High Sec War Limitation ideas for a healthy War Declaration System

PvP Gameplay Center Warfare & Tactics
21

No for the op…

HS war is fine atm. They wardec everyone because they know they just need to camp the tradehubs. If ppl will be use their brain then they never would wardec 100+ corps cause of missin targets.

Increase the war taxes is uninteresting :joy: they will get the isk they need from their vessels. They just rais their taxes.

EVERY corp should live in the same world … if you exclude small corps then you destroy the bigger corps and everyone create a 1 duderino corp to avoid wars. And they play together like before.

No No No No pls stop crying and start lerning the game mechanics and U S E Y O U R B R A I N ( if you have one :sweat_smile:)

22

The main problem is not the war, it’s the people expecting to be safe no matter what they do.

The guy you refer to in the op brought this on himself, and went straight to CCP because he couldn’t take the blame for his own dumb actions.

So yeah… :sweat_smile:

2 Likes
23

Are you sure about that? Lowsec and nullsec are full of ganks of PvE ships, comically unbalanced hot drops, gate-camping and blue-balling to the extreme where players dock-up/stay docked if they think there is a chance they will lose the fight. So much so that I would say that is the norm, and balanced fleet fights are the rare exception.

Highsec wars are just another flavour of the conflict that is the open-world type common in Eve. They are basically consensual, like much of Eve conflict, where you can stay docked, or leave corp, or leave highsec, or play on an alt. People tend to take fights only when they think they have the advantage.

I am sympathetic to new players who don’t fully understand what they are getting into when they start a corp, but this is what conflict in Eve is. I think the best solution is to just keep them out of wars entirely, by providing a social corp for newer and smaller groups that is immune to wars, perhaps defined by structure ownership. I see no other reliable way to limit how many wars find a group in such an open and fluid sandbox game like Eve.

24

That guy should be used as material for bad CEO in EVE.
It’s this kind of people creating false impressions on new players that makes them quit.

25

You realize we had tons more active players than we do now and wars were a bigger thing than now?
You had tons of tiny corps most calling themselves mercenaries taking pay to dec other corps/alliances living entirely in highsec.

26

I do! Makes you wonder if years of nerfs to wars and ganking have had something to do with the decrease in the number of active players.

:thinking:

Perhaps a discussion for another thread.

27

Let me give you an analogy. Are calves really expected to be able to survive the minute they are born? Well yes, they are. That hungry lion doesn’t care whether the calf is 5 minutes old, or 5 months.

New players aren’t expected to become top notch pilots right away, but they are expected to be able to think for themselves and make rational decisions.
I know that many people these days are unable to think rationally (if they can think at all) and expect to be protected from themselves and their own stupidity, but that’s not how EVE works. In EVE, the natural selection process is still very much alive and well. The strong survive, while the weak and stupid are filtered out.

Back when I started playing EVE, it was by several magnitudes harsher and more cruel than today’s dumbed down softcore version is. Not only did I manage to successfully cope with it, but so did hundreds of thousands of other players. We didn’t need any safe zones, or game mechanics protecting us from our own stupidity. Quite the contrary, the status quo was actually beneficial. To keep idiots and whiners away. It’s what made EVE be EVE and why we had such a truly great community back in the day.

I didn’t have anyone protecting my ass. We didn’t even have CONCORD back then. I knew and accepted that if I ■■■■■■ up, the fault would be with me and my actions. I didn’t run crying to CCP to please change things because I’m too stupid to take care of myself, but instead used the experience of every ■■■■-up to learn and do better the next time.

There are few equal battles in EVE. They only happen during tournaments when they’re enforced with rules, or when one party fucks up. If you expect fair fights, you’re playing the wrong game.

Then stop making ideas that cater to that crowd. EVE is about survival. Hunter and prey. Eat or get eaten. The strong survive, while the weak can ■■■■ off to World of Warcraft. We don’t need them here destroying our game and community.

2 Likes
28

I don’t remember war getting a nerf ever. It’s ancient untouched code of pay isk get freedom to shoot in high sec corps.

1 Like
29

You’ve been living in one deep cave then :sweat_smile:

30

These were actually buffs… I don’t remember any nerfs.

31

Oh and the watchlist removal was a buff too? :thinking:

32

Depends on what side you’re on.
I call it a Nerf to war decs.

I also think the blankets decs are a direct response to it.

33

Exactly

34

Cost isn’t much of a factor for a healthy War-Dec system; it only changes who can play in that area. Our corp is small, when the mood strikes us we shift from ganking and intel services to active war declarations. We usually only have one or two wars running when we do this, no blankets, and we hunt… and put in a lot of effort.

The problems that are preventing a healthy system is that we no longer have what few tools we did, and never got anything that really supported the function… leaving us with basically nothing; so you get what you see.

