These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War decs : not achieving objectives

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Veyreuth
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2017-03-02 18:50:50 UTC
One thing that bothers me about wars is that the vast majority of them are just sanctioned piracy. It's so rarely about two corporations butting heads. With so many high sec activities devalued to encourage players to go to low/null, I can think of very few pieces of real estate worth fighting over. With so few wars about conflict over territory/resources and so many about making ISK (Piracy), the only reason to declare war is to keep the taps flowing for piracy.

Think about some of the common war dec groups:

P I R A T - 104 active wars
Vendetta Mercenary Group - 151 active wars
The Marmite Collective - 95 active wars

To me, declaring war on a corporation should be a big deal, and declaring war on an alliance should be somewhat extraordinary. Instead, it just feels kind of "cheap" that one group can maintain so many wars at one time. There should be some level of thought involved with declaring war beyond the opportunity to hit juicy targets.

If I could tweak it, I would make each additional war a copr/alliance wants to declare beyond the first (active/future war) cost an exponentially greater amount. Also the more often a corporation/alliance receives a war dec, the more expensive war decs against that corporation should be... that way corporations on the frequent receiving end of war decs get some sort of breathing room. These mechanics will force pirate corps/alliances to put more thought into who they're declaring against and prevent corporations from being long term punching bags. It would mean that pirate corps/alliances spend more time scouting out a potential target rather than just jamming wars on a bunch in hopes a few will be juicy, which makes for more interesting game play.

I'm also reminded about how there should be encouragement for people to go to low/null to profit/go about their business... this mentality seems to justify making high sec less hospitable. Think about this... if it is as easy as it is to declare war and be a pirate in high sec, where is the incentive for these PvPers to go to low/null? It goes both ways.
Amojin
Doomheim
#122 - 2017-03-02 22:14:42 UTC
Veyreuth wrote:
One thing that bothers me about wars is that the vast majority of them are just sanctioned piracy.


This is probably what bothers the majority of people who 'work' for a living. It's always been this way, in life, though - once you build something up, someone else has to come along and try to take it.

Now, I won't lie. While I'm sitting out there mining, it's such a boring activity that I run a second monitor to watch videos on. I've made it through entire seasons of shows, while mining, so work is a relative term, yes.


I don't know how many of you have seen this this one, but it was floating around on various boards for awhile, and I thought both hilarious, and terrifying:

---
Ineptocracy.

Definition:
"(Noun) a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of people."
---

Well, think of those juicy wardecs as votes? Miners and Manufacturers work, and then those same corporations that produce all of the ships for the legalized thugs, are the very same targets. There is some irony, here, I think.
Soloman Jackson
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2017-03-02 22:42:58 UTC
I would have NPC stations charge a substantial fee for staying docked while under a war dec.

Or have the NPC station offer a "Booting" service for the folks sitting outside.

“The cold stars spun to the ancient rhythm, the august march of an everlasting symphony. They are old, the stars, and their memory is long.” -Rick Yancey
Charley Varrick
State War Academy
Caldari State
#124 - 2017-03-02 22:45:09 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Charley Varrick wrote:
Veyreuth wrote:
A common point in this thread is that war decades create content, and corporations that receive war decks should be grateful for the content and fight. I don't think people who made these points would feel the same way if there was a mechanic that allowed players to force other players to mine or build stuff. Mining and building stuff is content, but if you're not interested in either, you probably wouldn't be interested in a game mechanic that allows other players to force you to do either on their terms. You might even lose interest in the game, because you log in to do X, but are forced to do Y.

Don't take me the wrong way, there is a place for war decs and high sec shouldn't be safe. At the same time, if I'm a miner in a mining corporation and that's the joy that I get out of the game, and I'm given the choice between PvP in a war dec or staying docked, you need to appreciate that neither option is agreeable... just as being forced to mine or run industry jobs isn't agreeable if you want to PvP with your time.



I gotta say, you do raise a valid point. PVPers can force their content/play style on miners/industrialist but not the other way around. I can just see all the rage over a game mechanic that says "in order to complete the war dec you must go mine 2mill units of veldspar or run 10 lev4 missions". lol


Well... you could argue that any time a PvP player buys something from the market that was manufactured, they took part in the manufacturing process.


