Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Honestly most highsec wars do have goals. Yes, there are groups that use wardecs just to get easy kills on newbs/industrial folks. But a lot of wars are over strategic things as well... or to limit a 0.0 or lowsec entity's ability to support themselves logistically (hauling, not repping) Or to drive a competitor out of an area.

Not all wardecs are just to shoot plebs.

Your idea isn't a BAD one but you're trying to over generalize. A lot of wars can't realistically have a 'goal' because they have several or are broad in nature specifically because the objective is nebulous.

I wardec corps when they refuse to buy mining permits and follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.

It almost always goes like this:

I gank one of their miners and contact the CEO to tell him they are mining in New Order space and that each member will need a permit and to follow the Code. He sends back a, usually, offensive refusal. I give them five minutes. Nothing happens (for five minutes). Then I wardec the corp.

On very rare occasions they fight back. On even rarer occasions they fight back for a long time. In most cases, a bunch of the members drop to NPC corps, the rest don't log in or sit in station continuously. After several weeks either the corp is dead or I move on to someone else. The corps usually don't recover.

So, what's the point of this?

If you follow the New Order you know we are dedicated to saving highsec. Since highsec miners often are bot aspirants AND highsec mining CEOs are the worst sort we are saving highsec by destroying corporations that have no reason to exist other than to take advantage of new players. This usually means the CEOs get rich off the labor of their minions. A wardec shows these rank and file miners that what they are doing is both pointless AND humiliating. Nobody joins Eve because they heard the minings great! They join to shoot spaceships and CEOs who somehow convince the new blood that they have to be an AFK drone flower picker ruin the game for them. People get bored by doing repetitive tasking and mining is the most repetitive thing a person can do in game. I mean it really sucks and people only do it if they can AFK and go watch TV or something. Since this is a violation of the Code, as not-playing the game is by definition not playing the game we force players to interact, respond, and in general, not undock in a vulnerable ship, siddle up next to a rock, start the lasers ...and go do the laundry.

Long but cool story, eh? So, I have a purpose for my wardecs which probably looks indistinquishable from what the OP says most highsec wardecs are. And yet, its a perfectly good reason in my mind.

Remembering that I am always looking for new corps to wardec... who's to say different?

Nope

Im actually pushing for social corps that behave no differently to npc corps as far as game mechanics are concerned.

Npc Corp tax level that is an isk sink
No Corp tax/no Corp wallet
No hangars
No Corp assets
No Corp contracts


All you get is a common chat channel, a killmail api, medals, a mailing list, a Corp name and ticker, a calendar and the other social aspects of a Corp.

For the love of god(s) no!

All ships are combat ships... any attempt to define ships as non-combat (untouchable) will result in the worst exploitation...

Try putting a point on your mining ship during a wardec...
or try attacking 5 hostile barges with light drones and see how that turns out...
or using a brick tank industrial as bait...

You'll soon realise that all ships have the capability to defend themselves, some more than others, but every ship in the game can defend itself and be used in a combat role.

P.s. Yes OK, freighters can't really be used in a combat role... but they are still provided with tools to defend themselves, mostly by avoiding the fights.

I've taken on many more than 5 barges and won. they are not defensible. they are fragile and easy to beat a t3 vs a t1 or t2 mining barge the t3 wins every time.

also your looking at corporations that have potentially no combat pilots those drone skills are just enough to get t2 drones to kill rats. even in null you have to call for help if rats come in or its RIP hulk.

I don't have a problem with wardecs existing.

The issue that I have, is there is no incentive to actually fight, on either side.
With the current wardec system, the best strategy is denial. Notice I say "best" strategy.

Why is it that this is the best strategy, as opposed to fighting it out?

Lets look at some of the reasons:
Station games, gate games, out of corp logi/boosts, significantly outnumbered, outgunned/outclassed, neutral scouting, surprise attacks (IE - catching a miner or missioner out alone), no way for defender to end the war that would be considered a win, and no incentives to fight..

So, how to we resolve the issues?

Station/gate games - Increase the aggression timer to something like 2 minutes or more

Out of corp logi/boosts/any other interference - Make these CONCORD offenses. This ensures the fight stay between the two entities

Significantly outnumbered - Instead of making it cost more to wardec large entities (which only helps to protect major alliances) make it cost more for every pilot you outnumber the defender by.

Outgunned/outclassed - Sorry, but this will never and should never change... As mentioned on another comment, you can load your corp down with ewar frigs and troll the aggressor all day because they can't target. Even if they're flying T3 cruisers, there's likely something you can do to at least hurt them a little.

Neutral Scouting - Again, this will not and should not change. It's possible to gain intel and determine who their scouts are. You can also use your own scouts.

Surprise Attacks - This, as well, isn't an issue directly. Thus is should not and will not change... HOWEVER, this does have ties to "no way to win" and "no incentive", which I'm about to get to.

