Assembly Hall

My personal opinion is that EVE should be a free-for-all.

I recognize that the logical consequence of unrestricted warfare is that the strong will prey on the weak.

The goals of war in both EVE and in real-life are to disarm the enemy, and to enforce political goals to varying degrees. This can involve, to varying degrees, the destruction of armies, the invasion of territory, and the breaking of the enemy's will. Warfare in high-sec, whether Concord sanctioned or not, involves the destruction of enemy assets, and the destruction of the enemy's will to fight. Due to game mechanics, territory control in high-sec is a dubious goal.

I take it for my premise that the main complaints about high-sec violence chiefly revolve around the fact that most high-sec residents, especially primarily pve players have no desire, will or ability to fight. Against aggressors with both the will and capability to conduct war, unprepared defenders never stand a chance.

Some high-sec wars seem to be stale-mates, or cases where the aggressor does not continue the war, and the defender does not make the war mutual. I'd argue that the statistical majority of these cases are events where war-dec evasion, in the form of defending members dropping their corporation and reorganize in holding corporations and other forms of social gatherings, and making use of the game mechanics to generally avoid war. In some instances, it may well be that the aggressor does not have the capacity to overcome the defenders, in which case, the most logical course of action for the aggressor would be to stop the war.

The only case where a high-sec defender would suffer any meaningful loss from attempting to evade a war-dec would be if there are substantial corp assets such as POSes and expensive offices.

High-Sec warfare in EVE is as all warfare, conducted for political reasons. In the most extreme form of war, the goal would be the destruction of organizations, and the disbandment of a gathering of players; just as in the most extreme forms of null-sec or real-life war, the goal would be the annihilation of the opposing political body. Limited forms of war in high-sec would involve the destruction of assets, be it ships, or structures; it can also involve the containment or the erosion of the enemy's capabilities, by inhibiting income generating activities or recruitment.

The primary reaction of players who avoid war is denial. They never wanted to be in a situation where they could suffer loss. They are often outraged that another party would have the nerve to interfere with their activities. As a result, they do not respond to war as a form of social intercourse, where one party, being unable to fight would be forced to treat or surrender. Rather, they try to ignore the problem, and use every game mechanic available, or even meta-game appeals to game-masters to avoid conflict.

The tension between those who desire to force aggression on others and those who seek to avoid or rather, ignore conflict at any cost, is often seen as a social problem in EVE. As a problem between "solo" or anti-social players, who only want activities, be it PVP or PVE, at their own pace. and those who in my opinion, rightfully insist on full interaction between all players.

Ripard Teg, for example, compared unrestricted aggression between players and groups of players as "high-level" players being allowed to crush "low-level" players. Many critics of this view would dismiss the notion of distinguishing players or corporations as being "higher level" or "lower level" because EVE Online contains no clear in-built indicators of player-progression or skill. The social and realism aspects of the game makes mechanics like skill-points less decisive, or rather, a poor indicator, in determining an individual's or group's capabilities and performance in the game.

I propose that the difference between the performance of players and groups of players in EVE Online rests entirely in the meta-game. Organization, strategy and psychology are more often the defining factors of a group's abilities rather than the actual ships and modules that the game mechanics empower them to use. For this reason, it is impossible to implement any game mechanics that measure groups. But based on cursory estimates of the disposition of groups of players, it is still easy to tell the outcome of any conflict.

If some organizations are indisputably stronger than other organizations, should they then be allowed to aggress weaker organisations in high-sec? Proponents of aggression would argue that nature must run its course in EVE. The Strong will survive, those with the will to build strong organizations will prosper. Opponents of unrestricted high-sec aggression will argue that this would lead the the annihilation of the weak, which to them is a bad thing. Some go on to say that players with no desire to fight, being forced into conflict will result in the loss of subscription revenue, which would be a bad thing for CCP. (In fact entire arguments are formed around the gain and loss of subscription revenue.) The main problem with an argument revolving around subscription revenues is that it assumes that CCP's best course of action for the game is to capture as diverse a player base as possible. They would go on to say that low and null-sec are pvp outlets for players, and that high-sec should be a place for pve players to play in peace.

I believe that the essence of warfare and combat in EVE is the ability to pursue the conflict to decisive ends.

Continued.

Not every questions answered, I mostly let out the wardecs because I do not really care enough about them at the moment.