Nah not buying it. Just because I bought a new Honda Doesn't mean I had any part in it's construction at the factory. Helped the economy maybe.
Charley Varrick
State War Academy
Caldari State
#125 - 2017-03-02 22:48:52 UTC
Soloman Jackson wrote:
I would have NPC stations charge a substantial fee for staying docked while under a war dec.



Will that same NPC station charge a loitering fee to all those camped outside?
Veyreuth
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2017-03-03 02:15:35 UTC
Amojin wrote:
Veyreuth wrote:
One thing that bothers me about wars is that the vast majority of them are just sanctioned piracy.


This is probably what bothers the majority of people who 'work' for a living. It's always been this way, in life, though - once you build something up, someone else has to come along and try to take it.


Just to clarify... I'm not making commentary about piracy being bad. My point is, why is it that piracy is the only profession that is easier and more lucrative in high-sec? Why work the pipes in low sec or camp a gate in null if all you have to do is war dec a bunch of corps and sit in Jita? Why do pirates need mechanics to make piracy easier when there are already laughably easy mechanics to pop ships in high sec before Concord arrives?
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#127 - 2017-03-03 06:39:33 UTC
Veyreuth wrote:
One thing that bothers me about wars is that the vast majority of them are just sanctioned piracy. It's so rarely about two corporations butting heads. With so many high sec activities devalued to encourage players to go to low/null, I can think of very few pieces of real estate worth fighting over. With so few wars about conflict over territory/resources and so many about making ISK (Piracy), the only reason to declare war is to keep the taps flowing for piracy.

Think about some of the common war dec groups:

P I R A T - 104 active wars
Vendetta Mercenary Group - 151 active wars
The Marmite Collective - 95 active wars

To me, declaring war on a corporation should be a big deal, and declaring war on an alliance should be somewhat extraordinary. Instead, it just feels kind of "cheap" that one group can maintain so many wars at one time. There should be some level of thought involved with declaring war beyond the opportunity to hit juicy targets.

If I could tweak it, I would make each additional war a copr/alliance wants to declare beyond the first (active/future war) cost an exponentially greater amount. Also the more often a corporation/alliance receives a war dec, the more expensive war decs against that corporation should be... that way corporations on the frequent receiving end of war decs get some sort of breathing room. These mechanics will force pirate corps/alliances to put more thought into who they're declaring against and prevent corporations from being long term punching bags. It would mean that pirate corps/alliances spend more time scouting out a potential target rather than just jamming wars on a bunch in hopes a few will be juicy, which makes for more interesting game play.

I'm also reminded about how there should be encouragement for people to go to low/null to profit/go about their business... this mentality seems to justify making high sec less hospitable. Think about this... if it is as easy as it is to declare war and be a pirate in high sec, where is the incentive for these PvPers to go to low/null? It goes both ways.



This would cause even more harrassment of the weak. Imagine me hunting just a few targets all the time!
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#128 - 2017-03-03 06:40:53 UTC
Soloman Jackson wrote:
I would have NPC stations charge a substantial fee for staying docked while under a war dec.

Or have the NPC station offer a "Booting" service for the folks sitting outside.


And this could not be abused lol.

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#129 - 2017-03-03 07:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Soloman Jackson wrote:
I would have NPC stations charge a substantial fee for staying docked while under a war dec.

Or have the NPC station offer a "Booting" service for the folks sitting outside.

This is just the usual "all stick, no carrot" approach to modifying player behavior.

How can forcing a player to do something they don't want to do make any real sense in a game? Collective illusions for weak-minded people (like Farmville) are possible of course, but they don't last.

In serious gaming terms, the first question for any activity that pits players against each other, is "why should they both (or all if it's large-scale) want to do it?". If there's no answer to that question, forcing reluctant players into the activity will just annoy them.

