These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

War Declarations need Reform

Author
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-06-03 19:49:43 UTC
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.

And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.

I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?



Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#2 - 2013-06-03 19:52:04 UTC
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#3 - 2013-06-03 20:12:53 UTC
So your contention is that a highsec corporation whose members do not suicide gank people should be immune to wardecs? That would seem to be contrary to the general theme of EVE. When they chose to name the game "Everybody Versus Everybody," I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend for PvP only to be for those who went out of their way to engage in it.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#4 - 2013-06-03 20:28:30 UTC
Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.

Does that sound like a good compromise to you?

Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is likely to change pretty soon.

Fixed that for ya.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-06-03 21:04:42 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.



By that logic we don't need war decs at all as the vanilla game mechanics fulfill that role. But we both know that is far from true.


Haedonism Bot wrote:
So your contention is that a highsec corporation whose members do not suicide gank people should be immune to wardecs? That would seem to be contrary to the general theme of EVE. When they chose to name the game "Everybody Versus Everybody," I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend for PvP only to be for those who went out of their way to engage in it.


The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.




Wars are fine. I just have issue with unprovoked "wars" being nothing but a means of circumventing high sec rules. But even then, I'm not saying those unprovoked wars should be removed. I think they should be removed, yes, but that's not what I'm saying here. All I ask is that the issuing side of an unprovoked war dec have assets that can be hunted down and destroyed in order that the war can be concluded (i.e. war goals). I ask that there be a means to actually conclude a war, for a side to lose and actually be able to hurt (i.e. wage war on) the issuer.

To your other comment, I ask, "What is the point of High sec?" The idea that conducting any hostilities in high security is absurd on its merit. I could say that if you want PvP go to low or null, but I won't. As I said before, basic concept of wars is fine.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Does that sound like a good compromise to you?


For the survival of the game. No. The game would lose the care bear population and then the game would go belly up if high sec ceased to exist. There is a reason low and null are a relatively ghost town compared to high sec. That being said, I do agree that criminals should have at least a chance to escape in 0.7 thru 0.5. The lore would dictate that to do so requires a non-empire clone and ships made outside empire space. I've never liked the fact that CONCORD can't be practically engaged. or that you'd be banned if you did manage to evade them.[/quote]

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#6 - 2013-06-03 21:23:51 UTC
You're not being unreasonable here, so we can continue this discussion.

Okay, so you say that the attacking party needs to have some assets on the field for the defenders to attack. The sentiment here is fine, but if you consider ships and pods to be assets, and you should, then it's moot. The defending party can cause financial damage simply by destroying the attacking party's spaceships. The presence of POSes is irrelevant in that respect.

The real problem is that the defending parties aren't usually of the type who'd go after the attacking party's stuff, no matter what type of stuff it is. If they don't undock to get some ship kills, they sure as hell won't siege a POS.

And as far as provocation goes, you have to understand that it can take many forms, not just unlawful aggression, or insulting someone's mother. What if the aggression is in the form of a corporation moving into your area of operations and hitting your belts with mining fleets? What if it's in the form of someone moving in on your trade operations by flying in cheap goods from Jita? In EVE, violence is a perfectly acceptable counter, because this is a video game about big spaceships with huge guns.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#7 - 2013-06-03 21:25:19 UTC
EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.

EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now.

The Tears Must Flow

Daimon Kaiera
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-06-03 21:32:32 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.



What about Market pvp?

.... . .-.. .--. / .. / .... .- ...- . / ..-. .- .-.. .-.. . -. / .- -. -.. / .. / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / --. . - / ..- .--. / ... - --- .--. - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / -. --- - / ... - --- .-.. . -. / ... - --- .--.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2013-06-03 21:32:39 UTC
Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?

Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?

Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-06-03 21:38:45 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation?


What are these "high sec rules?" Oh, right: attacking another player who is not at war with you will get you blown up by CONCORD. If they're at war with you, you can freely engage them.

Nothing is being circumvented. Game's working as intended. Here's a tissue.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#11 - 2013-06-03 21:39:33 UTC
I don't know why people still call this game "ruthless." It hasn't been ruthless since the day the Privateers got nerfed.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#12 - 2013-06-03 21:41:24 UTC
Daimon Kaiera wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.

It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.



What about Market pvp?



What about it? The OP is about war decs and not market PVP.





There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-06-03 21:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't know why people still call this game "ruthless." It hasn't been ruthless since the day the Privateers got nerfed.


It's just so that carebears can feel better about themselves because they play a "ruthless" game while decrying everyone that makes it ruthless

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-06-03 22:28:10 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You're not being unreasonable here, so we can continue this discussion.