1. Who should be (suicide) ganking in high-sec?

Anyone who wants to suicide gank in high-sec. I would just put those people into a corner. If they are interested in that, and want to learn how concord-mechanic works, how you can trick them, and how a gank ultimatly works, should just ask, or do it.

2. Who should be ganked in high-sec?

Anyone. EVE is an non-consensiual game. Anyone is always in danger. Who to be ganked is a question for the one who ganks, and not the one who will be ganked.

3. Why should these people gank and be ganked high-sec? (especially when economic considerations are disregarded by the aggressors)

S.o. Because it is part of the game - an ecenomic loss is not really an argument. A simple ganking ship can be funded within a very short time.

10. Does a new player have a right to avoid pvp in high-sec? Does this only apply in rookie systems?

No, instead the tutorial should make a clear point of how to protect himself from other players, and how to act to avoid beeing ganked. AFK Mining, Autopiloting, Botting in missions...

11. Considering statement 10: Does a new Corporation have the right to avoid pvp in high-sec?

Nope. When you make a cooperation you gave to put funds and money into it, thus giving it already enough though to think about the topic "Could I be ganked or infiltrated."

11b. If we consider corporations that are "newbie friendly" or that brand themselves as places for new players to learn the game? Does this or should this affect the "ethics" of wardecs?

I doubt that most of the Corps who say "We are newbie friendly" actually provide help for the new ones. Yes, maybe a little, but they really just want some pilots to use. For cooperations who actually do it - just the new ones how to avoid PVP, as already mentioned.

All this considered, what is the future of high-sec aggression?

12. Considering that high-sec aggression in the form of predatory war-decs and suicide ganking is not a violation of the EULA although it is seen as and popularly labeled as "griefing".

It would be griefing if the gankers hunt down one target, all the time. From what I have gathered, most of the gankers have their own reasons. They fly in, pick a target at random a gank. They don't say "Let's fubar him over for the next week."

13. Also considering that many concessions have been made to the pacifist community in the form of mining barge buffs, and the permissibility of war-dec evasions.

As already mentioned - their might be a lot of "pacifism", it is still a PVP game.

14. And bearing in mind that a statistical majority of characters accumulate their wealth in high-sec.

They do, but protecting themselves against harm is a rather simple matter. No AFKing, no anti-tanking, not botting.

15. Should we be encouraging or discouraging High-Sec Aggression?

Neither. This should be balanced out by itself.

16. "Harsh competition in high-sec costs us subscription revenue" - Does this warrant any interference with high-sec aggression? Would the game be better if high-sec was a less competitive environment?

Well, if CCP is so hard on their money, they should change high sec to no PVP at all. But that would - on the other hand - ruin the game for a lot of other people too, and they had to change a lot of things as well. I am sure they won't make this.

17. Would the game be better or worse if there was more prevalence of high-sec aggression?

I would say it would be better, because more exciting and tense. But, that's just my opinion.

Answering just 2 (who should be ganked in HS)

- Anyone that refuses to take appropriate countermeasures.


Seriously, it's not hard to recognise that if you are mining in a nice shiny Hulk, the seven Catalysts on D-Scan are NOT your friends, and not even neutral. That's plenty of warning to avoid a gank.

Noone that uses the market is immune to market PVP (undercutting), noone that mines is immune to resource PVP (someone else beating you to the best asteroids/icefields), noone that undocks should be immune to ship v ship PVP.

Ganking and wardecs need to be made easier and more fun. They've piled on nerf after nerf to them over the years, but why? The main draw of EVE is how open it is, and basically how much of an arse you can be. They used to promote such things in the bloody trailers. I mean no one joins up to EVE because of the PVE - at least in other mmos the PVE is colourful and varied, in EVE it's red crosses on a spreadsheet.

1. Who should be (suicide) ganking in high-sec?
Anyone who wants to.

2. Who should be ganked in high-sec?
Anyone the gankers deem a worthy target, for whatever reasons they have come up with for that worth.

