EVE General Discussion

They have to defend their stuff. If they don't want to defend their stuff, then they lose it, but that then begs the question why are they in a corp if they do not care that much about their corporate assets to begin with?

Your goal as the defender is to keep your stuff just like pretty much every other player who is attacked everywhere else in this game. You are not powerless to do so.

Wars are completely optional to the player. You can drop to the NPC corp at any time and you should always be able to do so. But if you are benefiting from the bonus a structure or corporation provides, then you have the responsibility to defend it. While I admit there are some issues with the design, it is clearly a simple risk vs. reward like the rest of the game.

CCP is not going to give you another way to end a war. In fact they are in the process of taking one away (POS takedown). Honestly, I am amazed so many otherwise reasonable people suggest such an obviously sandbox-killing idea like it has any chance of being implemented. Making it absolutely impossible for a conflict to continue because one side wins a single battle makes no sense in a game about spaceship fighting and is completely counter-productive to the player-driven direction CCP Seagull is currently taking the game.

You are intended to be always vulnerable. Highsec is not suppose to be safe. Corporations are the competitive unit of Eve. These are truths that have been with the game since the beginning and CCP shows no signs of changing. Allowing you to benefit from being in a corporation, while being completely safe from your opponent because you blobbed a beacon clearly breaks these.

If you don't want to deal with wars, go to the NPC corp. If CCP wants to add a social corp or a societies mechanic so players can from social groups without the risk of wars (and without the benefits of a real corporation) I'll be one of the players clapping the loudest from the sidelines. But if you actually expect CCP to turn wars into a game of capture the flag that rewards one side with complete immunity to the other, you really don't understand what type of game you are playing, or what type of game CCP is trying to develop.

Right, but this bend both ways: Why can the attacker hole up when the defender even cares to pull together a fleet? You are forcing your playstyle on other player WITHOUT any means for them to stop it. They can hire mercs, you hole up because you stand no chance: where is the fun?

Just a little example: new feature: corps can get "minedecced": You need to mine more ore as the "attacker" or your weapon damag is halved. The attacker can keep it up indefinitely as long as he pays the weekly fee. Would you think that this is fair? Even if you take the hassle to actually mine more then the other corp you still can't get out.

You've got the same right to your play style as any mining corp has. Tell me: What is Nullsec/WH for? It's a playground for PVP without any consequences!

A war is not meant to neglect Concord, that is what Nullsec is for. It is meant to pitch corps against each other in a fight and a fight has a winner or looser. Both have to deal with the consequences of the outcome. Why can you hold on to the dec EVEN if the other corp trashes you? How can the defender force!!!! you to fight? If they bring twice your manpower you hole up and start hitting them when they get back to their normal routine. Guerilla tactics are good but they are frustrating to one side and this is a game that is meant to be fun to both sides. Being forced to play a style that you don't like with no way out except to disband the corp isn't my understanding of fun!

At the moment deccs are legale piracy in High Sec, nothing more. No glorious fight corp against corp but a way to make money IMHO in a way it wasn't meant to work.

Something is bent, I think it's your logic.

Wardecs are indeed designed to negate Concord, you aren't required to use them to shoot at others without punishment in areas where Concord have no jurisdiction; which is everywhere that isn't hisec, thus making your claim that nullsec is there to negate Concord laughable, nonsensical and moot.

The term legal piracy is an oxymoron, piracy being a criminal act; if it was legal it wouldn't be criminal.

For example:
When I steal your stuff at gunpoint it's armed robbery or piracy depending on the circumstances; this is a criminal act
When an official body, or an officially sanctioned/ licensed body, steals your stuff at gunpoint it's search and seizure; this is not a criminal act.

TL;DR learn how the game works before ejaculating your uninformed nonsense all over the forums.

Here's what's happened to wardecs:

I've discovered a nest of bots. I reported them a week ago, but they continue to operate. I quietly dropped a wardec on one corp they were using and as soon as the war went live destroyed all three RNIs in the corp.

Within an hour the owner of the bots had disbanded the corp and made a new one. I responded by deccing every bot corp operating in the constellation (I've identified a number of them), including the new one. He's disbanded the new corp as well as another. I've got the capital to pursue this and inconvenience the bot owner for quite some time, but the fact that CCP continues to make it trivial for people to simply walk away from a war means that the mechanic needs to be improved on both sides.

It's obvious, with the sheer number of war decs these alliances are throwing out, that they are abusing the war dec system to make high sec low sec. They do this for various reasons, all of which derive from killing easy targets (god forbid these high-sec pirates fight someone with weapons on their ships).

