EVE General Discussion

Lots of posts while I was sleeping.

Anyways, one of the problem assumptions that I keep seeing in this thread is that large corps/alliances are preying on tiny groups of 5 hapless miners who green behind the ears. I won't deny that this probably does happen, but many of the posters in this thread seem to think this is how every dec is. Frankly, it is far more common for small PVP corps to dec larger corps or alliances (many of them PVE/mining etc) because small groups don't provide enough targets for the ISK. Everyone here seems to think that bigger necessarily means better, when it is quite demonstrably not the case, up to a certain threshold. This is why so many people like HS PVP - they can engage in an area of engagement sizes in which player skill matters more than player numbers. More importantly, there aren't that many large PVP groups left in HS.

Another assumption was made that when griefer/dec corps get dec'd by mercs (or allied against), they immediately close shop and dock up. Sure, this happens in some cases, but frankly this doesn't happen nearly as much as was implied. Often the griefers will fight the mercs, and in many cases, are better than many of the groups that call themselves mercs (even several of the listed ones).

I also wanted to note the fact that a very large number of my decs that ended without a kill (which in total number less than 50) ended in no kills because the defender surrendered. Dec'ing people for ransom is a not-uncommon tactic and should be allowed. Those that pay (often) get off the hook and no one died. I know that many of the groups that paid ransom after we nearly destroyed their corps/alliances expressed the sentiment that they wished they had paid up front and not lost so much ISK to us.

One last major point I wanted to make regards POSes. Who here actually thinks people would agree to mutual wars if they have a POS? Without non-consensual decs, there is no way to remove these and no way to disrupt the industrial supply chain that occurs via POSes. Do you really want highsec to be full of perma-safe POSes researching BPOs with no way to interfere other than corp infiltration?

I know I don't want a game in which what I want to do happens just because I want it to. I play EVE because I can do what I want so long as I'm able and willing to force that to happen, via my own means, my associates, and my ISK. If I wanted to play a game where I can do what I want with no way for other people to interfere or impact me, I'd play a single player game.

Another section of the CSM minutes talked about interactions as a customer, player, and character.

To the majority of highsec corps, a wardec is a customer level interaction. Instead of playing EVE tonight, I will play something else. Saying you'll stop playing if wardecs are removed/changed is not as big a threat as the people who already do give up because of wardecs.

In their current form, wardecs offer no meaningful interaction for the average player.

If CCP does go down the rabbit hole, I suggest renaming the mechanic. A "declaration" of war is not a mutual thing. Almost all declarations historically have been unilaterally adopted. The 13 colonies didn't mutually ask King George III to accept their independence, they declared their independence to him whether he liked it or not! Maybe call it a War Agreement, which is hilariously absurd, since war often stems from disagreement.

Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.

I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon

Are there any plans or at least ideas to address the number of currently easy opt outs of the wardec system (corp hopping/NPC corps/etc)? Are they still in existence in it's current form out of consideration for those aforementioned customers who would rather not participate in wardecs? Should that be acceptable to just opt out like that and should CCP place such great consideration on those who resist what most perceive to be the nature of the game?

I have no problem with the concept of war, in theory it is a good thing which makes the game more interesting and helps to drive the economy. I think in practice it can be difficult to have a fight at all.

My opinion would be that the ratio of members in each corp should be considered when calculating the cost of declaring war, not to make it impossible for a one guy to declare war on a hundred but to make it as expensive as it is (should be) daft.
Currently an industrial corp wanting to displace another industrial corp needn't disrupt its own operation by declaring war, it pays a tiny merc corp that is outnumbered more than ten to one that will likely never undock/uncloak for the duration of the war to disrupt the victim (rather than fight them). A system that meant the two industrial corps had a direct war would seem a little more fun, purposeful and most importantly provide an opportunity for people to actually shoot at each other.
Perhaps the aggressor should be penalised in some way if they fail to take part in their own war.

People actually shooting at each other would also seem a way of opening roads into low and null from high, I might like shooting at people but Ive yet to need to inspite of having been at war, so far I havent needed to fit a gun to a ship to get through a war and that seems wrong (not to say that I diddnt buy ships to loose in a good cause).

I dont know what a solution is but wardecs dont currently imply that a war will take place, it is a system of irritation at best and it would be good to fight when you are at war - making lemonade when you have lemons.

I would much rather see the system left open so the players decide how it's used. If you, as an industrial corp, make the mistake of hiring a ****** merc who doesn't kill the people you hired them to kill, that's on you. If you got scammed by them, that's on you. The mechanics shouldn't be changed so that the player interaction has to go down like a script - they should be left as far open as possible to allow for players to write their own narratives and make their own choices.

Substantive, clear response. Thank you. Faith in CCP: moderately restored.

I can picture an EVE where wardecs have to be mutual, or where my corp can elect to be immune because we're not interested in PvP.

Pretend you're a big hisec industry corp, with a base of operations and a nice expensive high sec POS set up. And I'm a nomadic high sec PvE corp that has found your POS and wants you to move. And we're not interested in PvP.

So we move the miners in. They strip the local belts with alarming speed and regularity. Refine the ore, take the minerals far away and sell them. Every nearby grav site falls to their lasers. You look at these barges and exhumers, in your belts, and you can't do anything about them. Because we're not interested in PvP.

Then we figure out what you're making in that POS. Buy orders go up in every trade hub and we start importing and undercutting, at a marginal profit. Maybe we build what you build, just for less profit. Or no profit. Whatever. We have lines of haulers and freighters marching through your base of operations, and our traders undercut you at every turn. And you can't shoot those freighters down and defend your market share. Because we're not interested in PvP.

By now your corp is leaking members (why stay with you when we're doing industry, and not getting wardecced?). To raise revenue, you have to turn to mission running. That's okay; your have local agent access, and maybe you could break into the rig manufacturing game with all the salvage.

But we have people who can scan you down, come into your missions. Maybe they salvage everything. Maybe they take all the good bounties, or just shoot trigger rats and leave. Maybe they mine your polygypsum and green arisite and make mining missions unfinishable. And you can't do anything about this incursion. Because we're not interested in PvP.

wtf are you talking about?