Actually every time I look at this thread's title I wonder what the objectives of wardecs really are? I may have seen accurate answers in this the, but I haven't seen a sensible answer to it. The most common assumptions seem to be:

  • CCP want to force new players out of highsec, and this if (/lol) the best they can come up with
  • CCP want to make it easier for fun-vampires to interfere with players' activities in highsec, and don't care that in most cases the target is not interested in being in a war


It would be interesting if all the pretend hatred of CODE resulted in their being effectively hunted in highsec, but as usual the slightest possibility of resistance scares away the wannbe "highsec hardmen" who otherwise lobby so intensely for "more content" and "no safety" in highsec. Of course they're just pretending - they want to be safe - the lack of safety is only intended for their victims.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#130 - 2017-03-03 07:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Veyreuth wrote:
Amojin wrote:
Veyreuth wrote:
One thing that bothers me about wars is that the vast majority of them are just sanctioned piracy.


This is probably what bothers the majority of people who 'work' for a living. It's always been this way, in life, though - once you build something up, someone else has to come along and try to take it.


Just to clarify... I'm not making commentary about piracy being bad. My point is, why is it that piracy is the only profession that is easier and more lucrative in high-sec? Why work the pipes in low sec or camp a gate in null if all you have to do is war dec a bunch of corps and sit in Jita? Why do pirates need mechanics to make piracy easier when there are already laughably easy mechanics to pop ships in high sec before Concord arrives?
Mechanically, piracy isn't any easier in highsec - it is much, much, harder. CONCORD provides a significant deterrent that prevents almost all of it. If you look at CCP Quant's monthly numbers, you will see that destruction in a highsec region makes up only about 0.1%-0.2% of the total goods transported. And that is destruction from all sources: suicide ganking, wardecs, duels, NPCs, and so forth, not just piracy.

While wardecs I guess could be considered a form of piracy in some cases, it really is more a 'letter of marque' against an enemy. You make formal, and legal declaration of war and give your opponent at least 24 hours to prepare for the hostilities and that you are coming for them. The defender can use that time to arrange a defense fleet to defend their hauling, or, the more popular choice, arrange for alternative carriage by haulers that are not a party to the war.

I agree though, wars are indeed sometimes used to extort or extract resources from other players. But that is, of course, completely intended. You are suppose to be able to get ahead by extracting the resources of the New Eden, or by taking those resources from your fellow player. It just turns out that a large fraction of those resources are extracted and traded in highsec, so of course, the pirates will follow. Believe me though, those pirates would much prefer to attempt to interdict your resources while you are moving them through a wormhole or lowsec than in highsec, where CONCORD makes it much harder, and much costlier, to do so.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2017-03-03 08:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Torin Corax
Veyreuth wrote:


If I could tweak it, I would make each additional war a copr/alliance wants to declare beyond the first (active/future war) cost an exponentially greater amount.


Certainly an idea for encouraging a more "targeted" war dec.
That said, I've been away from Eve for some time, and it would seem that there have been changes that have made targeted (read: Merc) wars significantly less appealing...the main one would appear to be the "buddy" approach to watch lists. I was never a merc myself, but I can see where that could make those kind of activities far less effective. If there is to be a return to a more targeted war dec system, I would suggest that some form of watch list be reinstated. Even if there is a requirement to "tag" an enemy player....so that only war targets that have been actively scouted can be followed in such a way ( Hooray for scouting incentives).

Veyreuth wrote:
Also the more often a corporation/alliance receives a war dec, the more expensive war decs against that corporation should be...


This is exploitable....Dec shields would be real.

Quote:

I'm also reminded about how there should be encouragement for people to go to low/null to profit/go about their business... this mentality seems to justify making high sec less hospitable. Think about this... if it is as easy as it is to declare war and be a pirate in high sec, where is the incentive for these PvPers to go to low/null? It goes both ways.


Predators go where the prey is.
Add whatever incentives you like, but if the prey stays in high sec, so will the pirates.
Hub-humping war-deccers do what they do because it works, there are just that many juicy (and terminally careless) targets to be had.

Honestly, the best way to stop High sec war decs is to educate enough high sec players in how to avoid getting ganked....this is easier said than done. If people want to avoid PvP, they should first learn how to PvP....they don't have to get good at it, just learn how it works. Once they have that knowledge, war decs are a pretty much a non-issue.
Salvos Rhoska
#132 - 2017-03-03 08:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Black Pedro wrote:
. If you look at CCP Quant's monthly numbers, you will see that destruction in a highsec region makes up only about 0.1%-0.2% of the total goods transported. And that is destruction from all sources: suicide ganking, wardecs, duels, NPCs, and so forth, not just piracy.


