EVE General Discussion

The new war system eliminated the whole "voting" process to declare war, which was a good thing. It puts more power in the hands of corp leadership, and allows them to respond to situations better. However, the "voting" process allowed a time for discussion and for everyone to be aware of what is going on. When the war was finally declared, no character name was attached to it, as it was presumably a "whole corp" decision.

New to Inferno, with the elimination of the voting system, any director can anonymously force his corp into at least 7 days of war. When war is declared, there is no info published about who in leadership decided to initiate it.

This is a big upset in the balance of power in corps, and allows trigger happy directors to go over the heads of the entire corp and any other diplomacy. I know, "if you don't trust him, he shouldn't be a director" and all, and this is not a problem that my corp is having, but...

Is this an intended mechanic and feature, or is it an unintended side effect (and exploit) of the revamped war system?

Re-emphasizing: I am perfectly fine with the power to wardec lying in the hands of individuals.

The issue I am raising is the fact that when this particular power is exercised, the person who does so is not identified. For example, if I were to suddenly make Rifterlings wardec your alliance, my members would have no idea which director it was that did it. The problem grows in magnitude the more directors there are.

I'd say short-circuiting diplomacy involves ruining content, but whatever.

Obviously, and with this mechanic this is more important than before, but the question was "should people know who activated the war, rather than have it be anonymous"?

I am my corp's CEO, and my corp is not experiencing this problem. This is not a whine "I got screwed over due to trusting someone I shouldn't " thread. It is just a question about the new Inferno mechanics.

Did you even read the OP?

Petrus brings up a really good point. We just went through this ourselves, with a war dec that flew faster than everyone could be consulted and it caused some diplomatic tangles.

I think it just makes sense that those initiating a war dec should be held responsible by being identified, I'll look into this and see if I can find you guys an answer on whether this is a bug or a "working as intended" type situation.

Thanks for the heads up to this thread!

I don't think this is a completely fair way to approach the problem as even reliable, trustworthy directors can make errors in judgement, or act based on limited information but with best intentions.

Saying "get better directors" doesnt fix the problem of a CEO needing to be able to know why he's at war and who brought his corp to that point, for whatever reason. Holding everyone responsible for their actions isn't an unreasonable thing to ask for.

That may be true, Hans, but we never knew who "called for war" before, either. What I mean is that, under the system of voting, a CEO still had no idea who in his corp actually approved of the war.

I really don't see this as being a problem at all.

As a counterpoint, any director can clear out the corporation hangars *everywhere* *remotely* with no trace left behind.

Whether or not intended, I would chalk this one under "only give director to people you 100% trust". And that includes trusting them to speak up when you ask "alright which one of you noobs just wardecced Goonswarm?"

In a game that is supposedly all about having consequences for your choices, being able to do stuff anonymously with no consequences just seems against the spirit of the game. That includes offgrid boosting, neutral logi, swiping everything from corp, and now declaring war. I'm fine with these all existing, but they need to have real consequences and risks.

It really is, isn't it? They're so used to the same ol' whine threads it's sad.