3. Why should these people gank and be ganked high-sec? (especially when economic considerations are disregarded by the aggressors)
crazy loot in the cargohold, running their mouth, target of a merc contract, whatever,

Should wardecs exist outside of RvB and giant null-coalitions settling scores in trade hubs?
YES

4. considering that many people avoid pvp like the plague, and the prevalence of dec avoidance,
YES

5. considering that anyone with half a brain-stem would commit aggression when there are favourable chances of winning,
YES

6. noting the outrage over the infanticide of vulnerable corporations and alliances,
YES

7. Who should be deccing whom?
Anyone and everyone.

8. Why should they be in wardecs? In a structureless, sovless high-sec, does there even need to be a reason?
Settle scores, drive off the other guys, stake a claim (as best as possible) to a system, etc.


9. "Stronger Corporations and Alliances should not be able to harm weaker Corporations and Alliances in high-sec." I assume that no-one would even consider this notion in low or null-sec, but is this statement valid in high-sec?
NO


9b. If a null-sec entity launches a vicious propaganda campaign against another null-sec entity, noone really cares.
But a high-sec entity launches a vicious military and psychological campaign against a weaker high-sec entity. And this is called, bullying, griefing, new-player and new-corp infanticide, etc.
Grow up.

James 315 is spouting all kinds of rhetoric about "ebil miners" ... and the miners are doing the same thing about him.


10. Does a new player have a right to avoid pvp in high-sec? Does this only apply in rookie systems?
No, not entirely. If they're subject to different rules than the rest of us, they'll be in for even more of a shock than they already are. Hell, just look at the whining of "older" players who have only missioned or mined for the last 4 years.

Miners -- take about 1 year to get all mining and refining sills to 5, maybe 18 months (note, last time I did this was when the learning skills were a thing).

Missioners -- you're already training combat skills.

There's no excuse for a four year old character to not have at least the basic skills necessary to fly a meta-fit cruiser or BC well.

11. Considering statement 10: Does a new Corporation have the right to avoid pvp in high-sec?
No.

11b. If we consider corporations that are "newbie friendly" or that brand themselves as places for new players to learn the game? Does this or should this affect the "ethics" of wardecs?
No. Shielding players against EVE (for any reason) is a bad thing.

All this considered, what is the future of high-sec aggression?

12. Considering that high-sec aggression in the form of predatory war-decs and suicide ganking is not a violation of the EULA although it is seen as and popularly labeled as "griefing".
It's not griefing per CCP. Stop applying non-EVE expectations to EVE.

13. Also considering that many concessions have been made to the pacifist community in the form of mining barge buffs, and the permissibility of war-dec evasions.
This was a bad move on CCP's part. Miners only learned that "A ret fit for max yield will outmine a 'tanky' Mack" (sic). Nothing has changed.

14. And bearing in mind that a statistical majority of characters accumulate their wealth in high-sec.
OK ... this shouldn't be the case.


15. Should we be encouraging or discouraging High-Sec Aggression?
Yes.


15b. and to what extent?
Turn it up to 11.


16. "Harsh competition in high-sec costs us subscription revenue" - Does this warrant any interference with high-sec aggression? Would the game be better if high-sec was a less competitive environment?
No to both.

17. Would the game be better or worse if there was more prevalence of high-sec aggression?
That depends. CCP would need to HTFU first and get back where they used to be (i.e. most responses about "it's not fairrrr!!" were responded to with "them's the ropes, get used to it")

1. Who should be (suicide) ganking in high-sec?
Anybody who can or wants to.

2. Who should be ganked in high-sec?
Anybody that others want to gank.

3. Why should these people gank and be ganked high-sec? (especially when economic considerations are disregarded by the aggressors)
If people make themselves victims by the way they play, then they should be treated as such by those who are predators.

3a. Should wardecs exist outside of RvB and giant null-coalitions settling scores in trade hubs?
Definitely, war decs are a way to inflict both psychological and economic warfare on others.

4. considering that many people avoid pvp like the plague, and the prevalence of dec avoidance,
Emphatically yes, we're playing Eve precisely because it's not a copy of every other MMO out there.

5. considering that anyone with half a brain-stem would commit aggression when there are favourable chances of winning,
Once again emphatically yes.

6. noting the outrage over the infanticide of vulnerable corporations and alliances,
If vulnerable corps and alliances were immune to war decs then they would become the norm, and that's not good for Eve as a game, or an idea. It's up to corporations and alliances to organise themselves so that they aren't vulnerable, not CCP.