Okay, so you say that the attacking party needs to have some assets on the field for the defenders to attack. The sentiment here is fine, but if you consider ships and pods to be assets, and you should, then it's moot. The defending party can cause financial damage simply by destroying the attacking party's spaceships. The presence of POSes is irrelevant in that respect.


No, I definitely shouldn't consider ship destruction an actual lose. That's like going to Flight of 1000 Rifters and thinking you're hurting somebody by blowing up their rifter.

You really think you're harming anyone who eagerly and voluntarily gives you the right to blow their stuff up? No. you're not. That is exactly what they want and what they came in expecting. They have more than enough income to cover it. And that income doesn't have to come from any character in that corp. On the other hand, that doesn't mean you have the income to deal with their harassment seeing as the force that is supposed to protect you just sold you out for profit, but that's another story. Take RvB. Do you think they are going home crying when they have their skirmishes and people lose ships? You think that's any kind of setback? Hell no. They love it. And they do it while respecting the community by not forcing themselves on others (not that I am aware of).

With an asset requirement it doesn't matter if they are willing to lose them or not. If I blow up there stations I win and wars over. Now I've taken something away from them that they care about: The ability to ignore high sec rules. There are other issues which arise, like mega alliances picking wars with small corps that couldn't take on a POS if they tried, but that's for another discussion.

If I declare war on you I am looking to nullify high sec. I am asking for the right to risk my ship. For the issuer, they get everything they want and have nothing to lose. I personally feel that is utter BS. If you want to kill me in high sec and ruin my day I should be able to ruin yours too. That seems perfectly reasonable vs. me telling someone "if you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp." Guilds are one of the most basic features of the MMO genre. And, no, NPC corps are NOT real corps. It's just a forced grouping of people without rank, structure, goals, etc. meant to - get his - push you towards a player corp by instituting a 10% tax. In the guild search function what is the point in setting criteria concerning PvP if merely being in a corp automatically means any other corp can force PvP on you without repercussions? You're a high sec mining guild you say? Nope, I just declared war on you. Now you're a nullish sec PvP/mining guild.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The real problem is that the defending parties aren't usually of the type who'd go after the attacking party's stuff, no matter what type of stuff it is. If they don't undock to get some ship kills, they sure as hell won't siege a POS.


That's a gross generalization. There are many corps that aren't interested in PvPing everywhere they go, but will defend themselves. If you war dec me I'm going to break your ****. Period. If I can't then you have all the power and I'm just forced to play your game by your rules. That does strike my as very sandbox at all. It sounds like a knee jerk reaction to PvPers tired of slim picking in low/null who whined loud enough.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And as far as provocation goes, you have to understand that it can take many forms, not just unlawful aggression, or insulting someone's mother. What if the aggression is in the form of a corporation moving into your area of operations and hitting your belts with mining fleets? What if it's in the form of someone moving in on your trade operations by flying in cheap goods from Jita? In EVE, violence is a perfectly acceptable counter, because this is a video game about big spaceships with huge guns.


That's called capitalism. It's business.

What if you fly into the radar site I arrived at 10 seconds earlier and take something from a hub? What if I arrive at a Gurista Refuge and see you already popping "my" rats. Can I give CONCORD a few ISK to kill you and remove the competition? Since when does anyone hold legitimate claim to asteroids in Empire space anyway? It's empire space, belonging to the empires. You mine, sell, trade and conduct business at their pleasure. You don't have the right to violently wipe out competing businesses. You can stake sovereignty claims in null, but it's null. No need to CONCORD war. And if your sovereignty was challenged and you did declare war I have no issue with it spilling into high sec as it originates with a sovereignty dispute.

But just up and deciding out of the blue you want to kill some random people in high sec "just because" is ridiculous. It defeats the whole point of high sec. And rather people want to accept it or not EVE is NOT a PvP-centric game and it is not a true sandbox. Full time PvPers are a minority. I like PvP (mainly large scale), but I acknowledge that most want nothing to do with it or, at the least, don't want to deal with it everywhere they go.

Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-06-03 22:34:01 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.

EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now.


There is nothing sandbox about war decs, which came out a few years ago I've heard. Is high sec a sandbox under CONCORD jurisdiction? Nope. Capital ship restrictions? Nope. Interdiction limitations? Nope.

Eve has a player run economy, but that alone doesn't make it a sandbox. Empire space is not a true sandbox and never has been as far as I can tell.

baltec1 wrote:
Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?

Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?

Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks



How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.

You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.

I'm confused at your statements.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2013-06-03 22:39:03 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.

EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now.


There is nothing sandbox about war decs, which came out a few years ago I've heard. Is high sec a sandbox under CONCORD jurisdiction? Nope. Capital ship restrictions? Nope. Interdiction limitations? Nope.

Eve has a player run economy, but that alone doesn't make it a sandbox. Empire space is not a true sandbox and never has been as far as I can tell.

baltec1 wrote:
Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?

Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?

Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks



How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.

You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.

I'm confused at your statements.

Been playing EvE since 2003 and war decs were in then, they were cheaper too.

As to how you avoid war decs. You create a corp or alliance with a navy wing of decent PvPrs. You provide them ships, modules, clones. When you get decced which will be rarely they take care of business.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2013-06-03 22:43:19 UTC
Prototype SV-17 wrote:



How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.

You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.

I'm confused at your statements.


From tomorrow, you can drop corp the second the wardec lands.
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-06-03 22:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Prototype SV-17
Andski wrote:
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation?


What are these "high sec rules?" Oh, right: attacking another player who is not at war with you will get you blown up by CONCORD. If they're at war with you, you can freely engage them.

Nothing is being circumvented. Game's working as intended. Here's a tissue.



Of course it's being circumvented. It's high sec and it effectively takes away a high sec status arbitrarily at the whim of any corp with enough ISK to buy off CONCORD. "Working as intended" doesn't mean it's a good thing or makes sense. I'd have thought "real PvPer" would love the ability to actually beat another side. But here you come crying at the thought that you might actually have to put something valuable on the line to wage a supposed war or that you could actually lose. It's PvP care bearing at it's best. OMG, the poor schmucks I declared war on can actually hurt me back?!?!? Oh noes!!

Here's your tissue. You need it more than I do.
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-06-03 22:48:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Prototype SV-17 wrote:



How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.

You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.

I'm confused at your statements.


From tomorrow, you can drop corp the second the wardec lands.


That's an odd change. I kind of understand where CCP is coming from on that, but it would be a knee jerk "fix" (if you can even call it that) to a bigger problem.

So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#20 - 2013-06-03 22:53:31 UTC
Ouch, you wrote a lot of stuff. I can't start quoting specific things at this point so I'll just loosely address what you said, in order, in a numbered list.

1. Money is money, and ships cost money, just like POS modules. Requiring aggressors to own POSes wouldn't change anything since they'd be prepared to lose them, just like they're prepared to lose ships.

2. The existence of victory conditions might be a good addition, but once again, if most people are unwilling to fight spaceships, they will also be unwilling to siege POSes.

3. Large alliances rarely go after much smaller entities. In fact the opposite is true, to the extent that CCP had to turn war fees into a pay-per-target ordeal.

4. Entities who declare wars do have something to lose; their ships, pods, implants, property, et cetera. Just because the defenders are unwilling to cause those losses doesn't mean the attackers aren't putting themselves at risk. So yes, you can ruin the attackers' day just fine, on your own initiative.

5. "If you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp" is a rather accurate sentiment, although it's more along the lines of "if you can't defend your property, don't expose said property to the additional risk inherent in the player corporation system." Player corporations aren't an entitlement; they're a privilege. If you can't hold your own in-game, then stick to the NPC corporations, or get into a well-run player corporation that can hold its own to learn the ropes before you go out to make your own.

6. From my own experience as someone who has conducted over a thousand wars during the past half decade alone, I can tell you that the grand majority of corporations that aren't interested in pvp will not defend themselves if exposed to it.

7. Sure, I'd wardec you. Who's your main? And no, you won't break my ****, lol. I've caused more people to quit this game than the amount of terrorists the US has killed in Afghanistan. Yes, I keep count.

8. This game isn't a direct representation of real life. We fly spaceships, and shoot big guns. When there's a conflict of interest in regard to natural resources or the market, we don't sue opposing parties in the court of CCP. In fact, such avenues aren't even available to us, because they don't exist. But guns exist, and the ability to use them on other players exists too. That's pretty much the point of EVE Online.

9. Yeah, in EVE, you pretty much have the right to wipe out competing businesses. Once again, this is a game based on unrealistic principles. You'll have to deal with this, or find another game.

10. High-sec is merely "safer." It doesn't mean that the safety is absolute.

11. Wars have actually been in the game since the beginning, pretty much. They certainly didn't come out a "few years ago."

12. You can avoid wars pretty easily. Also, if you don't have roles, you can leave a corporation whenever you want. Corp-hopping has been a pretty big issue for the past few years.

13. "So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified?" Yes.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

123Next pageLast page