High-Sec war decs

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
364

Why don’t I grok? (I probably don’t because I have no idea what that even means. Too old these days I guess).

However, you were pretty clear that it was a feeling of entitlement that smaller groups shouldn’t fear larger groups smacking them down, yet that is one of the core ideas of this thread - that smaller defender groups should be able to fight back against wardeccers.

So either the position in the thread is consistent, that smaller groups should have a chance against larger groups (and that includes wardeccers), or they shouldn’t. Having it both ways (ie. small defenders should have a chance, but wardeccers smaller than who they have declare war against shouldn’t) isn’t something CCP will make a change towards.

365

Go re- read the part I quoted from Pedro. Slowly, to insure you comprehend. His claim was specific. That its unacceptable for small groups to not get a shot at a structure timer fight when facing a larger force.

Since current mechanics have the same unacceptable situations, he must want special snowflake mechanics. Where having a small number guarantees fighting on the final timer.

That makes him entitled or unable to articulate his ideas with any accuracy or precision. I think the latter is worse than the former, so I assigned the first interpretation. I am beginning to think I chose the wrong option though.

366

Back at you on the whole thread.

Maybe you’ll understand the broader context I am referring to.

367

NO U!
lol
Sad

368

Broad context is fine. It has nothing to do with small point I originally made about Pedro s argument. That should have been something everyone walked away from. Instead you guys chose to spin it out into a bigger issue than it was by doubling down on the dumb.

Here is the fundamental question you have to be able to answer:

Why should the possibility of a viceregal system in highsec be discouraged? Why is that fundamentally un-EVE?

You are beating around this bush as opposed to confronting it when you talk about large groups impacting what can/can’t be done in the game

369

In my view, there is already a ViceRegal system in highsec. It’s CONCORD and they kick in when any illegal aggression is performed.

Of course, wardecs provide a way to facilitate legal fighting in highsec and that is an absolutely necessary system for:

  1. destruction of sructures (POCOs, Upwell strucutres and less so now POS)
  2. removal of economic rivals (though large ice mining multibox fleets for example are often all in NPC Corps, so the mechanics can be gamed both ways to both use wars against rivals and to avoid them all together)
  3. because EVE is fundamentally a pvp game

On point 3, while I perosnally think a lot of PVE has no real PVP in it (or isn’t conducted with the intent of really competing with anyone), as a community the general view is that everything is PVP. Market trading, missioning can be, mining certainly can be, industry, etc.

So if there are non-shooting ways to affect each other, shooting ways of doing so are just as important. Not more or less, just the same. If the preference then is to further limit the shooting forms of pvp in an easy way, then there also needs to be a way to similarly affect the non-shooting forms, since the entire system involves both creation and destruction.

They are inter-dependent elements of the game. Too much of one or the other affects prices, volumes of turnover, ISK velocity, etc. across the game; and that includes affects on both pvp focused players and pve focused players (ie. if pvp players can’t destroy as much, there is less need to replace loss and pve players don’t sell as much).

In the specific case of highsec, the often quoted figure is 75% of characters live there. If the ability to destroy things in highsec is reduced (by only introducing ways to limit wardeccers, without balancing that change with a benefit for them as well), then that has potentially significant impact on the overall game.

And that is my fundamental argument against a lot of suggestions. They only propose ways to affect the large wardec groups, while not considering the impact on smaller wardec groups and hunters, nor proposing any benefit for them that offsets the impost proposals want to put on them.

Just my 0.02 - destruction is good for us all and we should encourage it as much as we should encourage PVE, in all regions of space.

370

Even if it were possible to win a war they could not stop you from harassing them.

You could pursue them into lowsec and null sec if they go there, or you could gank their ships in highsec. You could bump their miners, you could take their mission objectives, flip their cans…

There are more things than direct ship to ship combat.

371

No, EVE isn’t about being a psychopath. It’s about making choices. You should probably consider what your choices mean for you, and get appropriate help.

He was also talking about mercilessly crushing someone in the game. He wasn’t even suggesting to go as far as you have, and was strictly speaking of harassing him in game while he was mining in their space. You are talking about stalking them outside the game IRL.

There is no PVP path to victory. There is just pointless PVP inflicting losses that you hope makes the aggressor want to stop, assuming he is so kind.

The scenario is played out all the time, it’s neither hypothetical nor rare in any way.

You want to actively restrict any other options but ‘battlefield in space’ until the only thing that any player can do is mindlessly shoot things rather than using any other tactic.

