Jita Park Speakers Corner

That war dec cost that fellow 1B ISK. Because of the 19 corp decshield you have up.

I think it is really cute that you say that as though it was a major impediment.

This is rapidly becoming a threadnaught, and this may have been covered but the concept irritates me so i'm going to say it anyway.

are we knights on horseback jousting at tourney?

~no~

sorry folks, war is not, should not, will never be, consensual. whatever reasons or rationale for a entity to declare war on another is not up for debate and nor should the ability for those parties to have their war. The current mechanic sucks becuase it does allow enough freedom and yet people want to make it more difficult to declare wars. EVE is a dangerous place and I'm all for anything to make it more dangerous *EVEN and Especially in HS*

I like my EVE with some danger in it so stop neutering the ability for corps and or capsuleers to violence one another.

Does it **** me off when my corp gets decced? Sure it does! But guess what, thats life in EVE, embrace it, adapt to it,

If it gets changed people will regret that decision...

+1

As a voice of evil myself, you get my vote simply because high-sec and nice people in Eve deserve a greater voice (some say a voice at all) on the CSM

If a one man corp has you decked and you cower in station then you're doing it wrong. You realize there are ways to find out where this lone gunman is right? Unless he is camping your station I don't understand how a lone gunman could possibly limit you. And I'd argue that when that nonsense has happened if your in a corp with more than one person what you indeed have is an opportunity to show him the error of his ways. Anyway causing grief and dragging people through BS is not against the very small set of principles that guide activity in this game. Replying to my post with what amounts to a they don't play nice with me type whine misses the point entirely. You find their tactics annoying because they work. I would say its working as intended.

No, I don't see any reason they should be limited to the size of either side.

Although an incentive (moderately bumped up costs, for example) may be a useful way to promote wars between relatively equal groups, measuring this would be nigh on impossible - inactive accounts, alts, SP in different areas, etc would all make it relatively simple to 'game'.

Assuming you are referring to small PvP corps declaring war on larger industrial corps or vice versa (large PvP vs small indy that is, not an indy corp declaring war on a small band of PvPers), the solution would probably lie in providing the PvP players something more rewarding/enjoyable to do, be it revamped losec/FW or similar.

The problem is that with EVE being a sandbox, you cant force people to do something they don't want to - they always have the choice of not logging in, or even dropping to an NPC corp.



Actually, the 'Surrender' mechanic does work, its just not properly documented anywhere. :CCP:

What actually needs to happen is for a director of the defending corporation (executor in the case of alliances) to be in the same station as the CEO of the attacking corp (again, executor) then select surrender.

That opens a trade window, and once accepted by both sides (with optional items/ISK etc), the war enters the normal 24 hour cooldown listing the defender as having surrendered.

My point being that surrender, as it stands now, doesn't work and it leaves war declaration open to abuse, which we can all say is true. Surrendering has to be mutually agreed upon, which it never is. Instead of changing the entirety of the war mechanic, you should take the stance on fixing the CURRENT war mechanics. Less work for you, less work for the devs at CCP. You'll get more votes if you come up with simple, yet long over-due changes and improvements.

In facts, there is already one in the game : that's why corp wardecs are less expensive than alliance wardecs (I'm not saying that it's a very good idea, but well).

But your answer wasn't what I was expecting, since I read your other message :
So, you're still willing to let small entites wardecing a much bigger entities, but at the same time, you're proposing a new EHP grind (after POCOs, POS, IHubs, TCUs, SBUs, 00 stations and outposts, but I don't think you ever fought for one of these) that will make EVEuni even safer ?
You know that there are only a few highsec alliances that could fight the EVEuni blob, and none that could defend a structure 24h/24 ? Yes you know it.

EDIT : (wow 3 pages disappeared from this thread). I posted a message on your thread. The more I read from you, the more I'm getting convinced that you have a very limited grasp of "EVE".

========

Let's say I'm running for the CSM, and I'm known for my wardec experience (and for nothing else).

For example, I could make escorts, moving into lowsec, recruting PVP pilots in my alliance, giving tips to my corpmates like running lvl4 missions with several pilots and a pvp fit, etc. It's a sandbox, my only limit is my imagination.

But instead, I'm telling my corpmates to stay docked, with a bunch of rules to "make the wardec very boring for the evil griefers". I'm using an exploit to limit wardecs, and with time I convinced CCP that it should not be an exploit anymore. The only highsec pvp I'm willing to do is consensual, only one week and no podding and we can only fight here and here and not here and please don't hit my own POS I want it safe and blabla.

Should I run for the CSM ? Really ?

I'll just chime in on the whole wardec argument by asking one question I don't see being discussed.

Kelduum, if you need a griefing-free, consensual PvP environment, or if you need to be able to protect your University from attacks for a period of time so you can accomplish an educational goal, why do you not just use the test server for this purpose??

Clearly you want more ways for people to avoid combat. I get that. You need to run your classes in peace, I get that. But the way I see it, there's test server where you have the GM's on your side - if someone griefs you there during class you can get them banned.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just take advantage of this free, already-functioning resource to help your students, instead of taking the time to invent a complicated Sov structure and create "null sec bubbles" in high sec space to "improve" the wardec system?

Does anyone else besides EvE University feel like we need null bubbles in high sec? I see no reason to bring the mountain to Mohammed, when its much easier to take Mohammed to the mountain. Getting your students on SiSi also teaches them about getting on SiSi, further empowering them to contribute more to the EvE universe in the long run through feedback and experimentation.

I LOVE your dedication to new players, its great. But like I said, your methods, and my methods, for instructing new players are pretty different. I see no benefit to the younger players by reinforcing unfair expectations on Tranquility, when you could teach them so much more by using SiSi for your safety zone, and using Tranquility to teach about survival in a corporation that's in a state of constant war (which will undoubtedly benefit the new players as they move out into the more dangerous parts of the game).

And besides, you'd save both your students and your corporation a lot of isk in the process!

THIS! OMG THIS!

...except for the whole "null-sec bubble" idea. The low-sec pockets in high-sec are a great place to learn pvp, albeit a small hit to sec status. Taking control of a small low-sec constellation is fairly easy. No sov bills, no structure grinding, just pure, unadulterated pvp. Kelduum should really take into consideration SiSi when discussing teaching new players the ropes, especially when he wants to change TQ game mechanics.