No, that is not forcing the aggressor to end the war…
That is you agreeing your ass got kicked and curling up into a ball and crying.
Care to explain your logic?
Of course it is. Dropping/hopping/rolling corp effectively ends the war non-consensually for the aggressor and wastes their ISK.
Wardecs are optional for the player. If you want to decline the direct challenge of another group by leaving your group, that is your prerogative, but I don’t see why you should be able to end their ability to issue or partake in other challenges. Controlling who can declare wars is way too much power for larger entities and something that should never be in the game.
If you lack the honour to accept the thrown down gauntlet that’s fine, but don’t claim there aren’t to ways to opt-out of wars or avoid them in the first place. There are so many ways to that wars are effectively toothless for any other purpose than contesting structures in highsec.
If one war structure was only useful for one war, you aren’t ending all wars.
You are pretending that the large alliances could not if they wanted to keep any small Corp out of space permanently anyway. The cost of a war is trivial to them, and they have the manpower and funds to suicide their way to victory if they wanted to.
They don’t because they don’t care to, and I doubt they would start doing it just because there was a definitive way to end them.
If this was something they cared about they could join as allies now without even the cost of the war.
But we are expected to believe that suddenly they will care because they just love bashing structures?
Wardec mechanics need to be remastered. There are many players leave the game because of it.
No, it’s part of EVE. You wreck your enemies, destroy everything they have built, and harvest their tears. Clearly you don’t understand what EVE is about.
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 do understand the difference between mercilessly crushing an enemy in the game and trying to bully someone into suicide, right?
I’m talking about getting a PvP path to victory, not a magic button.
No, you’re talking about a magic button. You have PvP paths to victory, but you reject them because they don’t give you a clearly defined set of objectives that you can complete to restore your no-PvP state and get back to RMT farming.
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.
And this is just pure idiocy. Yes, in the unrealistic hypothetical scenario where you have attracted the attention of someone who is wealthy enough to ignore all losses in attacking you and hates you enough to keep bashing their head against the wall no matter how much of their stuff you destroy you will not end the war. You are hopelessly screwed. But that is not a real thing that is likely to happen, and in the unlikely event that you find yourself an enemy of someone that powerful it doesn’t matter what “path to victory” you have because someone with that level of resources and dedication is going to block your path and keep the war going.
If you want more in your game than just Battlefield in Space there is no support for it.
No, there’s plenty of support. In fact it’s your idea that is “Battlefield in space”, because it replaces sandbox war objectives with a fixed PvP arena fight. You plant your structure, set a time for a battle, and then each side brings their forces. Instead of the players creating their own objectives for the war you’re just playing a space FPS to see who wins. And that is a terrible idea.
This is a feature not a bug. EVE is not a game for everyone, nor should it be. A certain percentage of people who join EVE need to be removed from it, and the only question is which PvP mechanic will be the one they ragequit over.
2 Likes
VERY NICE!!! 
Thanks for such a gift.
That’s a position of you as wardec defender.
I have a good idea: CCP should put this right on the first seconds of it’s wonderful trailers. 
Actually Merin Ryskin here you put a line and you itself could eventually become beyond of this line. Reality is you already are because EVE is not a PvP game (in it’s combat part) but industrial and economic one.
This is such a big topic wonder if you still have something to say new.
There is currently no way for a large nullsec group or mercenary organization to stop me from engaging in a campaign of harassment against them, picking off their inattentive members. Such guerrilla wars would be impossible if the big boys could just turn off a war by blobbing a beacon, and worse, these large groups could use the war mechanic to shoot all my other beacons and turn off my ability to fight anyone in highsec. It would also make their highsec structures invulnerable because I couldn’t show up to the timers.
I don’t see why anyone would want to trade away their ability to engage in unfettered wars and give such power to the large groups to control their game play. Sure, it great for the large nullsec coalitions and maybe the top dog highsec mercenaries, but for everyone else it is a terrible suggestion.
To be fair:
If the big boys can crush your war beacon defense fleet by blobbing, they can crush your structure bash fleet the same way. That’s not a very convincing argument. That citadel/POCO immunity is already there, even if you do not encounter it now.