372

It is also one that nobody wishes to change because forcing change to something that is easily abused is never popular.

373

Dropping to the NPC corp is a proven strategy to eliminate the threat of current as well as future wars. You’re point is moot, and you’re placing too much faith in this “charity of your aggressor” line. If you have a corp you should be willing to defend it. This entire conversation is the result of peoples misunderstanding of what it means to have a player owned corp in EvE, not a problem with non-consensual PvP.

Carry on anyway.

374

We are assuming the will to defend it is there.

What is lacking is a way to do so that results in forcing a victory.

You should not have to drop Corp to defend yourself

375

sorry to say, but you assume wrong, most don’t even want to try…
and the remaining drop corp :wink:

It’s a sad reality

376

Best comedy of the night I’ve seen. Much in eve is non-consensual PvP.

Go to low sec and get in a fight because the gate is camped? non-consensual PvP.
Go to nul sec and get in a fight because it’s nul sec? non-consensual PvP.
Get war deced in high sec space? non-consensual PvP.
In a war dec in high sec space trying to end the war thru non-consensual PvP? Nope.

Good laugh.

377

I am referring to the hypothetical scenario I asked about to find a Path to Victory for the Defender.

We assume that for whatever reason the Defender has the will to defend their corp. Obviously if all they wanted was not to get shot they could drop corp, but we are not examining how not to get shot, we are examining how to win the war.

So what path is there to non-consensually end a war that does not rely on the charity of the aggressor.

Some very special folks have suggested that you PvP them in the face, camp them into the station, stalk them IRL until you locate all their alts, camp them and all their friends into station, and harass them until they leave EVE entirely because being a psychopath is what EVE is all about. While not the worst part of the suggestion, for all of it’s brutality it still relies on the charity of the aggressor to end that war.

The problem with wars is that if your goal is to do anything in game other than play battlefield in space there is no way to win such a war. Literally the only thing you can do is shoot spaceships until the aggressor decides they have had enough and they decide to end it.

It’s one of a few kinds of interaction in EVE that is so poorly designed that the only effective way to combat it is to simply not play until the aggressor gets bored and leaves.

378

You don’t have to drop Corp to defend yourself. You can undock and shoot someone in space. You can undock and play defensive like you were in lowsec and go about your business. You can hire or make friends to join you and turn the tables.

If you have any point though, I’ll agree you shouldn’t have to expose yourself to wars to be part of a social group. However, as CCP said:

While I agree that if you are going to be in a player corp, wars are something you should be prepared to tackle, I don’t think you should be forced into wars and player groups only because you want to be part of a social group. Whether that takes the form of a “social corp” or two tiers of corps based on structure ownership, or some alternate social system, you should be able to play Eve in a lower risk (and lower reward) but social way, and wars make that problematic by automatically linking the two.

379

You still don’t get it.

I’m not talking about avoiding war.

I’m talking about winning one against the will of the aggressor.

It’s fine to have to deal with it, but there needs to be a path to actually win, not just fight.

380

Who defines what that is?

381

You still don’t get it
You don’t get to have a path to win without also having a path to lose.
And you don’t really want the aggressor to be able to force surrender consequences on the defender.

382

I think you are fixated on this idea you can “win” a war. Aside from the rarely used voluntary surrender mechanic, there is no way to declare a winner even for the aggressor. As that devblog says it is primarily just a mechanic to get the NPCs out of the way and to allow legal fighting in highsec. That’s it. There is nothing coded in there about winners or losers.

I understand the basic argument that dangling future safety as a reward for fighting might stoke more conflict but I don’t buy it. First, it can’t really work under the current system as aggressors can just hop corp to another corp and continue the war, and if you did figure out a way to fix that, larger groups would have complete power over those smaller than them as to if they can particpate in wars.

Eve is a sandbox and like almost everywhere the game doesn’t dangle clear win conditions in front of you. You can win and lose wars in various ways and while I get some players want nothing more than to not be vulnerable to others, awarding that as a prize doesn’t make much sense to me. Such immunity should come from choices, like staying in the NPC corp, and handing out immunity to player interaction isn’t a very good idea in a game about player interaction.

If wars are a problem for some players, let’s fix that by giving them a social corp where they don’t have to worry about them at all. That seems a much better way to make Eve more inclusive than to add some PvP-immunity prize that will only be accessible to the largest groups in the game who need it the least.

383

the aggressoralready is. They have taken something from the defender. The defender deserves the opportunity to fight and reclaim it.