Sry for interrupting, but… do you have a source for that statement?
2 Likes
Not off the top of my head. I will dig around. Its several years ago. I think CSM minutes. But maybe from one of the thousand war dec threads we have had over the past 5 years…I don’t think its older than that
Edit: First Google search brings up CSM 7 summit Dec '12. The list of scenarios in bullet points wasn’t in the minutes, so was probably in a forum thread around that time. My kingdom for a non-■■■■ search function of eve forums!
Edit 2: after an hour of searching through endless forum whines, I give up.
So, that’s a no… 
Can I ask why the double standard?
Is blueballing any different in other areas of space OR if you dock to a bigger fleet, is that any different?
1 Like
If you accept the premise is that defenders are entitled to something, the standard is consistent.
Here is your mistake. The defenders are entitled to nothing except what they take by force. You are not entitled to zero-risk PvE farming, and you should stop looking at it as something you have had stolen from you. If you can not defend your corp in a war using the current mechanics, by proving yourself such a difficult target to deal with that nobody wants to attack you, then your corp is not entitled to exist and should suffer its inevitable death.
TBH the more I see you post the more I’m convinced that highsec is the problem, not wars. The current mechanics feed the entitlement of pathetic carebears like you, people who do not belong in EVE. The solution is to make highsec a safe space for new players and remove all endgame content. No mining, no missions, no manufacturing, nothing that a player more than ~30 days old would find appealing. All of that is moved to lowsec. If you want to succeed in PvE the natural state is one of vulnerability to PvP at all times, and your success is only because you have fought off the PvP threats and protected your PvE operations long enough to make money. If you are a pathetic carebear who insists on opting out of PvP you have to settle for level 1 missions and their mining equivalent.
The defenders only have one part of that, and there should be a path to express the second.
There already is a path, you just reject it because of idiotic hypothetical scenarios about an aggressor corp that is infinitely rich, has zero concern for losses, and is determined to keep a war going no matter how much it costs. In any real situation the path to victory is to hurt the aggressor enough that they move on to easier targets.
And if you stubbornly insist that your scenario is a realistic one then it also destroys your structure plan. An attacker with the kind of wealth and stubbornness you are talking about is incredibly unlikely to lose the battle over the structure, since they can simply through vastly superior resources at defending it. Your “path to victory” is an illusion, there is zero hope of achieving the goal of ending the war.
Thanks for asking about CCP statements on war. Made me search this little gem up:
The above was the most recent one.
Also this:
That’s June 2008.
Quite a bit to read up on the subject… Perhaps I should compile it and make it into it’s own thread.
1 Like
Sort is a CSM, not a CCP employee.
And… 2008 hmmm, let me see if I can find a newer one, more valid to the topic (since its the same mechanics in place atm)
https://www.eveonline.com/article/changes-to-war-mechanics/
In 2012, when they re-did the war mechanics, they said the following:
we also took a long hard look at the underlying concept for the war dec system; asking ourselves such questions as: who is it for? Is it for large alliances wanting to extent their nullsec wars to empire space? Is it for hi sec entities for settling their differences? Is it to make it easier for people attacking other people that don’t want to fight? Should it be a career path for corporations or even alliances? All or none of the above?
Out of these speculations we came up with a few guidelines, which can be summarized as follows:
- Tighten the war system, so it becomes clear how wars start, proceed and end.
- Make war progression (i.e. how everyone’s faring) more visible, both for strategic and status reasons.
- Make fighting wars a viable career path for dedicated mercenary corps.
And even I think its unbalanced atm… And I’m a wardeccer 
Uh… just so you know the CSM 12?
2018/01/15 – 2018/01/18
CCP Guard responded but I don’t quote individual lines and the whole block is important.
I did say I also think its unbalanced atm… as an answer to CCP Guard quote.
But saying its unbalanced and saying they dont like aggressors docking up when defender finally form a fleet is two very different thing. Dont you agree? Unbalanced could mean so much.
