High-Sec war decs

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
324

The Wardec mechanic, despite popular belief to the contrary, is not a thing that enables PvP.

Outside of highsec, you can shoot anyone at any time. You still might get blapped by station or gate guns in lowsec, but there is very little stopping you from pulling the trigger, if you so desire.

The wardec mechanic shakes this up a great deal, requiring any potential hostile to give you 24 hours notice (an increase from 0 anywhere else), and requires them to pay a fee. If they do not comply with those restrictions, then they 100% lose any ship they try to shoot you with. These are pretty serious limitations on otherwise ubiquitous freedom of fire prevalent elsewhere.

The wardec mechanic is, by design, a limiter placed on PvP.

Why does PvP need to be a thing at all? What sane person would expose themselves to danger if they didn’t have to? Sure, it’s a game and all that and so we might be inclined to be more of a risk taker than we are in our actual lives, but most of us would not leave our ‘safe space’ unless we had good reason, or nothing to lose, and that smart thinking makes for a boring world.

Eve’s uniqueness stems from a player’s ability to shape the world. Inflicting loss is one means of world shaping. Every mechanic that creates an immutable part of the world diminishes Eve’s identity.

Personally, I think Eve needs more ways to hold players accountable for their actions instead of less, and that wardecs are not binding enough to warrant weakening them further.

2 Likes
325

From a ship-to-ship pvp perspective, I agree.

However, from a ship-to-structure pvp perspective, the wardec mechanics are an enabler. Without them, it wouldn’t be possible as all to take out a structure and structures are killed a lot in highsec.

326

My bend is that ‘you can shoot it’ is the default state, but in high-security space, the mechanic of the wardec is designed to restrict that.

Put another way, if the wardec mechanic were removed, then the default state of ‘you can shoot anything at any time’ would prevail, and the structures would, by that logic, be vulnerable, too.

327

They wouldn’t simply because of CONCORD. In CCP’s own words, the purpose of wardecs is to allow legal fighting in highsec. They are nothing but a mechanism to facilitate CONCORD’s removal.

In the absence of that, structures are not vulnerable because the EHP is too high to make killing them possible.

328

I don’t think you’re understanding the intent behind my words. I’ll try again.

CONCORD is part of the wardec mechanic, as the penalty for disobeying the obligation to pay and to give 24 hours notice. (Not a fact, but my interpretation of what their likely purpose is.)

Frequently I see it argued that wardecs permit fighting. They do not, as I see it. The mechanic of the wardec is to enforce restrictions on PvP in order to even the odds for the underdogs. Arguments against wardecs often rely on what I believe is the false premise you’re seeing, that CONCORD and wardecs are separate entities.

As such, I am making the case that the wardec mechanic is, by design, an extra measure of safety, and that those who argue for its removal are the ones who would be most negatively impacted by that removal when free for all fire would again be the norm and CONCORD would no longer patrol the skies.

The standard idiom for this is “You can not have your cake and eat it too.”

329

Sure, if that’s your interpretation.

The alternative, more common view is that CONCORD is part of Crimewatch, not wardecs.

But if you run on the basis of your interpretation, then I see your point just fine. Not one I necessariily agree with, but it’s a bit semantic, so not really worth challenging as the outcome is still the same.

I doubt you will have many people (especially those that complain about wardecs) agree that CONCORD should be removed if wardecs are. They unfortunately only see balance when things are greatly in their favour.

330

I’m not seeking approval or agreement from any particular group. I normally don’t consider it worthwhile to express myself much in this venue, but it is a thing I have not seen pointed out or discussed and so I was curious to bounce the idea out there and see what came of it.

If you understand it and give your opinion on it, I consider that mission accomplished. Even better that it’s phrased in a constructive manner that points out what you believe are the foibles of the position. I’m not seeking to have any group agree with me. Rather than have people agree with what I think, I am interested in hearing what people think. This is one of those rare occasions where I had to present the concept I wanted to hear thoughts on. I am more comfortable listening than talking, so this isn’t something I am wont to do, but it does occasionally pay off in the form of new and interesting (to me, anyway) perspectives.