Compare the act of War to any other function. You want to buy/sell/trade/transport, lots of options and support. Want missions, you have tools to find them. Want to go mine, you have tools to find what you want. Even FW has support mechanisms. Declare war on somebody, you pay, wait 24hrs… and… that is it… ok, so, they go all flashy in local… woohoo. You basically have to make your own tools these days, and it is a pain, and impacts both sides… so… here we are.

The problem, is really lack of support. Everything else is just a symptom of or reaction to that.

35

So, here’s the main issues:

A lot of the suggestions don’t actually address the core issue, but instead contribute to it. The core issue being that High-sec War Deccers are practiced at exploiting the system. I’ll give you an example:

  • High Sec Griefer Corp (from here referred to as HSGC) declares war on Corp A.
  • HSGC uses their alt corp, HSGC-B to also declare warp on Corp A.
  • Corp A enlists allies, Corps B and C.
  • Corp A, B, and C show up to defend assets from HSGC
  • HSGC mass leaves to join HSGC-B
  • HSGC-B is also at war with Corp A, but not their allies. They can now attack Corp A’s assets without Corps B and C interfering even though it is the exact same players on the exact same characters.

If you look at the employment history of these guys, they are almost always going to have pages long employment histories of them just joining/leaving their alt corporations. These players are incredibly risk averse. They’re interested in getting easy kills, not good fights, and they know all the tricks to do it.

Now, what contributes to the ease of this is the fact that it is cheap to declare war. Not only is it cheap to declare war, but it is actually cheaper to declare war on smaller targets. So, whereas HSGC could declare war on Goonswarm, who has thousands of people, it would be exponentially more expensive to start and maintain that war than it would be to declare war on Johnny Nobody’s Corporation with 1-2 people.

Lastly, the biggest issue is that formal wars favor the aggressor by miles. I am not referring to Citadel timers, but the war itself. Since the Defender has no real option to surrender (the aggressor decides whether or not to accept the surrender), HSGC can keep that war going indefinitely as long as they have the ISK to do so. There is no way for a defender to get out of a war even when they have lost everything.

Moreover, the aggressor doesn’t have to put up any sort of collateral whatsoever - they can not have a single Citadel for the defenders to actually attack. This means that Aggressors can play station games ad infinitum with impunity. As they are not required to put something on the line, they can and always will have the advantage of being able to pick where and how they fight. Combined with the aforementioned fact that they decide when the war is over, a defending corporation can essentially be griefed out of existence and have literally nothing to show for it.

And for those of you about to say, “But the defender can always just re-corp or get on an alt”…
… You’re part of the problem. This doesn’t solve anything. It just masks the issues at hand.

EDIT: But yeah, if you try to fix this by increasing the ISK cost of HSGC, you’re going to lose because they already exploit the system by switching to alternate corporations. Taxes don’t do anything when you can co-ordinate an entire corporation to leave and join a different one on the fly.

36

How about defending against ALL agressor ? Then this is not a problem. And btw … if you cant deffnd YOUR structures then you should not have structures xD its the concept of the game and nobody will safe YOUR structure

37

Another day, another war dec thread with stupid ideas.

I get the feeling people that post in these threads haven’t played our gamestyle as the suggestions made which quite frankly, have been discussed a million times over to no end are not viable.

  • We don’t get funded by null sec
  • We are not ‘griefers’
  • Hunting was viable till CCP ■■■■ all over it
  • HS Merc content is the worst it’s ever been in 8 years of me doing it
  • We always have risks otherwise how do we lose ships? 2b+ ships at that.
  • Most issues with war decs come from the player base not wanting to engage in them, it’s been discussed that adding structures wouldn’t change that.
  • CCP have already stated any fix must be easy to implement and self maintained.

Lastly, I don’t think you quite understand the amount of players/accounts that actively subscribe from high sec mercs. Most of us have at least 4-5 accounts each and would create a large dent in CCP wallet if we were all to quit because some muppets keep trying to find ways to destroy our gameplay.

We are open to change, just be realistic.

38

Spare me, troll. At least read the posts you reply to so that your generic, dumb replies are at least pointed.

39

After digged deeper into that business from another angle (hunting Abyss runners), I can say that all the doom spit out by wardeccers is vastly exaggerated. I would even say, targeted hunting is in a better place without the watchlist (you know it’s symmetric). It’s some work, but it’s fun.

40

“A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.” ~ Wikipedia

Curious to how one defines actively pursuing small/new corporations with the explicit abuse and circumvention of game mechanics as anything other than griefing. When you exploit loop-holes in the war dec structure to avoid being attacked by defenders’ allies, you’re avoiding good fights in exchange for an easy win against the defender.

You know: Griefing.

I rest my case.