Yep, this kind of solution would be ideal. A major alliance like Goonswarm should need to have a clear economic objective to declaring war, where the stakes for them aren’t nil and where they have to commit to the process. Currently there’s no commitment by them, the stakes are nil and they’re only extracting tears.
1 Like
So how would one go about getting war dec’d by them? This kind of stuff has ruined EVE and I have lost all desire to play but I will gladly log in to get war dec’d. I will smile knowing that I cost them 50 mill while my 10+ year collection of ships remains snug in the station.
You don’t get it, or more likely you are the one trolling. Yes, the entire wardec structure, as is, should be wiped from the game. High sec ganking, in any form, should be wiped from the game. Spamming Jita local should be wiped from the game.
I didn’t use the term “defenceless newbies”. And no, in large part they don’t have the ability to fight back because your style of attack is opportunistic.
Nice troll attempt.
Tell that to the 20 man corp we decced who fuelled their POS and sat waiting for us once the war went live. We are only a 5 man corp, we had to stand down and take the loss.
Oh, I’m not suggesting you don’t have your failures or misjudge a situation, or that all corps don’t have the ability to fight back. If you’d attacked the corp I’m in we would have done the same thing.
However, you currently have very little to lose by declaring war and making an attempt on another corp’s structures and efforts. Your commitment should at least be on par with the level of effort they’ve put in to buying, deploying, fuelling and fitting that station. Currently there’s a huge imbalance there, and it’s that imbalance that you exploit. It’s that imbalance that CCP need to remove by making an attacker commit more than a one-off fee of just 50mil, which is literally nothing. If you had to put at least 1.3bil of your assets on the line to attack their 1.3bil worth of assets, one could argue the playing field would be a level one and thus be a justifiable wardec to not constitute as a grief or an exploitation of power. It should be noted that 5 solely PvP-focused players does not equal 5 industry-focused players.
As for the numpties who demand bans and the removal of entire swathes of game systems and what-not, that’s not what I’m advocating for here. I’m advocating for higher stakes and commitment from those making wardecs; nothing more.
1 Like
well ■■■■ might as well get rid of pvp in high sec altogether then. lol
Why? PvP has its place in highsec. The current state of PvP though is ganking and griefing for no purpose other than they’ve got nothing more interesting they’d rather do.
You have a point in regards to PvP focused players over PvE ones, but I don’t agree that in our situation we are exploiting the mechanics or fighting unfairly. We aren’t some huge merc corp that blanket-decs swathes of highsec corps at a time, we choose our targets thoughtfully.
You say we have little to lose, I have to disagree there too. 50m a pop can be a lot of money, especially when there is no guarantee of any ISK or kills in return. Furthermore, there is the potential of lost time in researching the corp, finding their assets, creating bookmarks/safes, and moving all of our assets to the target system, this is preparation which can often take multiple hours. At any time during our deployment we can be attacked, so we have to remain vigilant during the bash, which again can take multiple hours.
The fact that most of them choose not to fight back is not our problem, we are playing a sandbox game the way we want to play it, and we are using the mechanics fairly to do so.
I don’t know what was up with that guy, I refuse to believe anyone can hold such extreme views on highsec.
Robin Hood was also ganking and looting rich people without actual declaring war against them and he didn’t pay any penny to Sheriff dept. But he did that for a apparent reason I guess and he definitely ruined a lot of others people businesses.
Yeah it was a little extreme.
Look, yours sounds to be more on the fringe of what I would personally consider to be viable gameplay (for what my personal opinion is worth). Even so I still don’t agree the risks or the commitment are as great for you as for the people who have everything to lose. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
2 Likes
I was being sarcastic 
Despite Robin Hood being a fictional character from folklore, in the real world he probably would have lost his head, his hands, or at the very least been imprisoned for a very long time. Those are pretty tangible risks and a pretty clear-cut commitment, if you ask me. Much more than Goonswarm have to lose here.
1 Like
Well, thank goodness for that then!
1 Like
Fair enough.
As an aside, I do believe something should be done about blanket-deccing, it would be nice to see the return of the old ways, with mercs hunting-down targets instead of just wardeccing everyone and sitting on a trade hub gate all day. I’m sure some of those mercs would agree.
The problem was that CCP removed the watch list, which made it very difficult to find war targets. The blanket-deccing was the natural evolution to this change of mechanics.
2 Likes
Not your fault Mesacc, but I hope this doesn’t deteriorate into a ‘Wardecs are Broken’ thread. Perhaps it already has.
You can’t force people out to fight (even if the Wardec is ‘genuine’), and you can’t stop them from corp-hopping/cycling.
It’s all a mess, really.
Goonswarm are the arch-manipulators, both of in-game mechanics and the so-called meta. They’re simply very good at it. Anyone who dislikes the situation has the same options and opportunities they have - but starts from an unattractively remote position.
The Imperium is successful because it’s good at what it does.
2 Likes
This sounds like amazing content. We should all be glad an thanking our goonswarm overlords for making the game more interesting for everyone.
3 Likes
Complete Scam
1 Like
Congratulations, you have been scam dec’ed.
2 Likes
Welcome to the world of 16th-18th century geopolitics.
1 Like