These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wars and structures

Author
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#81 - 2016-11-08 19:15:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Donnachadh wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
The totals for the year so far (as at the end of last week):

POCOS: 2571
POS: 1332
Citadel: 131

Total structures killed: 4034
Average structure kills per week: 91

Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets, or who want to remove assets and as the above shows, there's a lot of structures being destroyed in highsec.

Your information is incomplete and lacks anything that gives it relevance.
Just before I posted this I did a quick count on a randomly selected portion of the war dec list and the extrapolated the result for the entire list and that yields more than 1,100 corps in high sec under war dec this week alone. Because non -scientific and only this week not the entire 11 months so we put in a huge error factor and say somewhere between 600 and 800 corps are under war dec during any given week. So you have 91 structures killed in a week where 600 to 800 corps were under war dec. No matter how you add that up and no matter how you try to spin it the numbers say that structures are a minor factor in the overall war dec picture.

No one here has ever disputed that structures die as a result of war, but then structures dying is not the important thing here. Were those structures the only reason why war was declared? were the structures themselves even a major factor in the decision to declare war? Those are also important facts that we need to consider and your stats simply cannot give us that information.

Maybe you should go back and read the point I made again. You seem to have misread it and diverted into something else all together unrelated.

As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point.

The random direction you went in isn't relevant to that and assumptions are pointless. Either validate your own point, or don't, but if you don't then it's worth nothing. It's just a preconceived idea supported with assumption, which is no support at all. It's not that hard to validate what you are saying, but it has nothing to do with the point I made above so not something I'm particularly interested in doing.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#82 - 2016-11-08 19:26:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Ivy Axisur wrote:
I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system.
That is exactly what I propose.

If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, that’s when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.

Luckily, this is never likely to happen.

CCP's approach has always been that the more you want you play in the sand, the more sandy you need to be prepared to get. Inside the rules of the game that's not griefing, it's the game and it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.
Ivy Axisur
State War Academy
Caldari State
#83 - 2016-11-08 19:54:49 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


CCP's approach has always been that the more you want you play in the sand, the more sandy you need to be prepared to get. Inside the rules of the game that's not griefing, it's the game and it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.




Can't argue with you on that one man; you're probably right.

I think its a dumb move on their part and I'll keep making my point too as long as this world exists.

Until then its going to be a slowly dying sausage fest.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#84 - 2016-11-08 20:25:51 UTC
You are shitting on certain players. You just don't know it because you don't know how the market works.

You also have your facts arse backwards. Players who are shot at stay in the game longer. Players who isolate themselves from pvp get bored and leave.

The corp mechanic IS the feature to entice players to partake in war. As well as the structures you want to have for no risk.

Yet another carebear that doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Ivy Axisur
State War Academy
Caldari State
#85 - 2016-11-08 20:49:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivy Axisur
We’ve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.

Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: “70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all
That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.

Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and you’ll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#86 - 2016-11-08 22:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Ivy Axisur wrote:
We’ve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.

Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: “70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all
That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.

Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and you’ll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them.

How is using the rules in line with the design intentions of the devs, harassment?

Go read the 2012 devblog from the last time wardecs mechanics were changed:

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/changes-to-war-mechanics/

It's quite clear that the devs intended wardecs to be a viable career for dedicated groups. It's by design.

That's not harassment. Just because people don't want to be wardecced (I don't particularly like it either), doesn't mean they are being harassed when it happens.

Harassment is not allowed in Eve. CCP have a pretty clear policy on it and they ban players that do it.
Dark Lord Trump
0.0 Massive Dynamic
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2016-11-09 00:38:05 UTC
Ivy Axisur wrote:
I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system.
That is exactly what I propose.

If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, that’s when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.

BTW: your name and signature are hilarious.

So again, if I have a fortizar with 0.2% broker fee and someone else sets up a fortizar with 0.1% broker fee, how do I kill off my competition? Those features of hisec affect me, and I should be able to affect them back in turn. Unwardeccable and structures do not go together.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#88 - 2016-11-09 12:40:30 UTC
Ivy Axisur wrote:
We’ve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.

Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: “70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all
That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.

Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and you’ll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them.


If daichi gets decced i probably wont lose anything either but that doesn't mean i dislike non-consensual pvp, im just playing smart.

Non-consensual pvp is integral to the economy and is the centre of a pvp sandbox. Its essentially one of the pillars of eve. Its not the big reason players are quitting, its actually the reason we play.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#89 - 2016-11-09 15:52:52 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Maybe you should go back and read the point I made again. You seem to have misread it and diverted into something else all together unrelated.

