EVE General Discussion

Still entirely inappropriate , regardless of why you use analogies with irl the ethics and morality have as much bearing in-game as my left arse cheek.

Has nothing to do with conventional ethics, nor applying those to EVE.

That was just a means of comparison to demonstrate an irrationality in the system, in its mechanics, in its own context.

There is not sufficient risk in HS ganking.
The missing element, is a more dramatic Sec Status drop after illegal actions.

This rationalizes ganking, without removing its meta, in terms of risk/rewards.
As well as returning action reciprocal to it back to player hands (as aggressing reds), rather than the incipient NPC PVE of CONCORD and fsction police.

Dramatically increase the sec status modifier on illegal action in HS.
Its the perfect bullet.
It is the ingame existing mechanic specifically existant for this very purpose.

Unlikely, wars are a Corp based activitie not a structure based one.
Tie those together and thousands of corps and alliances without any assets in space become functionaly immune from wars meaning the only way to inflict any meaningful losses upon them will be through ganking...you don't want this.

It is, ccp have said wars get looked at when Corp and alliance mechanics get looked at, they're intrinsically linked after all.

The only thing the new structures will add are multi billion assets worth defending,
a reason for actually staying in Corp and fighting,
essentially something aggressors have been crying out for for as long as I have been playing I.e. a conflict driver.

Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind.

That's just silly. You don't have to extend wardecs to NPC corps before examining concord reaction etc.

All your suggestion would do is cause millions of one man corps to be made as people will just shuffle through corps on their alts. I already do this to an extent with my HS "mains" when I'm too busy to fight a war with them. Wardec? Time to move to alt corp #10.

Meanwhile true newbies are going to be like "WTF man??" to the massive amount of wardecs that appear. You know very well there are many groups that would perma wardec NPC corps for the free kills. You also know that true newbies take a wide range of time to get the hang of the mechanics of the game. So even if you decided to make it friendly for true newbies there will still be people getting clubbed just because they don't have an experienced friend that plays eve who can tutor them in the ways of the mechanics.

I freely admit to having self interest in such a concept as I use this character to help newbros out. If your suggestion was implemented I'd have to move her out of RMS into alt corp #101 so that she wouldn't be wardecced 24/7. Meanwhile newbros in RMS will lose a source of information. Not to mention the community that makes up CAS would be destroyed.


I'm going to need a citation on this. I'm pretty sure more than 10% of wardecs are related to towers and custom offices.

confirming from both my own anecdotal experience and research

What is one thing that everyone seems to forget that would totally lie within game lore and "mechanics"? CONCORD.

CONCORD is supposed to be an equalizing force when it comes to HiSec: the way people are harshly and quickly dealt with for disobeying the laws of HiSec. And another thing they already do is regulate wars; albeit they just record them in a book and say "Fight", but there is more they could be doing.

There is a totally plausible way to handle the WarDec madness that is gripping the galaxy and it would make sense and at the same time, stop the stupid WarDec spamming for no other reason than to be a ****. It would reduce the number of bogus wars for killboard padding and maybe even make War mean something when it is declared: limit how many wars can be declared at one time by a given entity.

If you are in an alliance, the alliance has to declare war as a whole and is limited to X wars.
If you are not in an alliance, the corporation obviously declares war and is limited to X wars that are less than an alliance.

This would mean you can't just have a ton of wars going for the sake of having wars. Real wars would have to be picked judisciously and maybe even be a mechanism to control HiSec legitimately when you want another HiSec corp to remove themselves from an area you like to operate in.

But WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. If you want to attack people for the sake of doing it, then go roam LoSec or better yet, Nullsec where you don't even have to declare war and where war is expected.

CONCORD exists for a reason and it needs to step up and do its job and stop just taking money and turning a blind eye.

I like that.
In RL you would not declare war with everyone at one time. One wardecc would consume a certain amount of resources which would not be available on a war on a different border.
The possibility of having 200 wardeccs at one time is absurd.
War is about territory and resources. In hisec you can't have territory. War in EvE happens in nullsec.

Wardeccs should be more like:
1=1 costs if both groups are quite even.
A larger group attacking a smaller group makes it by a very big factor more expensiv and harder. Maybe if the difference is to big, the smaller group gets buffed too, so its more difficult to get overpowered.

During a war, it should be not possible to get new members, so that a corp can not rise from 10 to 200 members after declaration.

Maybe a target should be declared by the attacker on declaration.
- Killing a POS
- Kills for Revenge (just a number of Kills to be had)
- other ideas welcome.

The risk of acceptance should be raised.
If the decced party accepts the dec, for the aggressor the risk of loosing stuff should be raised immensly.

All this, to make the outcome most uncertain for the attacker.

@codies and break a wish friends:
please stay on topic, your ad hominem attacks don't work.

Why? What is "better" in this game than doing something you find fun? There are people that enjoy highsec wardecs, and would rather do that than live in lowsec.

It seems to me that you are villainizing these guys because they "shouldn't" be allowed to do *this* or *that* because it dissatisfies you.