331

Make the war mutual, gank them every time they undock, trace their alts and war dec their mains, and show no mercy when they beg to be allowed to surrender. When the aggressor corp disbands to escape the constant hell that you have made their lives in EVE the war will end (unless of course you dec every corp they try to join, mercilessly persecuting them until they finally leave EVE entirely).

Oh wait, you mean how do you make the PvP go away so you can get back to RMT farming? You don’t. Stop being terrible at EVE.

332

Wow… I mean I know you have problems, but…wow.

Ok… so you understand that most people don’t possess the twisted mentality that would turn making a real persons time a constant hell into a game? Most don’t even have the mentality to pretend to do it to make believe people. I’d suggest maybe some professional help. You play a game touted as a sandbox where you can choose to be anything, and your immediate choice is to be a psychopath. Might want to check that.

Moreover, the game lacks a key mechanism to follow your plan: There is no way to track an alt to a main. That’s not an in game distinction. If someone is fueling a war with donated ISK, short of hacking their account and looking at your financial information there is no way to know. Are you advocating real life stalking and other criminal acts in the pursuit of creating that constant hell? Seems a bit extreme for a game.

Beyond the rather disturbing levels you are willing to visit, your suggestion still fails in the respect that ending that war still relies on the charity of the aggressor. I mean, the assumption here is that the defender was doing something other than just being a space murder hobo. Those guys don’t worry about 'decs because they are either doing it themselves, or they moved into areas of space where they don’t have to bother.

So where’s the option to force an end to the war (preferably without resorting to the creepy RL stalking and/or in game griefing you describe) non-consensually?

333

Would you consider making a forum thread, so your position could be explored fully?

I have had similar thoughts along this line, and consider highsec, after a fashion, to be the most difficult part of the game to actually play. Highsec certainly has the most game imposed rules and severe punishments.

As you pointed out, 24 hour warning of intent must be declared, isk must be expended, and public notice given (the war tab in the corp section), whereas anywhere else in the game, with minor restrictions (gate guns, station guns, lowsec, etc.) you can just fire on the opposition at a time of your choosing, no notice, isk, or publication required, without the guarranteed punishment, (100 percent loss of ships committed), that failure to comply with these restrictions results in.

These restrictions limit the options enjoyed elsewhere in the game, in fact in the majority of the game’s systems.

This difference often times leads new players to a, what I consider, a false impression of the game, i.e. that there is “safety”. That Concord provides a “safety net”, when in fact “Concord” dispenses punishment to those breaking this rule set imposed, in its entirety in highsec and to a very limited degree in low, and not at all in null or wh space.

As you wrote, this line of thought is not often, if ever expressed, and I feel it worthy of a discussion in its own right.

My apologies to the op for imposing on his thread to make this request.

334

no, this game is centered around non consensual pvp, i would suggest recruiting players who like pvp into your ranks and then have them protect the mining group for a cut of the profit

You could hire mercs to defend you

You could also consider renting space deep in 0.0 where in a lot of ways its safer in then high sec.

Another option is to move, your getting dec’d alot because someone is seeing you mine and thinks your a target, try spreading out and finding a quieter system in a different region.

335

Then those people don’t belong in EVE. Wrecking people’s stuff until they cry is one of the primary goals of EVE. Perhaps you should just GTFO and go back to ****ing sheep?

Moreover, the game lacks a key mechanism to follow your plan: There is no way to track an alt to a main. That’s not an in game distinction.

There is no in-game button to click. You’ll have to use spy alts, hope to catch them slipping on a forum post, etc.

336

Right. Exaclty.

So it’s as I said, there is no path to victory.

You are talking about stalking people IRL outside the game. That’s just all kinds of messed up and creepy, and you need help.

337

No, there is no “path to victory” that involves pressing a magic button that makes the PvP go away so you can get back to RMT farming. The fact that you don’t like the paths to victory (probably because they require you to think and use PvP skill, not just mindlessly RMT farm) doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

You are talking about stalking people IRL outside the game. That’s just all kinds of messed up and creepy, and you need help.