Perhaps your mind remembers what your fingers did not type.
So here is a re-post of the entire relevant portion of your post.
Scipio Artelius wrote:
I pulled the data, just to look at the use of wardecs to kill structures owned by player Corps:

https://puu.sh/saskf/9528977ebb.png

That's a summary of all structure kills in highsec so far this year. All player Corp owned and as it is extremely difficult to gank structures, almost completely using the wardec mechanics.

The totals for the year so far (as at the end of last week):

POCOS: 2571
POS: 1332
Citadel: 131

Total structures killed: 4034
Average structure kills per week: 91

Corps can't expect to be able to own structures and be immune from competition from other Corps/Alliances that want those assets, or who want to remove assets and as the above shows, there's a lot of structures being destroyed in highsec.

See section above in italics.
I did not mis-understand, and I did not divert into some unrelated area of discussion. In fact you are the one that took us down this path by posting numbers that prove a point no one in this topic has ever disputed, that point being that structures die during war decs.

The real question that needs to be answered is simply this.
Were those structures known to the aggressors before the dec was decared, or were they simply targets of opportunity discovered in the prosecution of the war?
Yes this is relevant to this discussion. If they were simply targets of opportunity discovered during the prosecution of the war then they were not a relevant factor in deciding to start the war and that gets back to my point. Structures are not a significant factor in the process of deciding which corps to war dec.

Scipio Artelius wrote:
As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point.

I do not see anywhere in the OP proposal where a corp would be allowed to have structures in high sec AND be immune to war decs. In fact the OP champions the addition of even more structures by making them a required part of declaring a war.
Ivy Axisur is the one that raised the possibility of having structures and still being immune to war dec. Given your basic attitude here this may surprise you but on this one point I agree. If you have a structure in space you are essentially inviting someone to war dec you and you best be ready and willing to defend it or lose it.

Scipio Artelius wrote:
The random direction you went in isn't relevant to that and assumptions are pointless. Either validate your own point, or don't, but if you don't then it's worth nothing. It's just a preconceived idea supported with assumption, which is no support at all. It's not that hard to validate what you are saying, but it has nothing to do with the point I made above so not something I'm particularly interested in doing.

I am not going off in an irrelevant direction. You posted numbers, my post was in reference to those numbers ONLY.
91 structures out of more than 600 active wars in any given week does not make them a significant factor in the overall war dec situation. Because they are not a significant factor in the overall war dec situation does not mean they are completely irrelevant.

In the hopes of getting you unconfused let me give you my basic position on this.
I am not against war decs in high sec and I agree there are many valid reasons to war dec a group. In the face of declining participation in this game for LOL's or for padding kill boards are no longer valid reasons, see below on social corps.

Defenders need a victory condition that ends the war immediately once that condition is met.

The allies mechanic as we know it needs to go away it is broke as hell. It should be replaced with a real mercs market place where anyone can go to hire our merc friends and the relative size of aggressor versus defenders would be dealt with by using a sliding war dec fees structure. The larger the defenders in relation to the aggressors the lower the fees would be.

Now to social corps, I am in favor of these and they should be immune to war decs, in exchange for this immunity there would be some limitations.
No structures in high sec, because they would be easy for anyone to kill I would allow them in low sec.
Because of the increased NPC resources required to protect them the corp itself and everyone in it would be subject to a 10% tax paid to the NPC that controls the space they are headquartered in. This tax would apply to all sources of income throughout the entire game and it would include LP since they are in reality a source of income.
Still working over other restrictions but I am not sure they are needed, and yes the tax rate could be adjusted up or down by a bit, I am not a fan of the oft stated 30% or so taxes that is simply to high and to be honest it is unfair and may have unintended consequences on the markets.

I have some concerns about these becoming a haven for illegal activities and I admit that I am at a loss when it comes to dealing this this. One possibility would be an instant Concord response to any and all offensive actions taken against another player or players, corp members would be excluded from this.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#90 - 2016-11-09 16:19:47 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point.

I do not see anywhere in the OP proposal where a corp would be allowed to have structures in high sec AND be immune to war decs. In fact the OP champions the addition of even more structures by making them a required part of declaring a war.
It's in the sentences that say:
Cap ITal wrote:
The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region. And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed.
The OP proposes that corporations be allowed to opt-out of a war by destroying a structure. That would make their structures immune to attack given you require an active wardec for at least 8 days to attack them in highsec.

