EVE General Discussion

It depends on the group. If the group is too strong I'm not wasting time or money but are all wardecc groups so strong? I will try to pull it all together and make a thread in ideas. The general idea would be that the max length of a wardecc depends on the size of the target corp and their ability to strike back. There is a large difference between deccing a 1 man corp or a corp with 500+ members. The first needs protection the last one don't.

But again to the "idiot high-sec miners". Sure there are some but if you take a look at the economic reports you start to wonder.
the Forge had build 32B ISK, Mined 1.5B ISK and Imports of 630B ISK wich sum up to around 660B ISK
Destroyed had been 2B ISK and tripple it for the loot you got 6B ISK. The "idiot high-sec miners" got 99+% through under your nose. You are outclassed by the hard hitting broker fees and the 100% efficient sales taxes. So the question is: Did you hit them hard or are these just "normal" losses like you might get toasted by some PvP group while ratting? Sure it is hard sometimes for some guys but overall you are not even making a dent. Tax evasion has greater impact then ganking/wardeccing. So are the most HS players really that dumb or just rich enough that even xB ISK losses don't hurt?

A Corp should be a focal point for players and dropping corps should gain no rewards like wardecc evasion. So dropping corp is IMHO no valid concept,
I had to reassess my view, that's right but the impact on the individual player may still be high while it is neglect able for the whole players. It was just an example that the "idiot high-sec miners" aren't so idiotic but do cool calculation on losses like any suicide ganker. That's not excluding stupid actions but the mass is smarter then Dirty forum Alt thinks.

The overall security and the impact on single corps are totally different. While the mass may get away if a single small corp is targeted for prolonged time without the means to strike back it's bad. That has nothing to do with 100% security. You can decc a corp but there should be limits. Where is the real problem if you need to switch target after 1 or 2 weeks? And how does deccing just another corp improve safety? It doesn't it just "spreads" the damage which is IMHO good.

as someone infuriated by it ill be the first to say, you cant not have trivial dec dodging in highsec.

the system would be open for rookie griefing and they would have to either
sit there and take it or say " **** this ima go play homeworld instead " or whatever eve dropouts do these days.
point is you have to be able to nope out of wars in high.

what rubs me the wrong way though is when you get " fecker-mc-wartarget-corp 0.01 " with all of the same members before your deck has even gone live.

Made an error on my previous post which I removed.



I agree with you, its pants and I don't like it either, and I am glad to see you understand that locking people in is not a good idea if their only option is to go play another game for a week or two.

Make the same mechanic that corp has follow pilots aswell.
So.. If you are in a corp and it got dec'd and you drop to npc corp its ok.
But if you join another corp within the week you should have been at war.. the new corp inherits it.

problem solved.

hahaha, space herpies

#1 your numbers are of course biased, and don't even include some major ganking systems since you limited it to the forge itself rather than the routes leading into the forge...

But even so, your numbers show pretty convincingly that the idiot high-sec miners are barely even a factor in production. Only 1.5B isk was mined - but 32B isk was produced. That means only 4.5% of production in the forge came form ore mined in high sec. 95.5% of the ore came from elsewhere.

Also considering that 95% of the high-sec idiots aren't even at war even with the wardec spamming in EVE today, and that they only account for 0.23% of the value imported into the forge... That means the wardec spamming corps killed 5-600% of the total value of every single miner in the forge combined. It is pretty impressively idiotic that 5% of the miners can lose 6x the total value produced by all of the rest *combined*. You will never convince me that they are not idiots for doing this.

Additionally, more isk was lost than was mined.

By your own admission the high sec idiots (who only made 1.5b isk from the ore they mined per your numbers) gave the war-spamming hub-humping corp(s) in Jita 6 billion isk in profit in whatever period you are looking at. And that is *only* in Jita - that doesn't even count the other trade hubs or the major pipeline choke points!



Finally - I have said this before and I'll say it again - *I* am not in a large war-spamming corp. *I* am not doing any of the things you are talking about. And the people who are doing it, aren't *trying* to "make a dent" - they are just *farming kills and isk*. Successfully.

Why don't *you* stop flying your jump freighter full of plex into gate camps while you are at it? You may in fact be the dumbest person in all of EVE.

The Forge on its own is not hisec, you might want to think what you said through again.

Actually I said that the current system is actually quite good as mechanics go, as far as I have seen so far you critique any ideas that are against your strongly held point of view and then you try to paint them as some sort of extremist carebear. Actually an extremist carebear is a strange concept...

My suggestions are focused on not changing the mechanics, but giving back something of value (a sort of watch list) but in such a way that people can fight over it and yet all the way through this thread you and others try to make out that I am doing this to make things more fair, or happy or reduce risk. I am also happy to restrict people instantly re-creating their corp and would reduce the fees on large alliances which are just silly.

Yes it will cost the war dec entities a bit of ISK to set these OS things up and defend them, but it creates something in space that is aimed to make people think about fighting in some way, in a game that is all about fighting what is wrong about that?

I have suggested that the Indy structures should have a lower yield one that can be taken down quickly but want better yields on ones that cannot. This is actually worse then it is now, where people can pull down a POS very quickly. The objective is to push corps that have something of value and will fight to defend it.

My suggestions are to create conflict drivers first and foremost for meaningful smaller level hisec content and yet people like you attack me as if I am some sort of anti-christ. Or accuse me of trying to delete war decs when I want them to have the capacity to perhaps create more meaningful content and my focus is on content so that an indy corp can resist and do damage if they have it in them.

I personally think that many of the detractors in this thread just want people in null sec to play their game and will do anything to keep hisec stale and un-involving. Some of the hisec players get it, but apart from the opportunity you have of being insulting to me, what is your beef with my suggestions?

Well, we can hardly critique something based on someone else's view, so of course critiques that we all make are from our own perspective.

And yes, I critique strongly when I feel it appropriate. Somehow, it's often put that wardeccers are bullies, risk averse, gutless players that only want easy kills, to rob new players, etc., etc., etc. (sometimes much worse has been put).

Yet the expectation of people like yourself and McVain is that all responses to your posts should be cordial and respectful. Well if you guys want respect, then show some.

I don't personally care what you or McVain or many others think, so I have no problem being strong in replies, because if you are going to throw stones, then you better be prepared to have them returned, which makes your claims that it's all others have available, all the funnier after you attack someone and then get all butthurt when it's returned. That's really quite entertaining.

As to your suggestion, I already addressed that a couple of pages ago. No need to rehash it. The opinion is still the same. It's as unbalanced as every other post and in many ways one of the worst suggestions ever made, in its current form. I hope CCP never adopt it and based on what they have so far indicated about observatory arrays, it's a good chance they never will.