I believe that war-decs are a needed part of the game. It is a game mechanic that allows younger players, corps, and alliances in high-sec to engage in PvP while at the same time teaches them that you must protect any sand castles you build. that being said, the way it is often times used is garbage. CCP often states "risk vs. reward." In this case there is so little risk for these high sec greifers that it has lead to the abuses you see happening now with war-decs.

I see two ways to fix this: first is to add a multiplier to the cost of the war dec that is derived from the distance between two home stations. The further away a corp/alliance is away from a target's home station, the most the war dec should cost. This will penalize these groups for randomly war-decing groups with no other reason than to blow up ships going to trade hubs and avoid CONCORD's wrath.

Second, there should be a mechanic that penalizes alliance for having too many wars going on at once, and I don't mean monetarily. Any bureaucracy would notice an alliance is not just extremely blood-thirsty, but also using the writ of a war-dec to bypass CONCORD's laws. At the very least the bureaucracy would frown upon this group, and at the worst would banish them from their space. So, why not make it so. Have a stacking penalty timer like the one used for jump fatigue. If you declare too many war-decs too fast, the 4 factions of high sec, and even CONCORD, would start placing sanctions upon the alliance. From a warning to start all the way to faction ships at gates attacking the corp/alliance members and stations either refusing entry or firing upon these players.

Just an example, but if I were the person in charge of running the 4-4 station in Jita, I would consider bands of roaming pirates sitting outside my station as a severe problem. They would be reducing the generation of isk as their presence cuts into my taxes and possible business opportunities to make more taxes. The above mechanic would take this into account and apply consequences to the actions of players.

Applying these 2 fixes would go a long way towards making war-decs work as they were intended to be: a mechanic that allows neighbors to fight of resources as well as a way for corporation and alliance leaderships to get practice in managing wars. As it is right now, the mechanic is abused to the point where new corporations are bullied and extorted, trade hubs are camped for easy kills, and CONCORD is, in essence, paid to look the other way while pirates run amuck in high-sec.

It's not your place to decide why people do what they do.

No. I think CCP created the wardec mechanic to allow people to settle disputes for whatever reason without have a place they opt out of combat. The nature of this particular war is irrelevant; the point is that current corp mechanics allowed them to simply dissolve the corporation and create a new one instantly. Whether I'm a guy hunting bots or an industrialist looking to drive a competing corp out of a region, the ease with which people can simply walk away from a war without any change to their behavior is something that *must* be considered if we're going to talk about "fixing" wardecs.

Oh look. This again. First off, every person who loses a ship to war had the information available that they could be shot and who would do the shooting. You say they're making highsec into lowsec? Well in lowsec if someone putters around in a hauler and gets popped, what's your response? Why should doing the same during a war be any different?




I won't argue that. I have a dislike for gate camping and hub hugging. Unfortunately that's all the big mercs are left with, as hunting targets has been so heavily nerfed with the watchlist changed.



As with a lot of proposed fixes to warfare, this is very one-sided in favor of defenders. Right now "home station" is a completely irrelevant attribute. Operating in or around a home system has no benefits and spending all your time 40 jumps away from that system carries no penalty.



You clearly haven't paid attention to how we react to mechanics like that. Our response is *always* to adapt and work around such limitations. That is easily circumvented and will have no impact on how the big merc alliances do business.



Let us wardec the NPC corps, and then maybe it would make sense to have the NPCs interact with us on that level. Until then the NPCs don't get to decide arbitrarily that we've done something "too much".

But war decs aren't only about killboard padding and eliminating hi sec war decs would cause more problems than your argument acknowledges.

For example, POCOs and POSes, with possibly citadels coming soon too. They are all a finite resource in eve. They have value based not only on cost of the structure, but location too. A POCO on a barren or temperate planet 1 jump from Jita nets far more income than say the same planet out in Khanid Kingdom. A POS in System A may have a better index leading to better prices than System B. Now if I want the better locations, I have to fight for it and defend it. Removing war decs would mean first to claim it owns it for life or another system needs to be implemented.

I haven't seen much agreement from anyone that War Decs are fine as is. Clearly it's gone off the rails of what it was initially intended to do.

No, you can't just abolish them because the original intent of the mechanism still needs to exist.

Others don't want them abolished because it would essentially kill their play style. (Poachers, Mercs, etc.)

So we have a good, old fashioned conundrum on our hands.

I have my own ideas on this topic but I'll post them to New Player Ideas when I get it all worked out in my head. This is a big rock and it isn't going to be properly dealt with here in this thread.

I think the best thing to do with this thread is end it by posting some form of your agreement or disagreement that the War Dec game mechanic is/is not working and for CCP to fix it or leave it alone.

Otherwise, this thread is just going to go on and on and on, round and round and... well, you get the idea. I think CCP would rather see a definite "YES FIX IT" or "NO ITS GREAT!" from us.