This alone is what makes this proposal and all the similar ones dead-in-the-water. CCP will never give you a way to opt-out of defending your structure, even if you have to shoot something to do it. That advantages large groups far too much and completely undermines the flow of structure combat in highsec. If PL never has to fit weapons to their highsec citadel because they can blob their way out of any war and just let CONCORD defend it, there is a fundamental problem with your game design idea.

Donnachadh wrote:

Now to social corps, I am in favor of these and they should be immune to war decs, in exchange for this immunity there would be some limitations.
No structures in high sec, because they would be easy for anyone to kill I would allow them in low sec.
Because of the increased NPC resources required to protect them the corp itself and everyone in it would be subject to a 10% tax paid to the NPC that controls the space they are headquartered in. This tax would apply to all sources of income throughout the entire game and it would include LP since they are in reality a source of income.
Still working over other restrictions but I am not sure they are needed, and yes the tax rate could be adjusted up or down by a bit, I am not a fan of the oft stated 30% or so taxes that is simply to high and to be honest it is unfair and may have unintended consequences on the markets.

I have some concerns about these becoming a haven for illegal activities and I admit that I am at a loss when it comes to dealing this this. One possibility would be an instant Concord response to any and all offensive actions taken against another player or players, corp members would be excluded from this.
You are overthinking it. Social corps should be just like NPC corps (except with a name and some social functions of a corp like a chat channel) and then you don't have to worry about any balance issues given players can only do what they could do in an NPC corp anyway. There is no point making them worse than the NPC corps (like your insta-CONCORD idea or have high taxes) or players will just stay in the NPC corps instead.




Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#91 - 2016-11-09 20:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Deleted. If original context can't be understood, then clarification is pointless.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#92 - 2016-11-10 00:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
double post.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#93 - 2016-11-10 15:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Black Pedro wrote:
Cap ITal wrote:
The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region. And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed.
The OP proposes that corporations be allowed to opt-out of a war by destroying a structure. That would make their structures immune to attack given you require an active wardec for at least 8 days to attack them in highsec.

Reading and comprehending it is critical to a useful discourse you might want to train up that skill sometime soon.
Because of quote limits and that I think this is a better way to handle this I will break with the norm and go this route.

"The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region"
Clearly this indicates that the aggressor needs to have a structure in space to be able to declare a war.
It also clearly indicates that when / if the structure is destroyed then the war decs come to an end immediately.
But there is nothing here that would allow a corp to have structures in space AND be immune to a war dec.

"And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed."
Here the OP states that once your structure in space has been destroyed the war ends and you enter into a 7 day cooling off period. After that cooling off period you can place another structure and then re-war dec anyone you want.
Again I do not see anywhere here where it is possible to have a structure in space AND be immune to a war dec.
Further more during that 7 day period they are not immune to ALL war decs, they are only immune to being re-decced by the corp that owned the structure they successfully destroyed and to be honest if they beat you and your structure they deserve that 7 day break.

But we can simply use an alt corp and re-dec them immediately, why yes you could do that and I want to thank you for proving that your concern about them being immune to war dec is false.

Black Pedro wrote:
This alone is what makes this proposal and all the similar ones dead-in-the-water. CCP will never give you a way to opt-out of defending your structure, even if you have to shoot something to do it. That advantages large groups far too much and completely undermines the flow of structure combat in highsec. If PL never has to fit weapons to their highsec citadel because they can blob their way out of any war and just let CONCORD defend it, there is a fundamental problem with your game design idea.

This is your opinion and obviously it is not shared by others.
While I agree that the whole structures as a required part of a war dec has some problems to deal with and relative size of aggressor versus defenders is certainly one of them I still do not understand your resistance to the basic concept.
Structures in space offer many avenues to generate content and conflict between players.
Structures in space offer the possibility to add something that has been lacking in war decs forever, a way for the defender to actually WIN forcing the war to end immediately.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#94 - 2016-11-10 16:02:24 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
But we can simply use an alt corp and re-dec them immediately, why yes you could do that and I want to thank you for proving that your concern about them being immune to war dec is false.
Wait, so your answer is that if you lose a war and are trying to explode a structure you should jump to a new corp and re-dec them? That's inane. If you believe that should be the intended way to shoot structures, why end the war or have a 7-day lockout in the first place? Clearly it is completely ineffective and thus a waste of time, only just cluttering up people's corp histories from making them jump between alt corps. Just let the agressors re-declare war while in the same corp and continue the structure bash if that is how you think structures should be contested in highsec and skip all the needless corporation hopping.

It doesn't matter though. CCP is not going to award immunity to attack as a reward for participating in a war, especially given how trivially it can be worked around as you describe. Structures are meant to be actively defended against an aggressor, and the OP's proposal is not compatible with that, at least under the current system of how structures are shot in highsec.

