I just want to address one thing in the high sec war system. What I have found is that no one actually uses it the way it was intended. Everyone has their structures in alt corps. So what is the point in allowing it force players in the corp into combat. So far as i can see the high sec war system is just used to keep Null Sec corp members from going to high sec and doing business there. Furthermore its not being used for real warfare between high sec corporations but more so for structure bashing and extortion of high sec corporations who choose to have structures. It seems to me the war system should be designed to be used the way the players use them. Players of a corp should be allowed to opt out of a war. They already can by leaving the corp and coming back when the war is over. More importantly 90% of all wars are just wars against holding corps. So itās all about structures and nothing more. Maybe you should have an option where the CEO can restrict a war to just the structures and not the members. Thus allowing the structures to be in the corp that uses them without engaging players. Or maybe people who wage war should be forced to declare war on the specific structure they intend to destroy instead of having access to blow up every structure the corp owns and harassing players who donāt want it and will just leave anyway to avoid it. This is anti-community, as players may choose not to come back and the corp then is emptied right when they are building their member base. I think the current war system empowers incumbent corporations and discourages new corporations from owning your new cgi docking bays. Or worse yet if they have a structure it may lead to a new corp being disbanded due to an unwanted war. I think during development it was intended to create content but players live in high sec for a reason. Wars donāt make sense right now. Itās all just anti-social garbage, and empowers the sociopathic structure extortionists who are well aware they destroy communities when they wage wars and gain a twisted satisfaction from it.
Holy no space bar batman.
All I read was lets turn war decs back to how they used to be.
I agree 
How do paragraphs work? Was there an appropriate change of topic in the above? Or do you only read comics books with childish levels of topic fragmentation? The average paragraph size is 200 words and this was 380 words, not exactly the largest one in known literary existence.
let the war come down on them and press the tab button once
Donāt cry, that is what your kind lobbed for.
Donāt anchor what you canāt defend. Itās that simpleā¦
correct
if you were to follow that specifically then no one should anchor because i have not seen anyone other then the largest corps who are capable of defending against a persistent group. So the sociopaths win just because they are so persistent and annoying that it exhausts players who just want to enjoy the high sec game.
And whats your idea to fix that?
When I joined the game in 2009 it was exactly like it is now: bigger guys wardec smaller guys to curbstomp them and farm killmails, loot and salt. smaller guys try to blueball them or get obliterated.
No matter what CCP changed over the years, nothing has ever changed that and I honestly think nothing can change that because thats exactly why players even use the wardec system. There are players in EVE that want to build sandcastles and players that want to kick in sandcastles, and these will maximize their efficiency doing it with maximum gain and minimum risk no matter what rules or mechanics you invent for doing it.
To be fair though smaller guys also wardec bigger guys to farm kills.
I think the system is already too restrictive. It leads to people hopping in and out of wardec corps just for station battles. Iād have it so that all corps are war eligible if any one corp is. That would put the cat among the pigeons and make it all a lot more exciting and a lot more combat.
I think even CCP itself does not know what the main purpose of the WarDec System should be or how it should work. They can observe for many years now that no matter how they change it, it is basically only used to enforce PVP on people who donāt want PVP and barely can even fight the guys who declare on them at all. So itās just a legit extortion system and extremely frustrating for the targeted corporations/alliances because the only real defense is hardcore blueballing and granting the attackers as little kills/loot as possible. Else the wardecs will never end. At least you can āopt-outā now by deciding not to have a structure in space.
Dunno if they think thats good game design or if they just donāt care or simply have no idea how to change it to a better system.
I would argue that people should not have a structure in space if they cannot defend it. I mean, structures are essentially all about grabbing a claim to space or resources. It should not be something one can just do lightly.
Shhh, youāll upset the high sec krabs that just want EVE to be a single-player game they can play in peaceā¦
Good.
Thatās also how things go in low, null, and I believe J space as well. You toss up structures, you deal with local power politics. Someone nearby is a big shark. Unless that shark is you, that means itās time to start planning for player interactions in the sandbox. Beat āem (gain tons of members to defend, pay mercs to defend for you, or pay them off, make fights unfun and boring for attackers, be as annoying a defender as possible as a form of defense, etc) or join āem (move your corp to their alliance, fold into an existing corp of theirs, join their coalition, etc).
Eveās power structures have always been a Feudal game. The whole expectation of āI ignore everyone else, so everyone else ought to ignore meā is being naive at best, presumptuous and demanding at worst. Thereās a feudal lord nearby and they want powerful vassals.
High sec gets no exceptions because itās a fully fleshed zone like any other. It aināt an Albion blue zone.
Yennoe, how exactly are you justifying this medical diagnosis?
Can you demonstrate, sight unseen and un-evaluated, that you can diagnose someone with sociopathy purely on them playing a vidya game by itās intended rules?
I mean I know you canāt, and you probably donāt know BIMs from a hole in the ground, but its always interesting how people throw this word around and have no actual understanding of it
Structures should not be a criteria for war, not sure what it should be or how you stop the griefing like we had before but like the op said what we have is mostly pointless.
That wasnāt my point. The point was that no matter what the criteria are, the āsharksā as you call them will always use the wardec system to punch down for their own gain.
It is debatable if this is a good game design at all - from my point of view - because I sincerely do not see what good does it do for the game? The best option for the defender is always not to play at all and the best outcome for the attacker is a stupid structure grind at best. Just go look at the ingame āwar pageā and see all these āglorious battlesā - there is hardly killed anything at all, its just a feeding machine for the wardeccers.
If I had to bet if this system brings more frustration or more enjoyment to the players, Iād know where to place my money.
It makes achievements meaningful for the people who are able to secure their structures.
I donāt know where this idea of āput up a structure, and be left aloneā become the ānormal ideaā. It is basically a billion+ ISK unwarpable ship you leave undocked AFK in space 24 hours a day. You just donāt do that normally with ships in any security class of space, why would that suddenly be OK if it was called a ācitadelā instead of a āshipā?
And what are you using for your baseline comparison? Did you bother learning the history of what came before the citadel: POS and POS bashing?
The fundamental nature of the game didnāt change with introduction of citadels: people still POS bashed and the feudal game can still be played. What did change was the level of active gameplay required and less grinding:
- Citadels are easier to shoot and destroy than the huge HP pools of POSes, requiring less of a grind
- Citadels require active gameplay to defend unlike death star POSes that can AFK defend quite well
- Citadels plus tether are a force-amplifier, incentivizing logging in a defensive fleet. Death Star POSes didnāt necessarily need a defending fleet.
If the playerbase was capable of doing grindy boring POS-bashes then, theyāre capable of easier citadel bashes now.
Did you even bother reading my previous response? Thereās multiple options a defender can do. They all involve social interaction. Iām trying to think and be charitable here, but this ānot play at allā mentality only really makes sense if the person hates social interaction ā and PVP necessarily has to include social interaction ā and doesnāt want to put in effort keeping their stuff.
Fine, donāt do social interaction. In that case, youāre going to have to accept the consequences of such self-imposed boundaries. Boundaries that others donāt have because they work hard to figure out a way to secure the structure. So, donāt AFK an unwarpable billion ISK+ ship-equivalent in space 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Donāt AFK an actual warp-capable billion ISK+ ship in space 24 hours a day 7 days a week anyway. In both cases its bound to attract attention.
Set reasonable expectations and you wonāt be disappointed.
I get the sense youāre up for debating whether the above ought to be the case. I donāt think youāre going to get much sympathy, given that CCP made the Siege Green patch with the explicit goal to prevent structure spam, and making structures in highsec easier to have for every Lone Joe goes against this design goal.