EVE General Discussion

You still have not stated which high sec rules are being 'circumvented' in wardecs. I know this has been stated before, but every time you undock you are consenting to possible pvp. The thing is for noobs to learn this as quickly as possible and learn what they can do to minimize their losses which many of them do with the help of other pilots and corporations.

A noob may never catch up skill wise to a 10yr old player, but that does not mean that he cannot join a corporation who can whoop 10yr old butts.

Because you dont' like the idea of wardec PvP for the sake of PvP does not mean that isn't a good reason or a good goal for many of the players of EvE. It doesn't make it illegit or even wrong as you make it out to be.

You have your own code of how you think EvE should be played. Like the 10 year old pilot you mentioned above. You say that he should only look in low or null for a fight. Why? Because you are trying to push your own gaming values on everyone else.

That 10 year old pilot earned the right to fight whoever he wants and play as he wants. As you do. Yes, someone's play style will impact your play style, even violently without provocation. That is how the devs intended this game to work, even in high sec.

Because eve is a PVP game, go back to WoW, you'll be happier raiding dungeons there.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the episode of Jericho, see Casus Belli (Jericho episode). For the similar term "acts of war", see Acts of war (disambiguation).

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means bellic ("of war"). It is usually distinguished from casus foederis, where casus belli refers to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and casus foederis refers to offenses or threats to a fellow allied nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO.

The term came into wide usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory".[3][4] Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.

Proschema (plural proschemata) is the Greek equivalent term. The stated reasons may or may not be the actual reason for waging the war (prophasis, πρóφασις). The term was first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, who identified fear, honor, and interest as the three primary real reasons that wars are waged, while proschemata commonly play up nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to rational or reasonable fears).

CCP has said multiple times that EVE should be a hostile place where your day could be ruined any moment.

As the person that declares all of the wars for Whores in Space I am highly against your proposals. Eve should never be safe, even in high sec, so do not try to make it so.

What is your "reason" to not be war decced? Because you want to be make money risk free?

What would be my "reason" to dec you? To make sure you don't make money risk free.

In the real world it is impossible to make money without risk. Why are you so special?

I'll lay out my reasons for going to war: Because I want to.

I'll lay out the steps that may avert it: Pay me Isk

end of story

I'm not sure that this was directed at me or not but I'll address it nonetheless. Congratulations on giving out the ******** answer that is absolutely meaningless in what was an interesting discussion. "Becauthe it'th PVP and I don't wanna", what are you, 2 years old? Add something meaningful to the discussion or don't even bother because you are wasting everyone's time.

To the others with a similar argument some of what has been proposed would actually make your wars more interesting, by adding in the ability for a defending player to end the war on their own terms in some fashion (beyond the payment of ISK which comes right back to Ransom and may or may not be successful), you give them a reason to not turtle up and make your war boring. If a war is declared on me I would be perfectly happy to sit in a station and go play one of my other games that are sitting and waiting on the shelf for me to go finish if I have no meaningful way of hurting my attackers and am just going to lose ships. There is a valid psychological tactic to this. I take away your enjoyment of declaring war on me by not presenting a target and you will eventually get bored and stop. Sometimes that will take longer than others, but frankly, I can wait. That's not fun for you when I just sit in a station and wait for you to get bored of paying to continue the Declaration. How much more interesting would it be if the defending corp had a list of options they could make when the war is decc'ed that would allow them to end the war.

They could be from taking out 10% of your corps assets in a single week, keeping their losses to under 10% of their assets in a single week (conditional on them being in space for a set period a day), mining a billion ISK in ore without losing a ship (value changing depending on their corps size). There are probably others but I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet..... The point is that if the defender manages his "win condition" then the war ends at the end of the current week and the aggressor cannot implement another war against the same corp for a month. Some of the defenders will still turtle up and that happens but that's what a sandbox is for but some of them will actually try for their win-condition and what will that do? Give you more targets and give them a reason to play the game with you, they have something to aim for.

I have already elaborated in my previous post that you could make your "victory condition" a meaningless, unattainably high value so as to keep it going indefinitely, though I concede you could just leave the option on the aggressors side as no victory condition and have it as wars are now. It's not something to stop the care-bears whining that's being proposed, it's something to encourage the care-bears to be less care-beary.