No way for defender to win the war - There needs to be something to give the defender the ability to essentially "win" the war.
Typically, what the defender is looking for, is for the war to end. That's generally their main goal. To stop the war so they can get back to what they enjoy doing. The most common suggestion for doing this is a structure, something like a war banner, to which they can destroy and will lead to the end of the war.
There are those that argue "this is just another way for people to get around the wardec". To you I say, you are biased and only wish to see wardecs stay in your favor, so that you can continue to undock when you want to, and have no vested interest in the war apart from blowing unsuspecting people up. You are essentially forcing your preferred play style onto your target. They can't force their activities onto you. They can't force you to run sites, mission, mine, produce, or whatever it is they do.
Therefore, they need to be presented with an option that will allow them to restore their way of play.
The best part about this for the aggressor, is that this option is to actually fight.
So, if you say no to this idea, it shows that you have no intentions to fight and only want KMs.
Mind you, this is coming from a player (myself) who just used the wardec mechanic in order to pop two miners and their pods, worth over 2.5 billion isk. So, I've been on both sides of the coin and have seen the imbalance.

No incentives to fight - The attacker doesn't have to fight if the situation doesn't suit them, and the defender has no interest in fighting if they have no structures, as it will have no positive outcome. So far, the structure idea is the best way to accomplish this (unless someone has a better idea). This provides the defender with a means to an out through combat, while the aggressor has targets brought to them and must fight in order keep the war going.


Now, someone will note the obvious flaws with a structure oriented design.

those being:
The current ally mechanic - With these changes, remove that system. If they wish to ally, they can pay to have to other entity wardec the target.

The aggressor will just place the structure somewhere they can easily defend - The option here is that the aggressor must place the structure either in the defender's home system(option 1), or a HS system located directly between the two entities home systems (option 2). In either case, the aggressor shouldn't be allow have things so easy.

If the aggressor decs a large entity, they'll just day one pop the structure - Well, that's the kind of crap that happens when you try to pick on the bigger kid. Don't start a fight you can't handle.

SOV entities wardeccing each other shouldn't revolve around a single structure - To this I agree, which is why I feel that any SOV entity should be able to wardec any other SOV entity without the use of a structure. The way to stop the war is to take their SOV. Perhaps this should be attached to a "home system" or something along that means, so that they can't just SOV jump all over the place. However, if a SOV entity wishes to wardec a HS entity, they must place a structure in HS.

What if a defender still doesn't fight - Well, that's their problem. As long as the structure is up, and the aggressor continues to fuel it/leave it anchored, they can keep them wardecced.

How is this fair to the aggressor - Well, firstly the ability for the defender to ally is taken away. Second, you started a wardec. Don't be surprised that the intent here is to actually get you to fight in your own wardec. With this scenario, it also has the benefit of bringing your target to a place where you can fight them, away from gates and stations. In other words, if the defender is willing to fight, the fight is brought to a centralized location.
This benefits aggressors who intend to fight, were as the current mechanics benefit aggressors who intend surprise attacks with no intent of actually engaging in risks.
This also benefits defenders who intend to fight and actually gives them something to fight, where as the current mechanics favor those who can deny the aggressor until they get...

Joe, what are your feelings on mercenaries joining a wardecced corp instead of using assist mechanic?

I like your idea Joe,

I left a corp and alliance that I very much enjoyed being in because they were under constant war dec. And I'm not into non-mutual PvP for the most part. Without that social aspect of the game, my interest has waned and I've left the game several times now for very lengthy periods.

What are your thoughts on exempting non-combat ships from War Decs (miners, industrials, haulers, shuttles)? Such that CONCORD would still respond as normal to attacks on such vessels? That is of course unless they engaged in some aggressive action (or perhaps even if they are equipped with any offensive modules).

Frankly if I can't engage in these non-combat PvE activities without being harassed (outside of suicide ganking), then I'll probably never join an Player Corp again and that's really one of the most engaging aspects of the game that keeps people subscribed.

I don't think non-combat ships should be valid targets in a War Dec anyhow, since if it's really about PvP then what's the sense in attacking ships that can't fight back, particularly ones a solo pilot can pop in under 30 seconds. I think those who object know that for them it's really about getting their jollys from harassment and griefing their War Decced target.

I'm sure CCP could put a little more thought and effort into it and have the exclusion only apply to non-combat ships (this does not include combat PvE ships), and only non-combat ships that are not fitted with any offensive modules. Which is clearly a bit more coding effort.

The fact of the matter is, even with your suggestion, a corp can STILL be under constant War Dec and there will still be plenty of daily opportunity to grief defenseless ships.

So unless your new idea comes with a period of time where a corp cannot be War Decced after a previous War Dec, then it's still a way to continually grief corps (and players) who want to get back to doing what it is they enjoy doing (which wasn't that the goal you laid out).

Perhaps have a two week breather after finishing a war. Or for every day you are War Decced you get two days where you can't be War Decced after the war ends.

If EVE doesn't have enough interest for those who opt-in to consensual PvP to engage in PvP with one another such that players must be forced into it, then maybe EVE isn't the game CCP (and PvPers) think it is. Apparently there are far too many people who play EVE who don't want to engage in PvP and many others who don't want to engage in actual PvP battles against worthy PvP opponents. That is if there is this pressing need to force those who don't want to PvP into it, otherwise you're not allowed to participate in the social aspects of the game (corporations).

There are other options to consider as well. For instance, if the War Deccing corporation is paying off CONCORD to look the other way, or whatever is going on there, why not allow the defending corp to counter-bribe? It could be a bidding war, and a huge ISK sink.

People have fought war for genocide. Seems to be working as intended.