Assembly Hall

There is no purpose for war in this game other than for harassment and non-consensual pvp. And by the way, non-consensual pvp is harassment. I bring this up because this is the factor that is driving players away from this game.

There is no purpose for war in this game. It is only used to circumvent security in high security space. Thats it!
It was supposed to have the purpose of providing a method for corporation to contest one another over resources. This is absurd, any resource worth contesting is out in null-sec or low sec. Corporations only use it to keep other corporations perpetually in war, and harassing them until their members all quit or leave the game.
If players dont want to pvp they should not be forced into it. War forces non-consensual pvp. The only way to get away from it is to leave the game and go play something else.

War means there is no such thing as high security space.

Corporation who wants fights go out into null sec and get fights easy. The fights may not be easy, but it is easy to find someone to fight.
Why? Because if someone enters low-sec or null sec they by default consent to pvp.

Get rid of war and increase your player base. There are many players who do no want to pvp. They want to play cooperatively with others in corporations, and do things together as teams and friends. They prefer PVE content, and dont want to be harassed by the idiots who will be flaming this post.

There are many solutions that could be implemented to change how things are controlled in high sec. Currently Capital ships are not allowed, and that model of exclusion could include other structures such as Player Owned Starbases.
For high sec create structures that are temporary, or have expiration's of some kind. Or perhaps use something as simple as a license.
For a POS in high sec, one would need to use a license for anchoring, because it is controlled space. The way to acquire a license could be numerous, such as rating with the corps who control, going through a long harrowing sequence of events and perform a number of tasks. (ie, PVE content) This license would only last for a duration and cannot be extended.
Pack it up and move it until you acquire another license and get in que for another anchoring location.

This is only one idea for a solution to the problems that war in high sec are supposed to be all about.

Get rid of war!
Get rid of permanent player owned structures in high sec.
Add more PVE content.
Get more players in the game.

quote from the other thread

done.

Ummm... the game itself is based around (and supports) non-consentual interactions in almost every activity (which, by default, makes everythig you do PvP in some form).

No one the game has any "right" to be left alone. Fight for what you want, defend what you have.

Not supported.

Time and again I read, that "players who don't want PvP should not be forced into PvP" ... well - this is a PvP game. It's like saying players who don't like Tennis should not be forced to play Tennis. Tell you what: They aren't. Just don't play Tennis. If you don't like other players shooting at your pixel-meeple, don't play a game that's all about shooting other guys pixel-meeples.

Every bit of meaningful PvP is non-consensual. Heck, wars themselves are never consensual - wars are all about conflicting interests. Player 1 puts a POS on a moon, player 2 wants to put his POS there as well, so player 2 declares war on player 1 and tries to take that POS down by force, with or without consent. If POS licenses were temporary, people would fight over the grinding-spots for those licenses. Or over the fuel. Or just because they want to put their POS down right now right here, and not once the license has run out.

Of course people do not want other people to attack their ****. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to attack other peoples **** unless invited to (seriously - who does that? "Please come and kill my IHUB!" ... not going to happen)

Removing non consensual PvP from the game would mean removing every sense of purpose from it.

Silly idea from a player who probably hasn't seen much of this game yet.


No.

That depends on the definition of PvP. EVE is a PvP game as in "everyone has an effect of everyone else". It's NOT a PvP game as in "everyone has to be involved in shooting each other". I don't agree with the OP, but at the same time I don't agree with this entire sentiment that everything should involve the firing of the lasers.

Wars as they stand are pretty broken, since they have the opposite approach to risk and reward. The weaker the target you go after, the lower the risk and the higher the reward. Going after a pure PvP corp will get you tough fights and bad loot, while going after an industrial group gets you easy kills and plenty of loot. There should be better ways for groups to compete and fight, and they shouldn't just involve groups of "mercs" hiding behind concords skirt picking off easy targets.

Seems reasonable enough, but still has a problem where it's not really encouraging fighting, it just encourages endurance. A non-combat group would still have no reason to switch to combat, and to make things worse, aggressors would get locked in. Nothing would stop people from creating a corp, baiting in an aggressor, then dropping all important characters leaving it in the hands of a couple of alts and moving to a new corp. Wardeccers would still need content so they have to dec other people. Eventually wardeccers would end up over invested in attacks with no ability to get out of them without losing their bond. So I think this would still encourage them to go after weaker targets with lower bonds. It also makes wardecs cost less over time, making permadecs no longer a costly endeavour, and removes wardec fees as an isk sink.

From a content standpoint I think the most important thing to remember is that if people don't want to fight, they won't. So don't build the system around fighting those people and giving them reasons to fight. Instead build the system around fighting people who do want to fight and use the people who don't as an unwilling resource. If someone could take over an area and takes say 20% of the mining yield, market tax and bounties for example, they would have a reason to take that area and other people would have reasons to fight them for it. Kind of like how the pocos generated a whole bunch of war.

People who didn't want to fight would either have to put up with the taxes in the area they are in, strike a deal with the owners or move. People who were willing to fight would do so. Wardecs would be as simple as buying into the fight, making your corp/alliance legal targets for anyone else optioned in for that area. It could be something like kills by your corp in that area give you points and whoever has the most points at downtime flips control. As long as the areas of control were quite fluid in their ownership and demanded constant fighting to maintain control rather than being stagnant like sov content, then there would be a constant stream of fights. Non-PvP content like ratting/mining would have no effect on control, and would be generating funds for the owners warchest.