EVE General Discussion

We all know and love the guys out there whose sole purpose in life is to act like 's and station camp trade hubs etc. They can do so because the price of declaring war is relatively low with the rewards that can be obtained by being pricks in general and kill mail whoring/looting wrecks of poor turds who wander into the system during war time.

Granted, to avoid this, you just move your loots around or goods around on a non-corp hauler and go about your day. Congrats, you've avoided a bunch of butt hair poop stickers.

I understand why CCP loves these guys, because they force players to spend isk to replace lost goods. Generating income for CCP indirectly through plex purchases for those looking to recoup losses quickly and with minimal hassle. Good business model. I get it. Same goes with any game relying on micro transactions. It's 2016, we get how the gaming industry works. However, the flip side is that it's super annoying and there's no way to combat these guys in any way. You can't get a fair fight (1 v 1 or 5v5 or 100 v 100) and if you come with overwhelming forces, they can just dock up and wait you out. You're losing isk not doing whatever it is you do in eve for isk, while you're sitting there station camping the station campers. Again, CCP, well done on this. Players however, like myself and anyone I've ever talked to, including shout outs during various fan fests, have all basically said "Yeeeeah, we get why it happens, but it sucks"

So, I propose the following CHANGE to war declarations which could be tweaked and I welcome all of your input on the system that it could change to.

Goals:
Remove 'invincible' station campers (again, if there's a fair fight, they just dock up)
Keep combat content ingame
Keep war system
Increase exposure to both parties to additional content and isk removal from the game
Reduce douchebaggery in general to keep Eve fun (or more fun)


I propose the following, which could be edited to a few different options.


WHILE AT WAR, Aggressors (those who declared war) are not able to dock up in ANY high security systems for duration of the war.
Originally, I thought, both defenders and aggressors should have this, but this is too easily exploited by any small 1 man corp declaring on everyone to screw everyone out of trading.

If already docked up in high security system, you remain so, but undocking means you are forced to relocate to low-sec / null-sec / wormhole space in order to re-ship/perform any action outside of your existing ship. You undock without ammo? Whoops - you better run fast, because you're probably dead.

How this keeps content: All the pricks declaring war on everyone can still camp high sec systems and use existing high sec mechanics to troll anyone in space, but they are not able to dock up the second an escort force comes in to break them up. Or, they require actual numbers to keep up their blockade of high sec systems. This also brings more content to low sec which is sadly lacking, other than the occasional small gate camps here and there.

This also forces station campers to actually get out there and play eve and not spend their entire life sitting outside a station. We all know these station campers are alts anyway on the most part, but I assume at least 1 of them are the real deal, this is their RP and calling in life to be a prick. This above system allows them to continue to be pricks, continue to camp stations / systems, but takes away their invulnerability. I, the non-aggressor, can still take losses, which makes CCP smile as their bank accounts get larger, but now so too do the station campers have to participate in this isk loss. Forcing the aggressor to leave hgh sec stations and go seek fights also keeps things fair for legitimate wars (lets say for example BOB vs goonswarm). The aggressor can't realistically wait for the fight to come to them, but pushes them to go take the fight to the enemy. ie, it generates content in game.

I believe it is not abnormal to want a system where there is absolutely no risk involved to these corps other than "oh man, we declared war on Goons and goons stopped coming to the trade hub for 7 days; well there goes 200m isk - but meanwhile, we have a dozen other bananahead organizations that we are also at war with so we still have content no matter what". In fact, wanting there to be equal risk involved to both parties is kind of the reason behind the whole citadel expansion, is it not? I believe CCP has the interest of players in mind in terms of equal risk of isk loss. Nothing in the proposed system is unfair to either pirate organizations or targeted defending warring parties.

Again, I welcome any input on my idea or improvements to the same.

Actually, I believe the bestest idea would be to move this and every thread like it into the airlock of my Velator and blast it into the freezing darkness of Sinq Laison

so ... how much did you lose to them silly hubhumpers eh?

Hemorroid prevention is a thing (can't believe I just Googled that).

Just takes a little bit of care and personal responsibility. Just like beating a wardec really.

TROLOLOL - I love it

hmmmm no because you would be dramatically changing the way highsec works just to kill off one particular thing you find irritating ,
but then this is a thinly veiled "make highsec safe" thread now isnt it.


look i know now that hyperdunking has been defanged ye need an outlet but you cant go jumping on war decs,
they are trivially avoided to the point of being practically opt-in ,

No.

I'm sorry to say that I don't know the term "hyperdumping" but I am very seriously opposed to making highsec "safe". I just think that there needs to be risk involved to both parties, and not strictly a one sided fight.

No free rides in other words. I'm all for high sec wars if they are legitimate things, and not the station games that they are now. As you said though, they are completely op in. So in essence, you trade ur crap to ur alt, make the run and the only risk that exists are suicide al qaeda dudes in catalysts. Proper scouting and the same is avoidable.

Well, you're lying, because your proposal would make highsec safe.



There's only no risk if you don't fight back. But you think you shouldn't have to. What you want is so many crippling penalties that no one in their right mind would engage in aggression.

And the answer is no. I reported you for trolling, because there is no way that any honest person would seriously propose cutting people off from docking, one of the basic features of the game, just for engaging in aggression. If that isn't a troll, then not only should you be ashamed of yourself, you should uninstall this game, and go play Hello Kitty Online.

Posting before lock/move. o/