What I linked tho… was a respons to your 2008 quote that was from a CCP talking negatively about wars.
4 years later they did a remake of wars, why didn’t they fix the issue back then.
If ccp just thought it was “pay-to-grief” they should have used the window of opportunity. Not wait another 6 years right?
Sounds good, lets work on creating a way to do that.
It’s a common reality, or did you miss the part of EVE where alts are used for everything? I thought you claimed to be good at this game.
If what you say is true, then you and your fellow psychopaths have nothing to fear from your victims and this plan can only help you by bringing more targets under your guns.
Or are you just afraid of actual consequences. Pretty sure that’s the case, but I’ll be happy to be wrong.
I don’t think the issue has ever been addressed. But if we go back to your 2012 statement:
How wars start: Declared and isk spent.
How wars started before: Declared and isk spent.
How wars start currently act: Declared and isk spent.
Proceed is a complete blank as how people fight war is irrelevant.
Currently there are only two methods for a war to end. Attacker ends it by choice or fails to pay for it. This has never changed. Even if a defender goes to fight they can’t do anything to end the war. No risk to declare it, no method to end it as a defender.
That is a keystone I think can be fixed. Nobody wants to fix that though.
It already exists. The job is done.
It’s a common reality, or did you miss the part of EVE where alts are used for everything? I thought you claimed to be good at this game.
Having an alt doesn’t magically make money appear. Ship losses still cost ISK from your main even if you’re giving your alt whatever funding you need to run the war. In fact, the existence of alts has absolutely nothing to do with how affordable losses are.
Or are you just afraid of actual consequences. Pretty sure that’s the case, but I’ll be happy to be wrong.
Alternatively, stop being a pathetic carebear like your fellow pathetic carebears and impose some consequences. The only thing standing between war dec corps and consequences is the fact that pathetic carebears are pathetic and unwilling to consider any options besides “farm PvE content at maximum ISK/hour with zero risk” and “dock up permanently and quit EVE”.
I agree, and if you look at this. I want to fix it! hah!
Read the “Win condition”
Win condition is still “I blow up more ships than yours” and leaves “an infinity war of nobody ever does anything” remains in effect. Suggest adjustment to must at least grow once per week otherwise it’s not really a war and more a… well…
Hey wait… I saw a web comic for that.
Possibly NSFW, Language only… but contains Kraytos and Leonidas… see at your own risk.
http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/it-ends-in-triumph
If you blow up more of their stuff than they blow up of yours for long enough they will drop the dec. That is for all intents and purposes a forced end to the war.
The drop corp idea was purely for those who do not consent to war. Everyone else should obviously fight, or adjust their strategy to survive in other ways.
You’ll find in EvE a lot of PvP becomes non-consensual right around the time someone’s killboard starts to look bad 
“Bad” is such an open term. It can be ships lost, value in isk, or just flat out income is slightly lower due to the event.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue tbh. Are you telling me that a lot of PvP in EvE is non-consensual? Or are we discussing the reasons why being wardecced is bad? or…?
Do you have a memory issue sir? After all you’re the one that opened the word bad up for discussion and then directly spoke of killboards.
Maybe it’ll catch on with counter arguments too?
No not memory. Possibly comprehension but I feel that’s out of my control at this stage given the input. I hadn’t realised you were just picking words and defining them for reasons.
What relevance does this in depth expose of the word bad have to my point about people’s killboards looking bad? Aside from making sure everyone’s aware what possible things could be considered bad about a killboard / war in general, which I take as a contextual given when addressing fellow EvE players 
That’s not forcing an end to the war, that’s relying on their charity to end it.
Again, the ask isn’t for a way not be shot. The ask is for a way to win the war. Lots of people who like PvE are willing to fight if there is a point to it, but if they preferred PvP they would already be doing that and you would not have to dec them to get a fight.