Some of EVE’s most celebrated stories involve things like spy alts and using out of game information against people. Perhaps you should just GTFO since EVE is clearly not the game for you.

And it’s funny that you’d talk about messed up and creepy. After all, you’re the one who got caught with his dick in a sheep…

338

WTF are you on about saying anyone is trying to make the PvP ‘go away’.

Without a war dec there is still PvP. Industry is PvP. Getting ganked is PvP. Market trading is still PvP. You don’t need the free fire ruleset of Low or Null sec to PvP. If that’s the kind of PvP you want, go there.

I’m talking about getting a PvP path to victory, not a magic button. That’s your schtick. You like magic buttons you can press to remove consequences from your gameplay. That’s what cloaks and wardecs are all about–removing consequences.

339

Spy alts are ingame. The rest of your childish rant is out of game.

You are talking about stalking people on forums outside of the game. You are talking about making people’s lives a constant hell— that’s not OK. Mittens himself once ate a temporary ban for asking his followers to see if they could get a guy to commit suicide by harassing him ingame at a fanfest.

You need help. At the very least you should stop posting because you just look like a preteen child puffing themselves up and talking all billy bad because you can do so on the internet without consequence.

Which is exactly how you like things— without consequence for yourself. You big bad thing, oh so very scary.

340

Be unprofitable by not providing kills. this does not mean log off, rather adapt in a changing environment.

Hire someone to make life difficult for the agressors, depending on their relative power.

Use proven tactics such as logistics or ewar to beat the opponent. The majority of mercs are not as powerful as all that, much of it is a fear game.

Be in an NPC corp because you probably don’t use / need most of the perks that come with a player owned corp. You most likely just want your own cool name and a picture. NPC corp is for people who don’t like war or are currently unwilling to deal with the potential for war during their gameplay.

I’m not even trying really. EvE is a sandbox and to claim your options are zero in this situation is obvious propaganda.

341

It’s clear you aren’t trying, as not one of your suggestions meets the simple ask of providing a path to victory that does not involve the charity of your aggressor.

Be unprofitable: How does this end the war without their consent? It is an attempt to coerce that consent, but it does not end the war until they decide to end it. When the war is funded by a rich main who has limited his own risk by being otherwise disconnected from any consequences, this won’t do anything.

Hire Someone: Losses mean nothing in this scenario. The war continues until the aggressor decides otherwise. This is a consensual end to the war, not a method of forcing the issue against their will.

Proven Tactics, AKA win fights. Much like the previous method, it doesn’t do anything to stop the war against the aggressors will. At worst he losses a few ships, but when the funding is divorced from the war itself, it does not matter.

Be in an NPC corp. This avoids being at war in general, but does not provide a path to victory if you are in one. I don’t have an issue with wars or PvP, just pointless fighting. I want a path to victory, not a hole to hide in.

This is the problem with wars. If you want more in your game than just Battlefield in Space there is no support for it. With no path to victory the power is out of your hands unless you are just after cheap thrills and pointless combat. EVE’s sandbox is supposed to give meaning to the combat, that’s why you can build empires and they drive conflict with resources. Wars need a path to victory for the defender so that the PvP they generate has meaning.

342

What path to victory is there that doesn’t involve the charity of your defender.
By your own arguments none of these things such as getting kills can be considered victory.
There is no way to force a particular consequence on a defender.

If you want to start giving Defenders ways to ‘win’ and to force that win, remember that this will apply to both sides in the war. There will be a path to force a particular consequence on the Defender as well. Be careful what you wish for.

343

The issue is that The aggressor has already forced something onto The defender: the loss of concord protection.

In a limited way this turns high sec into low sec for those involved. In the case of the aggressor this is entirely consensual and allows them to do as they wish while still enjoying concord protection from the game at large, while for the defender it’s a hassle that they were trying to avoid by being in high sec to begin with.

So while you cannot avoid PvP, there should be a way to regain what was taken by the wardec. It’s fine if you have to fight for it, but as it stands fighting is pointless because it won’t win the defender anything unless the aggressor is kind enough to allow it.