¿War for few o disconnection for many?

I strongly suggest that in order to participate in a war each player must sign up and pay individually up to a deadline. No one, because they have an alliance or a corporation, has the right, with or without reason, to force the rest to stop playing their game to do what someone else wants. I have been asked on more than one occasion the reason for my disconnection or why I think others disconnect and I believe that this issue of constant and arbitrary wars is the main reason for defections on Eve.
I think it would be more convenient for those who feel like it because it is convenient or fun for them to live in war to pay and register individually and be quoted on a date and in a predetermined place and have unlimited fun, but without harming the game of others and that everyone has fun in their own way. Most end up disconnecting in big wars and not to mention if the conflict is sustained over time. Most of the players decide to leave permanently or simply change their game and the systems are left empty and uninhabited. The wars are very good for certain players but others prefer something else like me and it seems to me a mistake to have to disconnect directly until the conflict is over and many times having to start from scratch. Every time the wars of the great alliances begin, the number of players decreases significantly and the absences are increasingly notorious historically and it is that the intention of the majority goes elsewhere and with totally different and valid interests and I think that they should also be taken into account. consider in a more serious way. Acting in line with the fun of the majority is not contradicting the essence of the game on the contrary. And finally, I do not see anything good that the CEOs, increasingly bitter and selfish, of the most powerful alliances, decide what we can or cannot do in our game time, the one that I pay for and in which I also have the right to choose the way to play and have fun. I believe that, to this end, new options or new rules should be articulated regarding the participation of each player in wars and that they do not interfere with the normal development of the activities of those who do not decide to participate in them. Everyone and with the same capacity should be able to decide how to have fun, no matter how old or how much power we have accumulated. Otherwise the eve will continue in free fall in the number of active players.

What kind of “wars” are you talking about, exactly?

He is talking about null wars.

Most like a renter or member of the loosing side that cannot rat right now.


I understand that you don’t want to be affected by wars, however “individual opt-in / opt-out” isn’t really a solution.

How do you declare war on a group when potentially all the individuals in it would simply choose to opt out?

You already have the freedom you ask for: you can leave any group or alliance that has a war you don’t want to be involved in. There are plenty of groups that aren’t involved in any given war to join.

Or you can stay in your group, but operate in a region unlikely to be affected by war actions. Or play on an alt that’s completely unrelated to the war. You have the freedom to respond to the war in pretty much any way you wish. The only option you don’t have is some sort of “immunity to war consequences” which appears to be what you’re looking for.

EVE is a game about competition, struggle and conflict on a galactic scale. Wars and war declaration mechanics may need some changes to make them more interesting, but “individual opt-out” isn’t one of them.


I’m sure there are plenty of countries that would like to ‘opt out’ of a war they didn’t start…

–Gadget gazes east


So you wish to force someone else to do your fighting for you to protect and keep open the space that you use to play?

You do realize that EvE is a spaceship fighting game and everyone, at any time, can attack anyone else right?

If you can’t hand the risk of interstellar war why do you think you should be given the rewards of null sec? Maybe you should join a high sec mining corp without a war HQ, and then you will be free of the inconvenience of war.


You had, maybe, a tiny bit of validity if you were talking about being a new player in hi sec and not really knowing how war decs work and how to avoid them. As soon as I realized you were actually complaining about not being able to crab away in your rental pocket I pretty much checked out. You might want to double check those numbers about the population decreasing during a large null war, I have actually found the inverse of that to be true.


“I don’t like how EVE is EVE”.



You answered your own question. EVE losing players = more bandwidth for those left.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:

1 Like

Iran? Iraq? Libya? Afghanistan? Syria? Yemen? Palestine? There are a lot to choose from.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:

1 Like

You are free to leave the corp at any time, and go back to hisec and mine and rat and do anything you want for as long as you want.

But joining a nullsec corp comes with responsibilities.

Nullsec is full of great profit and opportunities for everyone involved. But youre there for the thick of it, and for the thin of it.

You had the time to enjoy the thick. Now you must endure the thin, or leave.