Donnachadh wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
This alone is what makes this proposal and all the similar ones dead-in-the-water. CCP will never give you a way to opt-out of defending your structure, even if you have to shoot something to do it. That advantages large groups far too much and completely undermines the flow of structure combat in highsec. If PL never has to fit weapons to their highsec citadel because they can blob their way out of any war and just let CONCORD defend it, there is a fundamental problem with your game design idea.

This is your opinion and obviously it is not shared by others.
While I agree that the whole structures as a required part of a war dec has some problems to deal with and relative size of aggressor versus defenders is certainly one of them I still do not understand your resistance to the basic concept.
Structures in space offer many avenues to generate content and conflict between players.
Structures in space offer the possibility to add something that has been lacking in war decs forever, a way for the defender to actually WIN forcing the war to end immediately.
It's not really an opinion. It is an obvious design consideration making such proposals impractical.

Actually I support structure-based wars. I only oppose giving players the ability to end wars. I don't think it is at all necessary, would stifle player interactions not promote them, favour large groups over small groups and would give too much safety to structures given the current system. It would be perfectly fine to require corporations to deploy structures before they can declare wars, and even have them lose the ability to declare wars if their structure is lost (until they deploy a new one), but current wars must be allowed to run thier course. The point after all, or so supporters of this idea claim, is to provide something for the defenders to counter-attack and inflict damage on the aggressor or force a fight (AKA "having some skin in the game"), not earn blanket safety from attack so that a group is allowed to PvE in peace or not have to defend its own structures. Players, and especially player groups, are suppose to be vulnerable to each other and such safety is anathema to the sandbox.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#95 - 2016-11-10 22:55:03 UTC
Ivy Axisur wrote:
I do fully support unrestricted access to all features of high sec with the additional protection of opting out of the war dec system.
That is exactly what I propose.

If you want action, great, so do I sometimes, that’s when I clone jump to low sec or warp to a WH. -the vast majority of the game still accommodates that.

BTW: your name and signature are hilarious.


Explain to me, under your system, what prevents me from blowing up every single hisec POCO, opting out of wardecs, and owning all tax revenue from those planets forever.

Explain what would prevent me from simply owning all of the moons in any given system just because I was the first one to drop towers on them.

Moving forward, consider the next wave of structures, drilling platforms. Explain to me how your system wouldn't create sustainable, permanent, unremovable economic advantage just becuase someone showed up first.

You're under the assumption that only people that don't actually want to fight would use this feature.

That's false.

People that want to continue to beat on others without being beat on themselves would. I'd happily abuse this system to have a massive invincible ISK printing machine in hisec without also having to stage combat ships and jump clones there in case of a wardec. I could run the whole machine with one alt. I could use the money it generated to do whatever I felt like, including deccing anyone dumb enough to actually opt in to decs.

Until everyone smartened up and everyone opted out of decs.

This is why wardeccers don't keep their assets holding characters in the same corp as their wardeccers, why most people with hauling alts put them in NPC corps, and generally why your proposed "opt out" system wouldn't work.

It would be completely stupid to opt IN to wardeccing. Wardeccing is a system designed to enable agression so that you can't simply do whatever you want without consequences in hisec. it is literally a useless system if you can opt out of it and keep all the benefits of being in a player corp.
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2016-11-18 08:41:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Nomistrav
I really couldn't care less about adding structures as another checkbox to the list of what an aggressor must put on the line to do the inevitable. It's just another ISK sink, and ISK has never been a good balancing factor (see: entire history of Eve). Even if this were a hypothetically feasible addition, you can almost guarantee that corporations will just put throw-away structures on the line designed solely for the purpose of starting the war and/or luring war targets. You could accomplish largely the same thing by increasing the war dec ISK cost.

War-decs in general are poorly devised because they lack a sense of purpose besides, I dunno, griefing. They're a way to skirt the rules of High-sec/Low-sec for easy kills, which is all fine and good, but there's no (healthy) way for a defending corp to actually defend against it and worse yet the mechanics are designed to actually ENCOURAGE larger entities attacking smaller entities (war dec costs increasing with the amount of members of the target corporation). So there's no real risk for say, Goonswarm, with 18,000+ members, to throw down a measly 50m ISK and lock a defending corp into a permanent war. Adding on a one-time check of an Astrahus would be absolutely nothing, since the aggressor is likely to have that anyway.

