Who even came up with this half assed design? Any insights and opinions welcome.
I propose adding a feature to this mechanics; player corporation becomes war eligible for another corp, if any player corporation member aggresses another corp member.
Prime example would be a high sec ganking corporation shooting poor miners without a mining permit at the belt.
Unintended consequence would be “You wanna pvp? Lets pvp with all your comrades!”
I thought that’s the way it worked 
You mean that a member of a corporation can be attacked without his corporation not being able to declare war on the attackers??
That’s total nonsense.
Welp apparently not. These are the rules of war eligibility:
This does not include aggression. The other option is “Mutual War”.
This requires consent from both parties. Yes.
edit:
There is third option, which is Sociopaths Online sponsored by Visa, using spai games tactics. Which is a little bit asymmetric.
So what’s this business about “join a corporation for protection” ? What protection if you can be attacked without retaliation, without your corporation being able to do anything about it?
Seems very screwy to me, like the rules are stacked against a certain kind of players.
Are we all supposed to join a Nullsec or Ganking corporation?
I thought players were able choose their path… Guess not eh?
It’s called “normal”. I mean, I can stab anyone I want from behind even in the safest City of the world, no amount of police could stop me if I would just pick a random target of opportunity (exactly what most gankers do). And you (or better “your family” because you are dead) would of course not be allowed to retaliate as they wish against me or my familiy. We had that system once, it has been abandoned in most civilized areas for a good reason.
A Corp offers protection by teaching how to avoid being ganked (what actually is pretty easy) and offering support to the individual, greatly increasing the profts and reducing the risks. You can mine the same or even more ore in a fleetboosted Skiff than in an unboosted Hulk + plus having Compression available directly in the belt for example. Use it, gankers will in 99% of all cases attack the Hulk nearby and ignore the Skiff. Or in a group, use scouts that check for gankingsquads in the vicinity. Bring Logiships in your Orca’s ship hangar and switch out some Miners for Logis when gankers enter the area. That is how Corp-Protection works, not by just “shooting back”. EVE is a strategy game, use the better strategy and ganking is absolutely no problem.
But EVE is a game, it’s got nothing to do with real life.
So the famous “protection” is a series of lessons I can learn without joining a corporation?
The “protection” amounts to Isk?
I already have a scout and if I need more I can multibox.
I didn’t mention Ganking and OP didn’t either.
Why is it that Ganking is always mentioned in Each-and-every-thread?
Are we playing Ganking Online ( sponsored by VISA ) ?
Yearly reminder: Corps with more than 1000 characters should not be war dec immune. They are not social corps, they have the manpower to defend themselves, and they should have the organizational structures to implement proper war strategies.
Sure it has, all participants of this game have some mindset that is entirely dependent on their RL experiences, so everything you believe about what is ‘right’ or ‘normal’ or ‘just’ or ‘how it should be’ is the result of individual RL learning processes. Those can even differ greatly from person to person.
I just wanted to adress the point that it feels a bit strange to see someone arguing for a system in which you should be able to attack a whole corp over the actions of a part or even an individual. Because thats neither ‘normal’ in the world I live in nor a proven well-working concept.
EVE simulates a future society in which the NPC empires are the superpowers and make the laws (at least in HighSec and LowSec), which means the rules for capsuleer combat must be viewed from their perspective. It makes sense for them to hold the monopoly on punishment, not allowing some kind of bloody revenge vs. an entire other group.
For the rest of your nitpicking: The ‘protection’ you can get from a corp depends entirely on the level of organization behind it. And your will to follow the advice they give of course. Sure you can do lot of the stuff yourself with a few alts. But you can do so mch more in cooperation with others, and share all the investments. Finding a good corp that fit’s a players needs is the single most important step to longterm success in the game, and that goes way beyond ‘protection’.
‘Ganking’ was just an example because the OP used it as example for aggression himself. If you missed that, you might want to read again.
Well before ANY player corp was war eligible if I recall?
The cost of wars was dependent on headcount of the corp and that was it. + something else I think.
Obviously that system is horrible now because the game is currently FLOODED with ISK. Leading us to the current system we have today.
Do you mean Spy Games? And by “asymmetric” I deduce that there is no war declaration but the hostiles do everything possible to disrup operations and I guess Ganking is part of that deal.
As I was saying above though, to not allow a corporation to go to war because one of theirs was attacked is total nonsense.
I specifically mean playing a classic spy character.
I think the mechanics should work like this and to my understanding this is still valid gameplay.
Hence Sociopaths Online (sponsored by Visa).
Gankers already are war eliglible. Not directly of course, but most of them use citadels anchored by neutral alts.
So why aren’t antigankers attacking these?
Again
In every.single.thread some loser tries to make it about Ganking/Antiganking 
I’m starting to think that we reallyare playing Ganking Online Sponsored by VISA.
This was antiganking thread from the very start.
Wasn’t.
No? Looks like it was.
Wasn’t.
And
to not allow a corporation to go to war because one of theirs was attacked is total nonsense.
No it isn’t, its exactly how it is dealt with in any modern society and probably in any future society that wants to make sure to keep the monopoly on justice and law enforcement and most likely does not want eye-for-an-eye or better (war over a kill) bloodshed within their HighSecurity Areas.
What you want does already exist, leave Highsec and you can attack anyone for whatever reason you want. We already had a system where everybody could declare war on anybody else and it was bad. Really bad. So bad that CCP pulled the plug at some point and sent it down the drain. Not saying that the current one is perfect, but it’s a lot better for sure, because people have at least a way to opt out of a stupid system that is fun for 5% of the participants and hated by 95% of those affected by it. Not a clever way to promote your game if your goal is to have paying players.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
I live in Lowswec.
That was a mistake.
It isn’t better, it’s nonsense.
Only hated because people don’t like losing ships.
We’re talking about about wars, not CCP promoting their game. That’s a totally different thread.
@ISD_Kai Is this post okay? Does it pass your censure wall?
No it isn’t. We can play this game forever.
Oh it is absolutely. This gang-style blood-revenge is outlawed and abolished basically everywhere. Don’t know where you live, but wherever such a way of interaction for groups is the standard, it’s probably not a very successful society. There is no single reason an advanced future society would allow it if they have the power (CONCORD) to handle offenses on their own.
Hard to believe, because people living there usually have the guts to post on their main and not hiding behind anonymeous forum alts. Well at least that was the case when I lived in Lowsec and we wore the -10 like a badge. But I guess times have changed since that space has become nothing but a HotDropLand for cowards. Sigh…
But if: in this case take the hint as hypothetical advice for someone living in HS and complaining about the wardec system.
If so, CCP had more than a decade to correct it. They haven’t. Probably because they realized that less players left in the first few months after being bullied by vets via a ridiculously one-sided wardec system that was used for nothing else than generating cheap kills.
Congrats to having an opinion. Unfortunately for you, one that isn’t shared by CCP.
Guess what, the overwhelming majority of EVE players didn’t sign up or pay their sub to enjoy losing ships. They accept the fact that sometimes losing stuff while building up is part of the game and they play it despite the fact that they might lose stuff, not because they are going to lose stuff left and right. During the 15years I play this game, I have for sure met more people that enjoy blowing up other peoples stuff than those who enjoy losing ships. And since wardecs are explicitly a punching-down-business where rich vets seek weak targets to cheaply kill, I think I have to disagree a bit here, thank god CCP abolished the old system, it really did hurt the game development.
Can’t divide those things, as wardecs have direct influence on a new-player-experience, which is utterly important for the game staying alive. The new system isn’t perfect, maybe not even very good, but at least it protects newbros from being wardecced and stomped into the ground by vets just for trying to create their own little group with some friends under a joint name and logo.