You may pay for the game, but the alliance pays for the fees and ships and time to defend the space you operate in.


Huh ? That’s the whole idea of a multiplayer PvP game. If you cannot bear that someone might ‘infringe’ on your game then get back to single player Homeworld or something…as you are in the wrong game.


If that’s the case (as I somewhat suspected), then the OP is basically complaining that they’re expected to contribute to collective defense as a member of a null-sec entity, instead of being allowed to farm to their heart’s content while other people risk their ships to protect them. Sounds like a case of the “massive entitlement complex” to me.

Why not just become a renter, then? Pay your fee, and grind your rats and asteroids.

You know, a few years ago I said that once CCP finishes eviscerating high-sec PvP, the carebears will start complaining about spaceship violence “consent” in other areas of space.

Well, here we are.

Here’s a novel idea for you: start up your own “powerful alliance.” Then you can be a leader who excuses members from participating in wars whenever they don’t want to.

Problem solved?


If he does, he will quickly learn that he will have to do what those greedy greedy ceos do and force people to participate in defense fleets or risk losing his space.

1 Like

That would take effort, he just wants to grind in peace. Those people generally aren’t the most… active or interactive sorts of people meaning he couldn’t run a 20 man corp and do well.

1 Like

The problem isn’t so much that people like this want to opt out of wars/PvP, but that they don’t want to give anything back to their communities. I’ve been in groups that had people like that. Not only did they never show up to fights, but also never shared any of their work with others in any capacity. They would only ever farm and grind for personal profit. I’d understand if they did this, but also offered discounts on ships and items to alliance members as a sort of gratitude for having other players take on all the combat risks to enable them to do their PvE in safety, but no, they’d put things on the market at a premium instead, ask for payment for any help/services like hauling that they’d provide, etc. Worst of all, they’d get angry whenever not sufficiently protected from threats.

What’s that term? Parasite, I think?

1 Like

People who are interested in money, who’s goal is isk, are not interested in people. That’s why carebears go apeshit if you cross them even if just a little bit. Take some loot from their wreck? Pure meltdown. Can flip their 500k isk ore? Blind rage. That’s why those tactics work :slight_smile:

And that is why people who are looking for genuine interaction and teamwork need to find themselves a group with a strong pvp focus, not a pve/mining one. Every time I (try to) explain this to a newbie it takes some effort for that to sink in.


The contemporary gaming demographic has shifted its focus from “competitive multiplayer” toward “solo PvE” in genres traditionally associated with the former. There’s a whole bunch of research and good videos on YouTube about this by very smart people like Josh Strife Hayes.

In part this is because this contemporary gaming demographic is now largely composed of a different sort of people, as in casual gamers who didn’t play video games until being exposed to them in the mobile sector during adulthood. Think the jock dad or soccer mom who played their first game on their phone while attending their kid’s sports event. The entire mobile game market became such a juggernaut because of these people, because there’s so many of them, and they have so much disposable money to burn. Now these people are trickling into more competitive console and PC games. I’ve played survival FPS games and met middle-aged people for whom that was like their second or third game ever, and they only got it because it was one of the first things that popped up when they were looking at their kid’s Steam account. It never turned out well for them.

But I also wonder if social media had a hand in this as well, with the whole “living on an island” feeling of social seclusion it fosters psychologically after long-term exposure. It’s not a stretch to think that people who spend all day PvPing on Facebook and Twitter would lean carebear in video game environments where they have less control over who can interact with them.

But there is also the issue that the entire end purpose of all the mining, hauling, etc, is someone going pew pew. It is thus bizarre that these people expect to live in some little isolated grinding world immune from the consequences of their actions. Miners and haulers being shot is karma…they mined the very ships and ammo they were shot with.

1 Like

Lol…you do love spouting this nonsense meme. I guess it is conjured up by gutter press stories of old grannies who have never seen a mobile or a computer and live in a gaslit house with a servant called Jeeves. The reality is that most older people have been playing computer games for getting on 40 years…long before much of the current generation was even born.

1 Like