The defender can do both of those things. Why are you, as the target of a war, not using neutral alt scouts? Why aren’t you counting the attacker’s war dec fees as a loss/risk?
Of course there’s a simple solution: go back to the old system of wars costing essentially zero ISK, now the mechanic is perfectly symmetrical and the stronger side gets to dictate the terms of the war without any concern for how much it costs to bribe CONCORD.
I’m a bit of a hs carebear myself and I legit don’t see an issue with the current state of highsec pvp.
You know what I think… the whole world is turning into a bunch of pansies and it’s begining to spill into Eve.
There are two distinct groups at play. One that favors a hands off approach that encourages the players to sort out their own problems, and one that wants regulation to sort out their problems.
We can not regulate the game entirely, or content would dry up. We can not deregulate the game entirely, or content would dry up. A balance has to be struck somewhere, and the subjectivity of it leads to an eternal argument over where it should be.
This is very general and it doesn’t follow the reason within the context of risk…Can you elaborate on it specifically how risk has to do with weaker/advanced? In null sec terms I can understand the notion of EvE war because it leads to possible eviction one way or another. But in High Sec most people can simply dock up and secure their assets. In other words, other than nullsec the warfare in EvE is mostly to inflict what? killmails? Or eviction from high sec to the lower sec so they can join eventually null?
Well for starters there’s nothing stopping me from doing exactly that. But attackers consider it cheese mode until it’s in their favor resulting in an endless debate about how things are not really working for war.
Bringing up ISK and substituting it for RISK has occurred many times before. ISK was never a RISK. It’s only manged to get downgraded to ISK is now plentiful and easily gotten. Or would you like to tell me there aren’t multiple trillionares in eve again? Because as silly as it might sound I’m sitting on about a billion in ISK myself. Cheap, easy to get, useful to substitute for any risk because why take a risk when you can just pay ISK?
rofl
It’s simple really. Benefit for a Risk at a Cost. A thing Eve online has said many times.
There is already a decent balance. You have asset safety for Christ’s sake, one of the most ridiculous things added to the game, ever. Upon the destruction of your citadel, some unseen omnipotent force with unlimited cargo space magically whisks away your valuables and places them in the closest intergalactic pawn shop that you have to pay to get out of…
Agreed. That is something that needs to end.
(How Much) Benefit for (How much) risk at (How much) cost. That’s what makes it subjective, and why the debate rages on no matter where the balance point is set.
@QuakeGod
I’m only making an impartial observation of why there is a debate to move the balance point ongoing at nearly all times.
The risk of a war is PvP risk, not PvE. It is set entirely by how capable the other side is at wrecking your stuff. If you attack a weak target then the risk is low, because they can’t fight you effectively. If you attack a strong target the risk is high, any time you engage you lose your ships to a superior force and you end up camped into station for the duration of the war.
But in High Sec most people can simply dock up and secure their assets.
You can, but then you suffer the opportunity cost of being docked at all times instead of actively playing. Avoiding losses by not playing the game is still a loss.
Well when we have any kind of benefit for zero risk at a tiny cost then we have an issue still.
Then these mysterious “attackers” need to HTFU and stop whining about someone else being better at the game.
ISK was never a RISK.
ISK is always the risk, and the only possible risk. Every asset in EVE has an ISK value, the only risk you can ever face is the loss of assets. There is no permanent character death/injury, no social/organizational consequences that can be imposed on you by force.
ISK is never a risk. It’s how you pay cost.
How can you say this? If the attacker faces “zero risk” because the only loss they can suffer is the ISK value of destroyed ships then how can there be any benefit when the only loss the defender can suffer is the same ISK in destroyed ships?
No, people just use alts and carry on their high/low/null life…
Because EVERY SINGLE PLAYER REGARDLESS OF WAR has that same risk for undocking.
Both sides in a war have equal access to the ability to do this. There is no problem.
Then what does war have to do with anything? You’re claiming that risk vs. reward is out of balance, but you have yet to produce any asymmetry in risk or reward between the two sides in the war mechanics.
I never said its not accessible to all…but you cant argue it doesnt make the game far less risky
The benefit of war is that you do not lose your ship for firing on your war targets. Concord will not help you. Concord will not hinder you either. Without war the cost for firing on anyone in high sec is guaranteed ship loss. Risk for people who are guaranteed to lose ship is that they might not actually blow up their target.
In war you gain the benefit of no Concord intervention for for the cost of ISK. Risk that you might not kill your target has not changed. Risk that your target might blow you up instead has not changed. These are not applied by default as a part of war because those are part of the game by default of undocking and entering combat as either a defender or attacker.
Tell me again what new risk you put on the table to gain this benefit?
Ok, sure, but risk vs. reward is still balanced for both sides. The attacker does not have any advantage, which is what I was originally asking for an example of.
First of all, that’s still just ISK, so it doesn’t count as risk by your standard. Every suicide ganker is already treating that risk as the cost of doing business, and has carefully calculated the loss as part of their business plan.
Second, the benefit is still symmetrical. If you’re a strong defender, the kind of corporation that deserves to continue to exist, someone declaring war on you is a nice bonus. You don’t lose your ships to CONCORD when you kill them, and they even paid CONCORD for the privilege of being killed.
I have accounted for that already.
Did you read it?
It is not. Defenders did not choose to have no Concord protection. You inflict that upon your target. They do not have choice. This is where you consider a benefit for defenders is that they had a choice in the matter which they do not.