EVE General Discussion

Mhmm. I hear that some valiant miners have taken up arms and have CODE on the run.

I too am a single account player. I agree that EvE is a PvP centric game. The thing is that EvE has an industry system and market system that really can't be found anywhere else. At least not as a triple A MMO. So this will attract a group of players who simply put up with core of EvE. They will do whatever is at their disposal to avoid it. Reform new corps, drop to npc while leaving a CEO alt in the corp when the corp has POSes, etc. It is what it is whether we like it or not.

You said it yourself that the best fights were those where the other person not only fought back, but actually had a decent shot at beating you.

Of course you are not going to ask them 'this' or 'that'. The thing is that you or anyone else doesn't have to. Find a corp that looks like they like to fight, look them up to make sure that they are likely to fight back and don't just go after targets that can't, and war dec them.

Send out duel requests, if they are interested they will accept.

Roam low/nul because chances are the other people doing the same are looking for fights too.

Join FW

Join RvB

Hell, join/form a corp with like minded individuals where you can fight each other. CONCORD doesn't get involved for fighting corp mates.

There are many way to get the "good" fights you are looking for. If everyone looking for "good" fights did the above, there would be more "good" fights to be had.

Instead, what do we see.

Groups of gankers pop an indy ship before CONCORD can arrive.
Corps with members experienced in PvP war dec'ing those with little to none (corps with indy characters and/or young characters)

As much as EvE is a PvP game, and as much as anyone playing it should invest SP and practice time PvP'ing, such is simply a foolish pipe dream which the sooner people let go of, the better off everyone will be.

Answer received, yes that quickly.

It's cool, players leaving or corps closing in a wardec ain't an exploit.

Nuff said.


Fine some of you won't like the answer, but thats it.

If you don't like it, do as I did and petition it and try to change it. Just stop moaning about it now, it's over.

I'm a little disappointed, but tbh this is what I expected. The question we'll likely never get an answer to is if this is an intentional part of the warfare mechanics (which makes one wonder why there's a surrender option) or is it one of those things that would be too much of a hassle for CCP to bother trying to change?

vOv

Frankly, i'd say hassle factor is big, but short of an entire rewrite, there IS a working as intended feature. Its in the sandbox itself, and it all lies in proper target calling for who/why to dec any particular corp. Small fish and/or well constructed shell corporations will slip through War mechanics, making it a waste of isk to target such entities. Established 'brick and mortar' corps will have to either fight, pay or pack up their toys...and it is the price that is paid for exercising corporate strength. That same corporation will in time either learn to protect those assets, hide them, or move out of hisec entirely - trading wardec mechanics for nullsec sov holding issues.

With two corp holding alts on slots you can perma avoid decs, U jelly?

In case no one has mentioned this, if you close a corp you can't reopen it.
You can only found another one with identical information. Discussions
stand a better chance of covering real ground if they're bound by real facts.

I see a lot of merit in this. The cost to war dec is too low and because of this, War dec's get tossed around all willy nilly for some of the most stupid reasons. If the cost to war dec was sufficiently high enough, people would start thinking "is this worth spending that much isk?". That's precisely what is needed. Corps would be more likely to only war dec another corp if there was a sufficient benefit to at least offset the cost.

Then there is the cost to close/open a corp. If sufficiently high enough, the corp would have to think the same thing as above. Except this time they are weighing the cost to drop and reform vs the loss in isk they would suffer under the impending war dec.

One thing to consider is what the corp being war dec'ed would use as a deciding equation. It won't just be a matter of 'if projected losses are greater than the cost to drop and reform, do so, and if not then don't' but rather it will factor in the cost of the corp doing the war dec'ing.

If it costs a corp 100m to war dec another and that other would have to pay 250mil to drop and reform then it would be the following;

250m - 100m = 150m
If the projected losses are equal or greater than 150m, it's best for the corp being war dec'ed to drop and reform.

Losses include, but not limited to, estimated value of ships that are likely to be destroyed by war targets and the reduced revenue due to war target activity.

So while increasing the costs of both may be exactly what is needed, the two values need to have a sufficient gap between them with costs of dropping and reforming being sufficiently greater than the cost to war dec.

Wrong. They can still be ganked.
Which really proves the point. EVE is not supposed to be a game where you cannot be forced into PVP. Mechanics should actively promote PVP.


Fixed that for you