7. Who should be deccing whom?
Anybody who feels that they have a reason to, just for lols or because they can.

8. Why should they be in wardecs? In a structureless, sovless high-sec, does there even need to be a reason?
Highsec isn't absolute safety, and neither should it be. War is a natural progression that is encouraged by the single shard and the competitive nature of the game.

9. "Stronger Corporations and Alliances should not be able to harm weaker Corporations and Alliances in high-sec." I assume that no-one would even consider this notion in low or null-sec, but is this statement valid in high-sec?
No, see my answer to 6.

9b. If a null-sec entity launches a vicious propaganda campaign against another null-sec entity, noone really cares.
But a high-sec entity launches a vicious military and psychological campaign against a weaker high-sec entity. And this is called, bullying, griefing, new-player and new-corp infanticide, etc.
Too many people think that highsec should be safe, they need to have that illusion broken as soon as possible, Eve is a competitive game, no one should be immune to unwanted aggression.

10. Does a new player have a right to avoid pvp in high-sec? Does this only apply in rookie systems?
No, while in a rookie system they are technically in nursery school and pretty safe, the moment they leave rookie systems they are valid targets, if they never experience PvP, they never learn from the experience.

11. Considering statement 10: Does a new Corporation have the right to avoid pvp in high-sec?
No, a new corporation becomes a valid PvP target the moment it is formed. NPC corps already fill the role of corporations that are for all intents and purposes immune to PvP, although that's not necessarily a good thing, people who are PvP averse gather in NPC corps and use them as a Decshield, it gives them the ability to affect others without others being able to overly affect them.

11b. If we consider corporations that are "newbie friendly" or that brand themselves as places for new players to learn the game? Does this or should this affect the "ethics" of wardecs?
No, newbie friendly corps and teaching corps such as Eve-Uni should be teaching their members to protect themselves from predators, if they fail to do so, then they aren't newbie friendly or teaching corps, they're just terrible corps.

All this considered, what is the future of high-sec aggression?

12. Considering that high-sec aggression in the form of predatory war-decs and suicide ganking is not a violation of the EULA although it is seen as and popularly labeled as "griefing".
Griefing is defined by CCP, what players think is griefing is irrelevant, no matter what other games have taught them about what is and what is not acceptable.

13. Also considering that many concessions have been made to the pacifist community in the form of mining barge buffs, and the permissibility of war-dec evasions.
The mining barge EHP buffs weren't needed, a tanked prebuff barge was already unprofitable to gank for the most part. As it is the current barges are unbalanced, the Mackinaw is king of the hill for the afk.

14. And bearing in mind that a statistical majority of characters accumulate their wealth in high-sec.
Most nullsec players have Isk making alts in highsec because the industry balance is skewed badly in favour of highsec. Player owned stations should be better for industry than NPC owned ones.

15. Should we be encouraging or discouraging High-Sec Aggression?
We should be encouraging more people to shoot at each other in highsec, destruction drives the economy, and it drives the player run stories.

15b. and to what extent?
As much as possible, crank it all the way up.

16. "Harsh competition in high-sec costs us subscription revenue" - Does this warrant any interference with high-sec aggression? Would the game be better if high-sec was a less competitive environment?
Emphatically no to both questions. CCP have stated in the past that they see themselves as janitors, therefore they should not interfere unless something is broken. Eve is a niche game, catering to the lowest common denominator would kill the game, and the ideal that CCP set out to achieve. It's not meant to be a copy of every other MMO that just happens to be set in space, it's meant to be a representation of an alternate reality where the protagonists are immortal and where warfare is just another way of doing business.

17. Would the game be better or worse if there was more prevalence of high-sec aggression?
It would be better, despite the amount of anguish it would generate from players who've come from lesser games.

1. Who should be (suicide) ganking in high-sec?

Anyone who wants to.

2. Who should be ganked in high-sec?

Anyone the gankers deem a worthy target, for whatever reasons they have come up with for that worth.

3. Why should these people gank and be ganked high-sec? (especially when economic considerations are disregarded by the aggressors)

crazy loot in the cargohold, running their mouth, target of a merc contract, posting surveys on the forums, etc...

Should wardecs exist outside of RvB and giant null-coalitions settling scores in trade hubs?