This becomes especially problematic when the aggressor has no real goal in mind and seeks -only- to grief the defending corporation. There is no feasible way out as the surrender mechanics are in control of the aggressors (because that makes **** all sense, right?) and the only other alternative is to drop corp, start a new one, and pray to god they don't war dec that one too.

It's anecdotal evidence, but I've never heard of a large corporation/alliance complaining that a small group of stubborn pilots are causing them havoc in high-sec. I have heard of a -lot- of smaller corporations getting locked into wars they cannot possibly win and cannot possibly leave. Toss in some derogatory comments, direct harassment of the players themselves, and the line between an in-game 'war' and griefing gets really, really blurry.

EDIT: After reading Steve Ronuken's proposal (which is largely similar) in which the collateral structure is placed as a win condition for the defender, it still makes jack of sense because it doesn't address the core issues first. Assuming that the mechanics stayed the same and a structure had to be put on the line by the aggressor for the defender to attack, it assumes that the defender can actually achieve that capability in the first place. In the instance of a major alliance with hundreds/thousands of players declaring war on a small corporation of <50-100, it likely won't happen.

TL;DR - Adding structures to the checklist for aggressors doesn't address to core problems of the war dec system itself, which are deep rooted to heavily favor the aggressor in the first place.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Sitting Bull Lakota
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2016-11-18 11:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
Okay, first there is no such thing as griefing in EvE. You're are getting attacked in a PvP zone on the PvP server while you are flying a PvP ship after you pressed the PvP flagging button called undock.
You asked for it. So no, highsec war is not about "griefing."

Second, increasing the cost of wars with structures and fees will always increase the size of wardec alliances. This is guaranteed.

Third, making it more difficult to find wartargets will always make blanket deccing, hub humping, and gate camping the more preferable M.O.

You want to stop this trend?
Lower the cost of wars.
Stop suggesting structure based mechanics.
Make wartargets easier to find and determine their online status.
The large alliances may not get smaller, but they'll stop getting bigger.

Not that any of that matters, because here's how you permanently defend against wardecs:
Disband your oversized, wardec magnet corp and have each member make a 1 man corp for tax purposes. Make a chat channel featuring your confederation's text-art logo in the motd. Place your confederation's text art logo in your corp's bio. Set eachother to blue. Base out of one of the ten thousand tax haven/freeport citadels. Go have some EvE.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2016-11-18 14:14:30 UTC
Only structure I could see be implemented with wars would be something that spawn upon wardec for both side and can be destroyed by the other one to end the war. No additional cost for the attacking side but still a way for the defender to end a war if they are willing to undock and do something about it.

Adding cost to wardecs by enforcing anchoring of any structure is counter productive for anyone who don't want to be decced by large group. People will always group up to split the cost you add on top of current wardecs anyway.
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2016-11-18 17:44:38 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Okay, first there is no such thing as griefing in EvE. You're are getting attacked in a PvP zone on the PvP server while you are flying a PvP ship after you pressed the PvP flagging button called undock.
You asked for it. So no, highsec war is not about "griefing."

Second, increasing the cost of wars with structures and fees will always increase the size of wardec alliances. This is guaranteed.

Third, making it more difficult to find wartargets will always make blanket deccing, hub humping, and gate camping the more preferable M.O.

You want to stop this trend?
Lower the cost of wars.
Stop suggesting structure based mechanics.
Make wartargets easier to find and determine their online status.
The large alliances may not get smaller, but they'll stop getting bigger.

Not that any of that matters, because here's how you permanently defend against wardecs:
Disband your oversized, wardec magnet corp and have each member make a 1 man corp for tax purposes. Make a chat channel featuring your confederation's text-art logo in the motd. Place your confederation's text art logo in your corp's bio. Set eachother to blue. Base out of one of the ten thousand tax haven/freeport citadels. Go have some EvE.


Just so we're clear, there is -absolutely- such a thing as griefing in Eve Online and it has nothing to do with being attacked, losing assets, or being cut off from a certain region of space. It turns into griefing when the players themselves are directly being attacked as players inside and outside of the game. Unless we just forgot about the time when one particular member advocated the suicide of another player on a live stream, the time a group of scammers recorded a two hour long video of a player being harassed to the point of a near mental break, or when several people scratched out another player's name on the Eve Monument in Iceland, just to name a few off the top of my head.

In fact, the very idea of harassment was even discussed in an interview with CCP Seagull on Kotaku, in which she said: "But if it turns out it's a complete menace, we can then lock the ability for free players to shoot others in high security space. So they will be able to do that in low and null security space, but not in high security." Source

But that's all I'll say on the matter because it has little to do with the topic at hand.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama