These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Declarations need Reform
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-06-03 23:05:40 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.

And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.

I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?



Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.

So you are saying I should not be able to war dec ice miners just because i want an ice belt all to myself? I think that is part of war. You fight over resources no matter where they are.


Quote:
Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?

lol sounds like the real world doesn't it.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-06-03 23:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Of course it's being circumvented. It's high sec and it effectively takes away a high sec status arbitrarily at the whim of any corp with enough ISK to buy off CONCORD. "Working as intended" doesn't mean it's a good thing or makes sense. I'd have thought "real PvPer" would love the ability to actually beat another side. But here you come crying at the thought that you might actually have to put something valuable on the line to wage a supposed war or that you could actually lose. It's PvP care bearing at it's best. OMG, the poor schmucks I declared war on can actually hurt me back?!?!? Oh noes!!

Here's your tissue. You need it more than I do.


You understand that a POS + the cost of keeping it up for a month doesn't even come close to the cost of even one of the ships they tend to use to wreck you, right? Putting up a small tower somewhere and keeping it fueled isn't really an obstacle to any wardec corp.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-06-04 00:13:10 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s).



Just going to point out this is essentially being put into effect with the new tags-for-security system. Since
a) Concord will pay isk for the specific tags
b) Concord will increase your security rating (standing) for the tags
and
c) Players can sell you the tags for isk;

You can essentially pay concord isk, indirectly, to repair your sec status after ganking. Essentially, you pay them the ship you want to use, + the portion of the cost of the tag, for the chance at suicide ganking. It's basically a cost proportionate to what you want to gank with, bribe system =)
Paul Panala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-06-04 00:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Panala
The war system is broken. A corp should be able to declare war on another. I am not saying high-sec should be 100% safe, but the current system is super broken. I have long said there should be a way to "WIN" a war and end it. I was in a pretty large corp with a lot of PvP pilots, we just lived in high sec as a staging area and to support some of our newer players. We would get war deced all the time. We would flat-out win every engagement, so they just avoided us. However, as long as the war went on they would use cloaked T3s to pop in our systems and try to smash noobs, sad really.

A few months ago I wrote up some ideas that I thought would make wars more interesting, and more importantly, winnable. I got a lot of flack in the forum by the typical trolls who fuss at any and every suggestion made, but most real players I talked to thought it was a good idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=202438
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#25 - 2013-06-04 01:20:41 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.

And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.

I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?



Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.



?? Wardecs circumvent hisec rules? no, they don't. They adhere to high-sec rules.

But once again OP proves my point that SOME players think that THEIR set of "unpoken rules" that THEY believe EVERY players should live by is the ONLY way EvE should be played. EvE is not set up your way OP for a reason, because it is not your creation.

If I want to wardec a corporation who are you to tell me why or why I can't? Does any country that invades another country always go through a council and find out if their war is ok with the world? NO. Who are you to say when there is or isn't provocation? Maybe I dec because a mining corp is mining out noob starter systems, or maybe they bumped my ship, or were rude to me in local, or killed a m8 of mine.... which reason do YOU accept or not accept?

Maybe if you come to the realization that EvE is (IMO) first and foremost a PVP game with lots of alternative paths to take, but the making and blowing up of ships drives the markets and the game.

... and next? are you going to cry out for justice and saying that suicide ganking is not fair too in hisec?

You don't understand EvE yet my friend.


I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
Haulie Berry
#26 - 2013-06-04 01:26:17 UTC
Military experts are calling this a "shitpost".
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#27 - 2013-06-04 01:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: BoSau Hotim
Prototype SV-17 wrote:

The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.



There is a goal in war that is already accomplished... the destruction of ships, sometimes the destruction of corporations. It is easy to see who the winner is (if there are actual battles) when you look at the war report.
It's your opinion that it's pointless fighting for the sake of fighting, because there are MANY of us out there that dec for the PVP action.

So since you believe it's pointless fighting for the sake of fighting, but a huge amount of us don't agree with you where does that leave this discussion? Don't fight then. Stay in an NPC corp - or jump out of your corp if there is a dec and play your happy little game the way you want. But don't try to speak for the rest of us.

I like to fight for the pure pleasure of fighting and blowing things up.

Boom

The only things I would change would be allowing a corporation to dec another coporation alone even if it is in an alliance, and I would change the wardec payment depending on the size of the corp that is dec'ing, smaller cost for a smaller corp.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-06-04 02:33:56 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.


judging by the way the expansions and whatnot seem to want to make everything easier and quicker with less effort from the player, were likely to se "pvp-free regions" and "pvp-immunity" here in about a year or two.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#29 - 2013-06-04 02:59:57 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.


judging by the way the expansions and whatnot seem to want to make everything easier and quicker with less effort from the player, were likely to se "pvp-free regions" and "pvp-immunity" here in about a year or two.

A few years ago I estimated that they'll remove suicide-ganking sometimes within 2014, possibly by doing something that interferes with player weaponry, most likely around celestial objects (stations, gates, belts). They'll pass it off as another CONCORD balancing buff, just like the warp scramble ray, front-loaded penalties, et cetera, while saying "no no, EVE is a harsh and dangerous place, we will never remove your ability to shoot other players anywhere you want, you can still do it in deadspace, see!?" So far, I'm standing by this prediction.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Haedonism Bot
People for the Ethical Treatment of Rogue Drones
#30 - 2013-06-04 09:16:11 UTC
Quote:
The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.


Your sense of history is pretty much opposite of the way it actually went down. The fundamental principle of this game is expressed in its name - Everybody Versus Everybody. In the early days EVE was intended to be pretty much a PvP free for all. High security meant more security than low or null, but still fundamentally a PvP free for all. Over the years, lots of whiney care bear threads (much like this one) appeared on the forums crying for more security in high sec, and little by little CCP caved under the pressure. Nerf after nerf has made highsec the almost-safe-almost-themepark that we have today. And yet still the care bears cry for more nerfs to high sec PvP, as you have shown us.

War decs are not a means of "circumventing highsec rules", they are a fundamental and indispensible part of highsec rules, which has existed almost since the beginning of EVE. If you want an example of a mechanic that truly amounts to a circumvention of highsec rules, look at the way and defending corp in a wardec can simply disband and reform, nullifying the wardec and hitting the aggressors for the fee.

I do, however, agree with you that the wardec system could use another look by the devs. The main issues with it are wardec evasion on the part of the defenders, and cost of wardec fees. Your idea of forcing the aggressors to slap up a small tower somewhere just amounts to an additional fee, which would be negligible for the major wardec corps and would pose an obstacle for smaller corps looking to get into the game.

It would be nice if the system had more consequences for aggressors losing a war, and rewards for winning it, but I'm not sure what that could realistically look like. The idea should be to encourage more conflict, not to discourage it, and to provide incentive even for industrial and PVE corps to fight wars. I would love to see a situation where industrial corps were fighting each other over control of the highsec ice belts, for example.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-06-04 09:24:30 UTC
Nothing important happens in highsec.
Miss Altiana
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-06-04 09:53:51 UTC
OP do have a point, you all know that EVE advertice several careers, Miner, Industrialist, these two as a example, means if i choose to play these two careers in EVE, i should be able to fight back with options available as a Miner and Industrialist, i shouldent have to need to use space ships, there should be viable economic ways to fight back with. These tools dont exist at moment

PvP is not equal to SvS(ship vs ship), PvP stands for a player versus player, but i as a fairly noob to this genere realice that the majoirity in this thread advocate SvS and not PvP, ie there need to be more ways to fight back with, or are you saying the game designers are wrong and that the game careers Miner and Industrialist is a lie ;P

Is abit funny, thinking that force is the predominate way to hurt each other, and only way, in a era as advanced as this, but then again most males when placed before a wall, will take a sledge and try to knock it down, while any sane woman will open the door and walk through ! ;P
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-06-04 09:56:43 UTC
Of course they do, it's called hiring mercs to handle the dirty work. You can be strong in terms of firepower, strong financially or you can try outsmarting your opponents and leaving them nothing to shoot at. You don't have to play their game in order to fight back.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#34 - 2013-06-04 10:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
As someone who's run a mercenary corporation for a while, I can assuredly tell you that while "miners" and "industrialists" will explore the possibility of mercenaries during hostilities, most will quickly let go of the idea once they are informed that the mercenaries would have to receive some form of compensation for their work. And therein lies the problem with this game, two problems actually:

1. This game, like all other games, is played by children, or adults with the minds of children, who are too young/uneducated/nonerudite to understand the concept of opportunity cost beyond the rudimentary my-first-poker-game "the more I bet the more I can win" level, which causes them to forgo the opportunity to solve a problem at its very roots in favor of putting as many mining laser upgrades on their Hulks as possible to be able to mine as much as possible before the wars go live, forcing them to stay logged off for a week.
2. It is so easy to avoid hostilities if you spend ten minutes reading about how the mechanics actually work, that hiring mercenaries isn't just cost-inefficient, but downright stupid.

Miss Altiana wrote:
Is abit funny, thinking that force is the predominate way to hurt each other, and only way, in a era as advanced as this, but then again most males when placed before a wall, will take a sledge and try to knock it down, while any sane woman will open the door and walk through ! ;P

Is that before or after the door is built by the males who made a hole with the hammers?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-06-04 10:40:28 UTC
Kinda agree with Destiny too, although there's always a point where hiring mercs will become viable, such as if you've already **** the bed and are looking at the reinforcement timer of your industry pos with no way to protect the assets foolishly stored within. In this case too though, being smart in the first place would've prevented the issue entirely and allowed you to take down the tower in the 24 hour time you have before a war declaration goes live. Or even just doing the investigation and finding out that it's more than possible to remotely do your research jobs without ever endangering your blueprints which would be safely tucked away in the corp hangar in a station you rent office from.

Long story short; one way or another you have to either be smarter or stronger than them. And absolutely everyone has that option from the lowliest miner to the so called elite pvp'rs, what that way is varies from time to time and there's always going to be people who have the means to beat you in that way, resulting in you having to rethink how to best protect yourself. Just the way it goes.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2013-06-04 11:11:38 UTC
I'd say wardeccing you because I want you rebels to disband is a pretty good reason.

Also, with so much wealth in high-sec, it's a pretty juicy target for aggression. Profit is also a good reason.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Baldour Ngarr
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-06-04 11:49:03 UTC
OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war?
Haramir Haleths
Nutella Bande
#38 - 2013-06-04 11:53:12 UTC
Hi,

the good thing about Eve is you have always a choice ...

1. Go to a non player corp. They cannot wardec you in non player corps.
2. Go to 00. They dont wardec you in 00
3. Be clever .... use game mechanics to avoid being ganked

So many choices.

With best regards
Baldour Ngarr
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-06-04 11:54:05 UTC
None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war.
Kathy Stewart
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-06-04 11:54:25 UTC
stay in your npc then