Warfare & Tactics

Actually the first group contributes all those ships and mods we so love to go blow things up with. They they're pretty much the entire reason that the pvp even exists in the first place and we're not all just flying around in pods bumping eachother.

First off you keep trying to give examples of one thing killing another for no reason, but every single example has very obvious reasons.

1.) Fox kills a chicken for food and sustinance and survivability (thought that one was pretty obvious).

2.) You're talking about people invading other people. Which has the purpose of land control.
- Enslavement: (cheap labor)
- Eating people: (Once again sustinance if this is the choice of food)

So I invite you again to come up with another legitimate example of when any people started attacking large numbers of random groups of people for absolutely no reason.

The difference here is that if you go into low sec, you're more likely to find other people willing to fight. Which is what low, null and WH were made for. If I count correctly that's 3 different types of space to pvp and 1 that is meant to be somewhat safe... "meant to be"

Please do not spread disinformation! Seriously, it just confuses new players and leads to bewilderment and frustration when their ship explodes.

CCP not only stated that highsec is NOT meant to be safe, they also coded the very mechanics you disagree with!

You can certainly express your opinion that highsec 'should be safe' or 'safer' (though I personally disagree), but again please do not confuse any new player reading this thread.

Why are you presuming that highsec wars don't have reasons? There's no thing in the world that a person does that doesn't have a reason behind it. Like I said before, just because you don't know what it is, or you don't think the reason is legitimate it does not cause that reason to not exist.

Real wars happen because the conflict satisfies some kind of need in one or both parties. The need isn't necessarily a material one, it can be ideological or religious in nature, they can happen in reaction to perceived threats that don't exist or to get revenge for something. The same is true in EVE.

The argument that people declare war on highsec PVE corps at random and for no reason is wrong, there's always a reason.

Particularly so when you take into account that the only real reason anyone does anything in the game is because it provides entertainment either for the individual or their group.

Ship balancing is important to make sure that pilots are provided with options when choosing which ship they want to fly into combat. Without balance everyone would be flying the same ships.

Fairness assumes that all ships would have an equal chance of victory at all times, which would be awful. A mining barge should always lose to a combat ship no matter what. That's not a fair fight and never will be. With the exception of the procurers and skiffs obviously as they are designed to sacrifice yield and ore hold in exchange for combat ability.

If all things were 'fair' in eve than my stealth bomber should be just as capable against a battleship as it is against another frigate. On the other hand balanced ships means that my caldari stealth bomber is an equally valid ship choice to your gallente or amarr stealth bomber (just an example).

I hope this illustrates why I do not think you can legitimately equate fairness and balance. They are two separate things and that is as it should be.

The basic issue with wars is that it sucks for virtual everyone. I've been in a number of wars and never enjoyed any of them. It's a lot of running around, docking up, station games, gate games, 3rd party logi. It's actually worse than Nulll Sec warfare. There are 3 main ways wars play out:

1) The target evades the war dec in some fashion. Switches corps, goes to LS/WH, or stays docked up. Some people elect to stay in NPC corps.

2) The target corp organizes and attempts to fight. Generally leading to the target corp getting swarmed or the war decer docking. Rarely does this result in interesting pvp.

3) The target corp is filled with newbies who get ganked and pad the killboard of the war decer. In the end 1 or 2 happens. For some reason I can't understand this is fun enough for some people* to do it over and over.


What the war dec system needs is risk and gain for both sides plus a reason for both side to stage decent fight.


* Sure newbie/carebear tears are amusing once or twice, but past that it gets very boring.

I cannot disagree that high sec wars could and should be given more substance and meaning. I think that this would come from giving the corporations involved on both sides positive reinforce my for engaging in combat, even if that means choosing to whelp a bunch of thrashers into your enemy for a few hours and eventually taking out one of their shinny battle ships. My disagreement though is that I do not believe the war dec mechanic is the source of the problem. I believe the necessary change would come instead from making a reward system for engaging in PVP during a non-mutual war, and rewards for both sides, but favoring the defenders as the attackers likely don't need much additional incentive to fight. To me though these changes would stem from a revamp of the corporation structure, benefits and... Everything. The corporation system is currently really bad in a lot of ways.

Griefers corps like the one you describe, going after miners and missioners with a history of mining and running missions during wars will always exist in some form or another. I think of them as tutors for uninformed high sec dwellers. You likely think of them as bullies, and you aren't really wrong, I just think they serve a purpose.

I'm sure you thought that was a pretty cutting point, but really you're just playing semantics with a concept that has a conveniently loose definition that varies wildly by context.

The game is fair on a macro scale in most regards: We're playing by the same overarching rules that govern the game. By logging in and playing the game, you're agreeing to be bound by those rules, and agreeing that other players are bound by the same set of rules, and may do or not do as those rules permit.

On a micro scale, however, the game isn't overly concerned with fairness, and this is a part of those aforementioned overarching rules that govern the game, none of which dictate that this is a game of internet spaceship duels where grievances are settled via Rifters at 30 paces. It's not Bob's problem if Alice wants to sit in high sec and never fight. That's Alice's problem, and while Alice is free to pursue that lifestyle, she's not free to dictate that other players must accommodate her in that pursuit. Those are the rules she agreed to when she logged in. That's "fair".