Imo this is one of the biggest problems in EVE.
Should be atleast 2%, which whilst still tiny, should put enough of a dent in material transport to help localize trade hubs.

The sheer volume of undestroyed material passing through HS is mindboggling, and seriously raises the question whether this is infact a PvP based game or not.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#133 - 2017-03-03 08:16:02 UTC
Turn empire into Islands seperated by lowsec faction warfare areas, there can be bridges connecting Caldari/ Amarr, and Gallente / Minmatar since they are allies by lore. This would more localise trade hubs and introduce known risk to hauling between hubs.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#134 - 2017-03-03 08:46:02 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
. If you look at CCP Quant's monthly numbers, you will see that destruction in a highsec region makes up only about 0.1%-0.2% of the total goods transported. And that is destruction from all sources: suicide ganking, wardecs, duels, NPCs, and so forth, not just piracy.


Imo this is one of the biggest problems in EVE.
Should be atleast 2%, which whilst still tiny, should put enough of a dent in material transport to help localize trade hubs.

The sheer volume of undestroyed material passing through HS is mindboggling, and seriously raises the question whether this is infact a PvP based game or not.

This is getting off-topic, but I agree. When an order of magnitude more wealth leaves the game from people quitting than is destroyed by players fighting one another, one has to question how successful CCP really has been at creating a functioning virtual world and economy or a PvP game.

One possibility is that all this safety and lack of risk is boring players out of the game. I am going to refer to this as the 'Tippia effect' from now on: the problem that excess safety prevents meaningful content and challenging opposition from taking place devaluing the satisfaction in accumulating wealth, leading to boredom and people quitting the game.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim to have the answers and I am sure a hyper-competitive and challenging version of Eve where loss was more commonplace would also chase some players out of the game. But one does have to ask at this point if perhaps this pendulum of making New Eden safer and safer has swung a little too far. Between the near absence of piracy in highsec and 100% invulnerable jump-freighter chains we now have, non-consensual PvP is at a nadir, coincidentally at the same time we are heading back towards 10-year lows in player counts.

As for wars, they do what they are suppose to do. Given they are also optional (you can drop corp at any time) and CCP gives you multiple character slots for your neutral hauler, it seems like their relevance in direct piracy is only tangential. But a more powerful entity claiming space (like a trade hub) and using force to keep you out, or a weaker entity declaring war on a large nullsec group and harrying their logistics as they try to use trade hubs seem like perfectly fine reasons and uses for wars.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#135 - 2017-03-03 08:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Veyreuth wrote:
...there should be encouragement for people to go to low/null to profit/go about their business... this mentality seems to justify making high sec less hospitable. Think about this... if it is as easy as it is to declare war and be a pirate in high sec, where is the incentive for these PvPers to go to low/null?

There's plenty of incentive, some of the common ones being:

  • It costs nothing at all in low and null. If you want to shoot someone, you can
  • Some people don't want to pvp in highsec. They prefer low and null because it's not highsec
  • There are other conflict drivers in low and null that some people find more attractive (eg. FW, sov null mechanics, Capital fights)
  • Corps and Alliances work together in low and null. That alone is plenty of incentive to leave highsec
  • The mechanics are different (eg. hotdropping, bubbles, no local of wormhole space, etc.) and some people like that
  • Greater risk = greater reward when making ISK
  • The meta game is much more important (except for the whole Code, CODE. and AG meta game) and some people really like that
  • Industry bonuses are better
  • Moon mining (not an individual player activity, but still a lot for individual players to do)
  • PI is better
There are others. There are plenty of reasons that pvpers leave highsec. However, if people choose to pvp in highsec, that's perfectly fine. No better or worse than choosing to pvp in low/null/wh, mine, be an industrialist, etc. All of our choices are equally valid.

Most pvpers that I know and fly with don't give a crap about the ISK cost. If we wanted to go to highsec and pvp, sure we could. It just doesn't interest us, because low and null offer different mechanics that we do prefer, but it's no better than someone who wants to be a wardeccer. They're as entitled to their playstyle as you are to yours.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2017-03-03 09:00:38 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

As for wars, they do what they are suppose to do. Given they are also optional (you can drop corp at any time) and CCP gives you multiple character slots for your neutral hauler, it seems like their relevance in direct piracy is only tangential. But a more powerful entity claiming space (like a trade hub) and using force to keep you out, or a weaker entity declaring war on a large nullsec group and harrying their logistics as they try to use trade hubs seem like perfectly fine reasons and uses for wars.


I'm honestly curious, but given the ease with which alts can "bypass" war dec mechanics, are there any realistic purposes for war decs beyond in-space asset removal (citadels etc.) and "ganking" careless players?

Taking over a hub and keeping people out by force would seem rather pointless, because alts. Trying to keep everyone out would also be pointless, if successful it would no longer be a hub and the aggressors would be the proud "owners" of a largely useless high sec system. ...granted shutting Jita down permanently would be funny as hell.

Any large Null sec group that allowed their logistics to be that easily disrupted probably don't deserve to be a large null sec group, again see alts. Failing alts, pay for a third party haulage firm to make the end-runs into a hub for you.

I may well of misread your post, and I'm not trying to be critical...it's just that beyond the above I honestly don't see a reason for war decs beyond circumventing Concord. Which is war decs working as intended as far as I can see. I may be missing something here though.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#137 - 2017-03-03 09:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Torin Corax wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

As for wars, they do what they are suppose to do. Given they are also optional (you can drop corp at any time) and CCP gives you multiple character slots for your neutral hauler, it seems like their relevance in direct piracy is only tangential. But a more powerful entity claiming space (like a trade hub) and using force to keep you out, or a weaker entity declaring war on a large nullsec group and harrying their logistics as they try to use trade hubs seem like perfectly fine reasons and uses for wars.


I'm honestly curious, but given the ease with which alts can "bypass" war dec mechanics, are there any realistic purposes for war decs beyond in-space asset removal (citadels etc.) and "ganking" careless players?

Taking over a hub and keeping people out by force would seem rather pointless, because alts. Trying to keep everyone out would also be pointless, if successful it would no longer be a hub and the aggressors would be the proud "owners" of a largely useless high sec system. ...granted shutting Jita down permanently would be funny as hell.

Any large Null sec group that allowed their logistics to be that easily disrupted probably don't deserve to be a large null sec group, again see alts. Failing alts, pay for a third party haulage firm to make the end-runs into a hub for you.

I may well of misread your post, and I'm not trying to be critical...it's just that beyond the above I honestly don't see a reason for war decs beyond circumventing Concord. Which is war decs working as intended as far as I can see. I may be missing something here though.
No I largely agree. At least for smaller corps and specialized corps, using out-of-corp hauling makes wars almost useless for the purposes I claim. Red Frog Freight dances around the mechanics and is little impacted by wars. Same with your typical, tiny highsec corp who can just use NPC corp haulers. However, corps that operate outside of highsec don't have that luxury. They are much larger, and just the logistics of it require them to be in a corp so their allies know not to shoot them. That also means their enemies can try to identify and wardec their logistics corps and try to pick them off if they foolishly enter highsec.

I think you could, and maybe CCP should, move all the real benefits of corps (taxes, hangers, etc.) into structures and make a tier of corp you cannot wardec that can't have structures. Given how easy it is for players to evade wars with alts or by staying in the NPC corp, I don't see it would majorly impact game play. If they gave these structures more utility, it may even give more meaning to wars themselves as players would want to be in, defend, and attack corporations more than now.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#138 - 2017-03-03 15:59:42 UTC
Charley Varrick wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Charley Varrick wrote:
Veyreuth wrote:
A common point in this thread is that war decades create content, and corporations that receive war decks should be grateful for the content and fight. I don't think people who made these points would feel the same way if there was a mechanic that allowed players to force other players to mine or build stuff. Mining and building stuff is content, but if you're not interested in either, you probably wouldn't be interested in a game mechanic that allows other players to force you to do either on their terms. You might even lose interest in the game, because you log in to do X, but are forced to do Y.

