EVE General Discussion

If you move 30 jumps away you get to test the often touted carebear rhetoric about everyone who ever declared a war being permanently glued to a trade hub undock.

Realistically if you do move and you're not at war with P I R A T or whatever the current hub camper respawn is they'll still show up at some point. However they're likely to bring much lighter ships and fewer assets like boosts and logistics, which makes armed resistance more viable.

And of course if they are in fact only interested in hub camping they pose no threat whatsoever.

It kind of depends on the number of active wars they have and how many guys you have active and in space in the same area. If you have a bunch of 5.0 sec status dudes in space 23/7 sooner or later someone is going to send an alt to see what's up.

Obviously if it turns out those guys 30 jumps out are mining in ventures there's probably not going to be any follow up. But if they're in marauders there probably will be.

Of course if they're a large group with 30,000 war targets they probably don't even run locates on anyone who isn't a contract target.

The specifics will always vary obviously since each aggressor and defender are different and the motivations and objectives are infinitely variable. That's why I like wars, every one is different and there's so much nuance to it!

Your entire comment assumes that highsec is supposed to be a PvP-free or "safe" zone, which CCP has said multiple times that it's not. High Security space is only that: High Security. Not "Total Security"

Also, what would limiting the number of wars per alliance / corp really do? Do you think that an alliance of 5 corps is just going to go "Oh no, we can only dec X number of people at a time"? Or do you think it's more likely that if they REALLY want more than X number of active decs, that they would just gather everyone into a public channel and dissolve the alliance to dec everyone separately?

I do agree that the war mechanics need to be looked at. However, a hard limit enforcement is (if not a bit anti-sandbox) only a band-aid solution.

As someone who spends a good chunk of time PvE-ing, if you are getting caught during a war, you're doing something wrong. For the duration of the war haul your ships with someone in an NPC corp and travel in a pod/interceptor. Find a low-use system and set up shop there during the war.

With a decently set up overview and d-scanning you should never be on grid when the aggressor lands.

I would also suggest moving to null. Nullsec is infinitely safer than HS for the PvE-er assuming they are in a sov holding alliance.

bleh, too many similar topics/responses. I wrote something about wars not being all that hard to avoid in another post. You still have that flag flying, but by avoiding jita 4-4 undock and the public recruitment channel people probably don't care enough (or even see it for that matter) to wardec.

anyways I've been on pretty much every side of a wardec and in hindsight any way I look at it now it was mostly a stupid waste of time.

What is the actual player count?

I thought we didn't have that number accurately anymore.

It's not as though they all have to be logged in at the same time to count as a war target.

I don't know. I don't really think about that sort of thing much, but Vimsy would certainly know.

Just taking a quick look at P I R A T, who currently have 206 active wars.

Just three of their current wars are against NC. (2187 members), TISHU (623 members) and P-A-T-R-I-O-T-S (759 members).

It's possible to argue all day on whether all of those members are war targets or not, but a straight counting of numbers for just 3 of their wars totals 3569 potential targets.

I'm not sure what the 203 other wars would add up to. 30,000 seems quite possible I guess.

Well a simple solution to prevent wardec spamming would be to make wardecs a skill based system the same as corporation management. The CEO can only hold one war dec per skill point and a bunch of related skills that determine concords fee, duration, sec status of systems they can fight in etc. Then require a minimum number of kills within the wardec timeframe or the war is considered lost. Then like t3's you should be docked a skill point for each war you declare and lose, and have a cool down time say of 7 days between war decs.

Also the wardec should be required to place a bond with concord of a non trivial amount, if they lose then the target gets the bonded amount as reperations / war prizes, which would give a fiscal incentive for the target to fight the aggressor.

If you disband a corp under active war dec you should lose all your corporate management skills and be unable to form ir join a new non npc corp for a minimum cooldown period.

CCP likes to talk about consequences, there should be consequences for war deccers, and having it a skill based requirement that forces investment in leadership skills, and limits the amount of wars you can have would prevent a lot of the casual griefer mechanics while still enabling a legitimate playstyle.

You do need wardecs, lets face it a lot of hisec activity is nullsec/lowsec players using security to support their activity, but it should still be limited the way corporate management is.

If you can effectively prosecute 140 wars at the same time with 106 members why should you be prevented from doing so by an arbitrary mechanical limitation?

From a sandbox perspective the only limit should be their ability to pay the bill and fight the targets. Given that they end up outnumbered by multiple hundreds to one they should be constantly overwhelmed by the defenders.

But the defenders instead take no action whatsoever and die en-masse in trade hubs. The large number of wars is a symptom of how incredibly passive defenders tend to be when faced with wars, even ones with massive military superiority would rather take billions of isk in losses and whine about bad game design than take any action themselves.

Defenders do nothing which allows aggressors to act with absolute impunity.

this:


Further "dancing" around those numbers doesn't get you anywhere.

Wimsi, Skippy and codie, as you can see a lot of people do not share you oppinion and see the need for discussion for possible changes.
CCP is already working on hisec changes, to create more competition there.

The "sandbox" argument was heavily abused too, so it is quite dead argument.

Gamesettings and functions get changed when needed.

Just check the Jump-Fatigue, which was working as intended too, but it was changed to work even better.

And that is what this discussion is about.

Make "wardeccs" better and more meaningfull.
Not just spray them around to finally get some scraps.

Sandbox arguments from wimsi and aldous "works as intended" arguments ignore what many people already discussed in this thread.

Basically Andou says nothing more than "change is bad" and repeats that he does not like it and he does not think much of people who discuss it...
surprise...