EVE General Discussion

agree.

Not everyone thinks like that though. For many it is more like: oh look, a wardec of which we have little chance of winning. Bye.

This is wrong on several levels. First, people are simply dodging a consequence without further consequences. Also, there is absolutely no incentive for defenders to defend at all should they have no towers or such, which many don't. In most cases this boils down to: why bother fighting at all on the attackers terms and lose isk when there is virtually nothing in it for me. If these people wanted a good fight they would have joined a corp which focuses on that.

Only way to solve it is to discourage running away because, you know, consequences of being in a corp to begin with AND give an incentive to fight back whilst adding an appropriate degree of risk to attackers.

Well if they don't purchase a mining permit that's usually a clear sign that they are looking for a fight.

I mean if some random dude starts mining without your permission, in a wormhole system you control, you wont blow him up to not ruin his good time, right?

Yes that's true, but even if you are on a roam until you die you will not just jump into the first gatecamp you find to die because "pretty explosions". At least when I did that we tried to find some stuff we could actually take on before the whole thing escalated and we all died horribly.

Sorry but that will not do in EVE. Player interactions go both ways. Why should you be totally safe just because you are an industrialist? PVP is a part of EVE, for some more than others. Industrialists must accept the fact that some days you can do whatever in relative peace whilst other days you will be under attack for whatever reason.

This is why a middle ground is needed.

I have no problem with this. A lower-tier corp that has a name and a channel but is otherwise identical to an NPC corp with none of the advantages of a player corp is fine by me.

Trading doesn't actually make wealth though, it just moves it around so it doesn't really affect the overall economy. I am more speaking about ISK and goods generation. Those should depend on teamwork, organization/effort and/or risk. You can and should always be able to make some ISK solo, but it should (but currently often doesn't) scale with risk and teamwork.


This is true, my comparison was a little disingenous. I agree that assessing the quality of and contracting with a merc group is more risky than purchasing a combat ship but the general principle is valid. Industry and combat need each other, not only to drive the destuction-based economy, but it is a fundamental part of the design of Eve than industry makes the ships that protect further industry. If a certain class of players try to cirumvent this by hiding under the free protection of CONCORD and the other protections of highsec while still accumulating assets, it is detremental to game itself.

To Gillia and Pedro (and the CODE chick too): first of all, thanks for the interesting and non-trolly discussion!

I guess that, from the simplicity of my lowsec perspective (we just happily shoot at anything that moves! and we still manage to PVE, trade or manufacture to make ISK), highsec + non-consensual wardecs are just a weird combination.


On one hand, you have CONCORD (with its very smart mechanics) that define highsec and attract thousands of players that are not so keen about PVP. And still leave room for CODE antics and such.

On the other hand, you have non-consensual wardecs where for a small fee anyone can remove CONCORD.

Doesn't it sound totally f*d up to you?


Maybe we need more radical solutions. Ditch wardecs, but nerf highsec to the ground (missions, incursions, mining, etc.).

Then add something more creative: introduce 'Real Man (and Woman) Corps (TM)' that are ALL permanently at war with eachother, but get huge bonuses to highsec ISK-making (missions, incursions, mining, etc.).

Kinda cool? Or not?

I'd have to mull it about in my head for a while, but my initial response to that is a hearty "sounds good!"

This is where some sophist wannabes get tripped up. The whole risk vs reward indeed doesn't mean to be equal, of course, but it should at least take place! Currently, grief dec is where one side has all the risk and the other has all the reward, which is wrong, no matter the perspective.


This statement has multiple flaws in it, and is yet another attempt of sophism.
("Where suicide ganking is now, both players will be successfully ganked at no risk, minimal effort involved." - arguable, but not important point.)
The ganker is trying to make a profit, however, he is completely risk-free - he can make sure he has enough weight to bring the target down, or not engage. He knows for certain he will lose a ship - his ship is a throw-away anyway, no risk involved. He has an easy way to know for sure what other player is carrying, without alerting the other player, and using a 5 days old alt for it.
Thus, your statement is self-contradictory. The ganker is trying to make a profit, but carries no risk, despite your statement be that the risk is all on the palyer trying to make a profit.


Grief decs and suicide ganks are not the same at all. They have something in common, indeed - like the unimaginable ease and profitability of such activities, accompanied by taking no risk at all while participating in them. However, compared to grief dec, suicide ganking is more balanced. While there is no effective defense against either, alone or in group, suicide ganking carries real consequences - you can meaningfully increase the cost of ganking you for an attacker, attacker has to take losses while doing it, attackers must be interacting in a coordinated way, and they must take the sec status penalty (although tags-for-sec removed that consequence completely, and if you don't use them, it's your problem), then add kill rights and the fact that it doesn't last a week, and here you have it. This system is still biased in favor of ganker, as you can't negate it no matter what, but not nearly so much as grief decs - as there is no way to meaningfully increase costs for attacker, the attacker doesn't take any losses whatsoever, doesn't need interaction or coordination (assuming your targets are carefully picked ones as they usually are), no sec status penalty, or any other penalty whatsoever, no kill rights, and you can keep it going infinitely if you wish, at the cost of 1 hour/day of nerfed L4 whoring on your alt.
And I don't actually care a bit about those, just pointing out the differences which make the situations completely different. What I care about, and what I stated about 5 times already, is the fundamental issue of attacker having no risk, no losses, and no need to take any actions, while defender has no reward, no meaningful actions to take, and only constant risk.



Dropping corp has the penalty of either getting a new corp (corp creation fee) and hassle of taking down / bringing up POSes, or taking NPC corp penalty. Adding allies has no effect whatsoever, as the ally doesn't have any meaningful actions to take either, spooking the risk-averse attackers aside ofc. So you have no ways to meaningfully protect yourself, and have to do stupid things like rolling corp or docking up, just because there aren't better options to take - those are admittedly stupid.
So, again, I want meaningful war dec - where steps taken by defenders can make it harder for the attacker, increase cost, or bring a premature halt to an attack by one way or another; and balanced - I'm not asking for perfection, just anything which isn't perfectly one-sided, like it is now - preferably some proper risk for an attacker, and proper reward for a defender, not being a perfect match for each other, simply being at all for starters.

The issue here is that most attackers indeed don't go on the offensive, but block choke points and trade hubs.
So when defender takes initiative and goes on the offensive, meaning to strike back just like most grief dec advocates here seem to wish for, all they get is "attacker" docking up and logging alts. No "bounty" collected, and never will be collected that way, thus making it a non-functional system.


Read again, no "bounty" will be collected, thus the actual value of it might as well be a billion, as long as there is a chance of a loss, grief deccers would just fold.
On taxes point - people would stick to where pay is better. Currently player corps receive 100% no matter the tax rate - can just transfer corp funds to wallet and begone with it. If they will receive a hit more than 11%, NPC corps will be preferred, no matter what you want, because it's simply more ISK that way, and no reason to make player corp - if you want POS, you make 1 man alt corp, if being in a holding corp is less profitable than staying NPC, so it will be.