EVE General Discussion

Very plainly true and very plainly missed/ignored/omitted by most knuckle draggers.

I want high security space to be dangerous because I fly there (because it's safe to do so).

Let's nutshell it Tippia. I'm not going to play spot the quote tag all day with you.

I agree the entire Eve economy relies, nay, requires, conflict to succeed. But it get's by fine with the virtually non-existent "non-consensual" Highsec ship-ship PvP now. With thousands of ships killed "consensually" every day in Highsec as well as Nullsec the market has plenty of inertia.

Allowing players to chose whether they are engaged in ship-ship PvP is going to change what?

You can be a non-combatant now and have been able to since whenever. Even an indy "carebear", safe as he already is, will (and does) have to punch his way through the sell/buy humdrum against very powerful and very wealthy players.

Even in your words, it's still "PvP", he's just not gazing at stars while he does it - and it's his choice to risk a loss.

Referring specifically to wardecs, instead of going to the extremes of either unrestricted wardecs or the avoidance of them, would restricting the relative size of the corps be a possible solution? i.e. you can't wardec a small corp with a large corp (don't know what a good ratio would be; no more than 50 to 100% larger?)

Would this allow a small corp to establish themselves, but without removing the "harshness" of EVE?
They would still have to learn to fight (even if they had to hire mercs), but there's at least a chance of survival. And a corp struggling for survival is probably better than a corp that is closed.

Combined with in-game mechanics for mercenaries (i.e. wardecs can actually be transferred, with contracts issued, etc), that could open up business for small merc corps alongside large merc corps. Someone above (Lyrrashae?) mentioned targetting alt-corps as a valid target - fair enough, but force them to use a small corp to do it)

I haven't thought that through thoroughly, but is there any fundamental flaw in that logic? Can it be abused too easily?
Or is it just another bunch of unnecessary rules in the sandbox?

Edit: Another crazy idea: let small corps (only) wardec the secondary NPC corps (not the starter corps), as they would effectively be a small corp against a small corp (unless the NPC corp miraculously decide to work together).

I, personally, have no problem with rules in the empire section of the sandbox ... I simply do not want rules that would allow corporations to wall themselves off from conflict.

If someone doesn't like conflict, they are, seriously, playing the wrong game.

The whole wardec mechanic is pointless because the only benefit is to those that want to fight - they can go for it and simply not have to worry about Concord.

Those that don't want to fight can easily avoid, ignore or work around it with little or no inconvenience. This was even before the dec-shielding that's supposed to be the big bad monster of Eve.

The decision really must come down to whether a highsec war mechanic needs to be implemented to

1) Prevent avoidance eg: no NPC corps and no corp jumping during a wardec
2) Or make wars purely consensual using a simple process like click box and fight

Anything else is just fluffing up a mechanic that serves no real purpose anyway.

If your referring to the corp your in, Dotlan does not say that your alliance holds any sovereignty. If that is the case, then you're not even a renter and cannot speak to null sec life with any kind of accuracy.

So are you referring to the alliance "Of Sound Mind?"

Hahaha blog link

.....bah.....

Can't be bothered anymore.

In a nutshell, SW: G was made safer and much easier to try and attract more new players, the sandbox was compromised, the existing player-base revolted, subs dropped, and continued to drop to the point that the servers were shut off on 15 December 2011.

Yes, "EVE is dying ZOMG!!!1111!!oneone!" is tripe--so it's good to see that that's not what I said, is it? I actually said the exact opposite above.

I said that that is what will happen if the sandbox is broken, which is what all these entitlement-bears are screaming for, which is what was done in StarWars: Galaxies.

You are not entitled to be perfectly safe in this game, no-one is. Even a 150mn+ SP, 8-year veteran can potentially lose everything, potentially in minutes if they're not careful.The instant that changes, then EVE will cease to be EVE.

What we need to do is make 0.0 more dangerous especially for vets, high sec has nothing to do with anything, in fact, it's shown in the activity statistics on the map that high sec is working pretty damn well for all the whining going on, the only thing I think needs urgently fixing in high sec is public labs because they're being overused and taking out a big chunk of gameplay for newbies.