Don't take me the wrong way, there is a place for war decs and high sec shouldn't be safe. At the same time, if I'm a miner in a mining corporation and that's the joy that I get out of the game, and I'm given the choice between PvP in a war dec or staying docked, you need to appreciate that neither option is agreeable... just as being forced to mine or run industry jobs isn't agreeable if you want to PvP with your time.



I gotta say, you do raise a valid point. PVPers can force their content/play style on miners/industrialist but not the other way around. I can just see all the rage over a game mechanic that says "in order to complete the war dec you must go mine 2mill units of veldspar or run 10 lev4 missions". lol


Well... you could argue that any time a PvP player buys something from the market that was manufactured, they took part in the manufacturing process.


Nah not buying it. Just because I bought a new Honda Doesn't mean I had any part in it's construction at the factory. Helped the economy maybe.


You helped create the demand. It's not JUST you of course... but if EVERYONE decided to not buy a Honda, the manufacturing of Hondas would stop. If more people decided to buy Hondas, the number produced would go up (or the price charged would go up). Demand for a product is what causes manufacturing to occur.

Destruction of assets drives demand in Eve. Those destroying assets and those who have their assets destroyed have a huge impact in driving manufacturing in the game. One of the greatest things about this game is how all the parts tie together and impact each other.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#139 - 2017-03-03 17:23:06 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
. If you look at CCP Quant's monthly numbers, you will see that destruction in a highsec region makes up only about 0.1%-0.2% of the total goods transported. And that is destruction from all sources: suicide ganking, wardecs, duels, NPCs, and so forth, not just piracy.


Imo this is one of the biggest problems in EVE.
Should be atleast 2%, which whilst still tiny, should put enough of a dent in material transport to help localize trade hubs.

The sheer volume of undestroyed material passing through HS is mindboggling, and seriously raises the question whether this is infact a PvP based game or not.

This is getting off-topic, but I agree. When an order of magnitude more wealth leaves the game from people quitting than is destroyed by players fighting one another, one has to question how successful CCP really has been at creating a functioning virtual world and economy or a PvP game.

One possibility is that all this safety and lack of risk is boring players out of the game. I am going to refer to this as the 'Tippia effect' from now on: the problem that excess safety prevents meaningful content and challenging opposition from taking place devaluing the satisfaction in accumulating wealth, leading to boredom and people quitting the game.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim to have the answers and I am sure a hyper-competitive and challenging version of Eve where loss was more commonplace would also chase some players out of the game. But one does have to ask at this point if perhaps this pendulum of making New Eden safer and safer has swung a little too far. Between the near absence of piracy in highsec and 100% invulnerable jump-freighter chains we now have, non-consensual PvP is at a nadir, coincidentally at the same time we are heading back towards 10-year lows in player counts.

As for wars, they do what they are suppose to do. Given they are also optional (you can drop corp at any time) and CCP gives you multiple character slots for your neutral hauler, it seems like their relevance in direct piracy is only tangential. But a more powerful entity claiming space (like a trade hub) and using force to keep you out, or a weaker entity declaring war on a large nullsec group and harrying their logistics as they try to use trade hubs seem like perfectly fine reasons and uses for wars.


I can think of a few ways to get more pvp happening and thus, more destruction but that is probably for another thread. War decs are really only useful for attacking a POS, POCO or citadel. Equally the reasons for being in a corp are rather poor so its hardly suprising people will simply evade a war dec rather than fight, they don't stand to lose anything by doing that.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#140 - 2017-03-03 21:35:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


I can think of a few ways to get more pvp happening and thus, more destruction but that is probably for another thread. War decs are really only useful for attacking a POS, POCO or citadel. Equally the reasons for being in a corp are rather poor so its hardly suprising people will simply evade a war dec rather than fight, they don't stand to lose anything by doing that.


If wardecs get changed, it need to be change that support interaction between belligerent. Either make it worthwhile to undock under wardec or offer an undocked way to end the war. The current situation is stupid for both side anyway. I really don't think the 100+ wardecs situation is all that much fun just like the defender who has next to 0 reason to undock under wardec.