Absolutely

4. considering that many people avoid pvp like the plague, and the prevalence of dec avoidance,

With very few exceptions, everything you do in this game indirectly or directly competes with another pilot, typically through economic means. As such, they should always be subject to ship-to-ship PvP, which is the most direct form of competition in game! While I fully support the idea there is a time to fight and a time to run... I firmly believe that the simplicity of War Dec Avoidance is simply broken. There should be a mechanism that ultimately encourages you to operate under the dangers presented by the wardec rather than simply remove yourself from danger.

5. considering that anyone with half a brain-stem would commit aggression when there are favourable chances of winning,

Winning... how do you define winning? Is it wiping out your enemy ships and salvaging the field? Is it destroying more isk than you lose? Is it cockblocking your opponent? Is it getting your opponent to disband? Is it surviving, hardening up, learning new things, trying out a new tactic, or simply enjoying your time playing? We are all stuck on the standard gaming concept that winning is not suffering loses... be it stuff, lives, etc... But in a game where you respawn indefinitely, where you can accrue as much resources as you desire, winning is ambiguous enough that both sides can fight, and both sides can "win" simultaneously. In short... YES!

6. noting the outrage over the infanticide of vulnerable corporations and alliances,

The need to HTFU, adapt, or go NPC.

7. Who should be deccing whom?

Anyone and everyone.

8. Why should they be in wardecs? In a structureless, sovless high-sec, does there even need to be a reason?

Settle scores, drive off the other guys, stake a claim (as best as possible) to a system, etc.

-- You do bring up a good point with this question: Highsec needs more vulnerable assets! This will encourage more conflict, both for offense and defense!

9. "Stronger Corporations and Alliances should not be able to harm weaker Corporations and Alliances in high-sec." I assume that no-one would even consider this notion in low or null-sec, but is this statement valid in high-sec?

That statement is ridiculous, no matter the sec status....

9b. If a null-sec entity launches a vicious propaganda campaign against another null-sec entity, noone really cares.
But a high-sec entity launches a vicious military and psychological campaign against a weaker high-sec entity. And this is called, bullying, griefing, new-player and new-corp infanticide, etc.

Bullying a corp does not equate to bullying a person... If you make a corp, it is subjected to being bullied... accept it!

10. Does a new player have a right to avoid pvp in high-sec? Does this only apply in rookie systems?

No... a new player does not have the right to avoid PvP... and Rookie Systems PvP protections are generally a bad thing...

11. Considering statement 10: Does a new Corporation have the right to avoid pvp in high-sec?

Absolutely No.

11b. If we consider corporations that are "newbie friendly" or that brand themselves as places for new players to learn the game? Does this or should this affect the "ethics" of wardecs?

No. Shielding players against EVE (for any reason) is a bad thing.

12. Considering that high-sec aggression in the form of predatory war-decs and suicide ganking is not a violation of the EULA although it is seen as and popularly labeled as "griefing".

Suicide ganking a 100% viable tactic... it should be encouraged, not discouraged..

All corps should be subject to predatory wars... that's the danger in being in a Non-NPC corp. NPC corps should hinder game play more (steeper taxes, refining taxes, market taxes, etc)

13. Also considering that many concessions have been made to the pacifist community in the form of mining barge buffs, and the permissibility of war-dec evasions.

The mining barge changes were ok.. but not quite optimal. T1 Mining barges should have slightly lower tanks, making max yield fits more susceptible to suicide ganking.

14. And bearing in mind that a statistical majority of characters accumulate their wealth in high-sec.

Conflict is quite often economically motivated... If Highsec represents the largets economic activity, it should be subjected to all forms of conflict!

15. Should we be encouraging High-Sec Aggression?

Conflict should be allowed to chase the money/resources... anywhere..

15b. to what extent?

Players should have the opportunity to defend themselves from losses...

16. "Harsh competition in high-sec costs us subscription revenue" - Does this warrant any interference? Would the game be better if high-sec was a less competitive environment?

No to both.

17. Would the game be better or worse if there was more prevalence of high-sec aggression?
[*] Better: Conflict drives our economy, it creates content, and is a good for the game!!!

Getting some great responses, including those from carebears. Hope to see more.

I'm getting about 20% carebear responses, been asking in the E-Uni and ultra-shiny incursion channels.

I'm just using the term in a very broad sense to refer to non-aggressive players.

From the individual responses, I do see quite a few players who won't harm a fly, but are more than happy to play in a more aggressive environment.