I don’t care if they explode my structure. That’s all part of the game. But giving them the ability to turn off my ability to declare wars on others or counter-attack them? That is lame.
And yes, they should have to show up to defend their structure not let CONCORD do it for them. Giving them the power to just turn off another group’s ability to wage war is silly as is giving even more CONCORD protection to the largest groups in the game.
I am not against war structures or even requiring groups to have something in space to declare a war that can be counter-attacked by a defender. I am however strongly against handing out safety like candy as a prize for participating in wars. That only is going to make big groups safer and push wars more onto the little guys.
None of that bears on what I said re: your chicken-little statements about structure invulnerability.
Yes it does. Why should a large group have the luxury of being able to preemptively prevent an opponent from even having the chance showing up to a final structure timer? That is convoluted and too much safety and control for those that least need it.
There are ways to change wars for the better but as long as wars are the only method to contest structures in highsec, giving players the ability to turn off wars for other groups is a non-starter.
So the large group should not be able to smack down a small group during the initial assault OR the armor fight? Because that would prevent the small group the “chance” at the structure timer.
Entitled much?
Second, whether the large group inevitably over powers the small group at the small group’s war beacon or on the structure, the result is the same. The structure is effectively invulnerable. You have not engaged with that fundamental point.
Third, you have gotten so caught up in the imaginary world you have created for yourself, that you seem to be blind to the assumptions you are making about war beacon mechanics. Even to the point of assuming a beacon in the first place.
Finally, if this encourages larger groups, so what? Maybe larger groups are a good thing.
Sure, let them fight over the shield, armor and hull timer as the mechanic is suppose to work. Introducing another level of arcane highsec mechanics that allow a group to gain CONCORD protection for blabbing a beacon or whatever is inane. Just let them fight it out without the NPCs getting in the way as the whole system was designed.
No it’s not. If CONCORD is defending your structure, you don’t even have to fit it or arrange for a defence. As it is, you still have to show up to defend it as it should be. If you show up with more people and defend it then good for you - you win as Eve should work. But you, and more importantly third parties larger than you, shouldn’t get to dictate who can participate in a structure fight. Let the structure fight determine the winners and losers, not who has the largest group and can preemptively take people out of the fight before it starts.
So not only do you want to prevent defenders from calling in allies (defender dictating who can participate), but you also want to remove the ability of multiple corps coordinating against a common war target?
Wow.
You realize that a war beacon (or any other structure component) IS a structure. You comment applies to those as equally as citidels and pocos.
So when the direct outcome of this proposal is that wardec groups band together into even larger groups and then wardec only small Corps, you’ll be fine that the small defender corps can’t fight back at all.
After all, it would be entitled of them to expect they could (which seems to be the whole point of this thread, that they should be entitled to have a way to fight).
Meanwhile, large alliances and coalitions will be relatively immune from Wardecs all together.
That wouldn’t be a great outcome at all, but it’s what’s being argued for.
Where did I say that? Bring in all the allies you want and declare wars on each other all you want then have one glorious space battle.
That would be awesome. That also can’t happen if you let the biggest group go around and turn off everyone else’s ability to wage war.
I’m fine with a “war structure” that is in space that serves as something to shoot. My issue is with tying the existence of a war to that structure so that the fighting ends when it is lost.
Having something in-space that can be destroyed to inflict loss on them seems like a good idea to me, at least one worth exploring. Anything more than a symbolic/financial loss or that limits wars is a bad idea that will stifle interactions and one that honestly won’t be implemented. Wars will be thrown out entirely and replaced with some other mechanic to contest structures before CCP ties the continued existence of wars directly to a structure.
That is just too much of an advantage for the bug guy to let them control core interaction mechanics of other players.
GJ ignoring the chain of the conversation which precipitated my post.
The sad thing is that you don’t seem to grok how someone, who is highly skeptical of the war beacon type mechanic, might think ■■■■ arguments against it do not help the cause.
To much Kool-Aid in EVE nowadays. Smh
Wow. You don’t even understand your own words. What you say you want to prevent is exactly what you now say you want.