fighting off a headache. What if an organization could bribe CONCORD to place another organization under some sort of heightened scrutiny? For two weeks, the outfit under scrutiny can’t initiate any new war-decs, and any member of that outfit gets shadowed by a CONCORD ship so that CONCORD’s response to any criminal activity is cut to zero, even in 0.5 space. If there’s concern that the mechanism is subject to abuse, make it so that only corps or alliances that have suffered unilateral war-decs can tag aggressor outfits for heightened scrutiny. And if the outfit under scrutiny keeps its nose clean for the duration (no members of the outfit commit CONCORD-level criminal acts), no renewal of the scrutiny period is permissible.

    It’ll never happen, of course.

    • mikeazariah says:

      Or, if not a specvific corp then a part of space . . . bribe the cops to pay a bit more attention in your belt or system. A modified sec status


      btw mentioned your idea on crossing zebras today


      • Marc Callan says:

        I hadn’t thought of the “Policemen’s Ball” analogy, but it’s a nice way to look at it. It’d be interesting to see how the various ideas evolve. And entertaining (if game-breaking) if one could bribe CONCORD to show up in places you wouldn’t normally expect.

        (Something like “WTF is CONCORD doing in VFK?” That’s my utterly irrational pipe dream.)

  8. This out-of-left-field idea just popped into my head, and I may come up with a dozen reasons later why it’s silly, but what if you had to have a certain number of members before you can even declare war? And the targets also had to be of a certain size? Maybe at least 50 or even 100?
    These wars of a handful of people versus another handful of people, or even just one toon, have always seemed a little anti-immersion to me.

    I love the idea of having to be at war for a stated reason, whether that’s regional control or something else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s