EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

Should it [wardecs] be limited to each party's ability to engage and fight, though? I mean that's what we're trying to zero in on: that consensual, high-sec engagement where its mutual, and both sides have the ability to participate and cause losses and cause damage, that's the kind of thing we want to be moving towards and encouraging.

I'm just stimulating conversation here. If we're going to balance the system, you need to understand what the primary goal is that you're trying to satisfy. And is that you want mutual high-sec engagements, or do I want a situation where one side is the complete aggressor, where the strong preys on the weak, and [the] weak [huddle in stations].

You miss the point, I think. I may be wrong

I read that as as "people who dont want to fight wont, so what's the actual point?"

I mean, setting aside the possibility of economic warfare because it's a) thin and b) only going to be a useful tactic against a large corp who are liable to fight back anyway.

If as massively outclassed corp is decced, what invariably happens is that they don't undock/drop to NPC corp. That's hardly spurring engagement or content, really. So a bunch of people trade in stations or play other stuff? Not exactly the stuff of dreams for either party tbh.

Well, for example, forcing your rival mining corp to dock up and stay inside while your corp grows fat in the fields is in my opinion a useful tactic. This is just one example. There are issues with old players being in NPC corps, but that discussion should be had in some other thread.

SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.

But I can understand why CCP wants to change highsec wars. If it is true that in 90% of the highsec wars no fighting takes place, then it is even worse than I thought.

Just take a look at an eve newbie, I'll call him Joe Pod.

In week one, Joe is overwhelmed by the complexity of the game, he runs most of the tutorial missions, acquires several ships and many skillbooks. Motivation: 100%

Week two, Joe has finished the tutorials and feels a little lost in eve. After all, he is most likely used to MMOs that take you by the hand and exactly tell you what to do. As usual for a newbie, he will most likely decide to do some mining to earn money for better ships to run missions or do pvp later. Motivation: 80%

Week three, our solo mining Joe Pod is approached by a newbie indy corp. He thinks yeah, eve is about social interaction, I'll just make some new friends here and meet people who can help me with getting started in eve. Motivation: 100%

Week three and a half: Joe's new corp gets wardecced. For being an easy prey alone. They did not step on somebody's toes, they did not insult any other corp or alliance. Having bad killboard stats is reason enough to get wardecced and small newbie indy corps usually get wardecced a lot because of it. Joe is excited about his first war, Motivation: 100%

Still week three and a half: Maybe a single fight occurs where the aggressors curbstomp one or two of those clueless miners with dedicated pvp ships, off-grid boosting t3s and (luckily no longer) neutral logi. The CEO realizes that there is no way in hell to win this war and orders the corp to stay docked up until the wardec expires. Our highly motivated newbie Joe Pod is ordered to stop playing eve for a week and go play Skyrim or something like that. Motivation: 10%

Week four: in a rare moment of clarity, Joe Pod begins to ask himself why he should pay monthly fees to CCP for playing Skyrim. Most likely he will cancel his subscription and never come back to eve. Motivation: 0%

Make new accounts immune to wardecs for a month after starting? rest of the corp would fight and they would only fight if they went into a battle firing? although that brings in the nightmare of starting accounts to circumvent it

You miss the point, I think. I may be wrong

I read that as as "people who dont want to fight wont, so what's the actual point?"

I mean, setting aside the possibility of economic warfare because it's a) thin and b) only going to be a useful tactic against a large corp who are liable to fight back anyway.


If as massively outclassed corp is decced, what invariably happens is that they don't undock/drop to NPC corp. That's hardly spurring engagement or content, really. So a bunch of people trade in stations or play other stuff? Not exactly the stuff of dreams for either party tbh.

Yes, yes, eve is hardGäó, htfu etc, etc, ad-infinitum, however when people aren't undocking and/or simply doing something else you'll have a hard time convincing me that is healthy for the overall game long term.

Even if wardecs did suddenly require mutuality, it's not like non-consensual PvP is 'dead', it never will be until weapons are disabled

You miss the point, I think. I may be wrong

I read that as as "people who dont want to fight wont, so what's the actual point?"

I mean, setting aside the possibility of economic warfare because it's a) thin and b) only going to be a useful tactic against a large corp who are liable to fight back anyway.


If as massively outclassed corp is decced, what invariably happens is that they don't undock/drop to NPC corp. That's hardly spurring engagement or content, really. So a bunch of people trade in stations or play other stuff? Not exactly the stuff of dreams for either party tbh.

Yes, yes, eve is hardGäó, htfu etc, etc, ad-infinitum, however when people aren't undocking and/or simply doing something else you'll have a hard time convincing me that is healthy for the overall game long term.

Even if wardecs did suddenly require mutuality, it's not like non-consensual PvP is 'dead', it never will be until weapons are disabled

Obviously it's not ideal that many wardecs end up in docking up and sitting there, but that's not a reason to make wardecs mutual. It's a reason to provide incentives to fight.

Oh No! The Sky is Falling! A single CCP Dev expresses a single comment that you disagree with!
EVE is DEAD!

Or.....
We could not over-react.
It's a single Devs singular opinion thats posited as a question. It's not even a definitive statement. I recognise for some of you english may not be a primary language, but it has it's nuances to.

Edit.
I also note virtually no-one has paid any attention to the 'Both sides should have the ability to cause losses' part of his statement.
So I guess you all like your risk free ganking where you know exactly how much it will cost you. And know the other guy can't fight back. Who's the carebear in this case.

There is plenty of PVP to be had.

Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.

Malakai, I like your post though mention should be had to unreasonable war-decs and dec shields. I don't support the removal of war decs from high-sec or making them a mutual affair, however some counter measures need to be put into the game to avoid a corporation being consistently blocked from doing activites within the game, especial considering new players or non-combat orientated groups.

New players, fair enough, but non combat orientated groups already have the means to protect themselves in the event of war, it's called hiring others to do your fighting for you, though tbh a non combat orientated group should accept that Eve is essentially a combat based MMO and plan accordingly by having combat capable pilots to protect their interests and assets.

If you won't protect your interests and assets in Eve, by planning ahead, or taking advantage of the existing mechanics involving allies and mercs, then you deserve to lose them.

I agree to your point, focusing on new players now, how would we assist them getting a good foundation of experience during a war-dec without

A. Losing the motivation to play the game based off of forced inactivity.

B. Gain interest in the fun gained by high-sec wars and let them parcipate on a artificial equal footing.

C. A resoultion which cannot be exploited by players who aren't new to the game*

The second part is more difficult to decided because time has created the gap by which new players cannot be expected to compete with old players, especailly in a pvp sense.

Yes, though the difference is semantics - mutuality or a reason to fight - it boils down to the same thing in the end - if there's a good reason to fight it's effectively mutual.

As far as I'm concerned, there's always a reason to fight,equally, there is little point in leading the charge of the light brigade over and over to no appreciable end. That is, imo, why many people avoid them.



Edit: @TheGunslinger42

I didn't say I agreed, but I can see the standpoint, if you take a step back and consider the wider metagame/playing experience.

However, how on earth do you propose 'encouraging' people with minimal/nil combat skills to undock and try to bring the pain in a war? It's not even possible never mind practical. Hiring mercs still leaves them sitting in a station/playing other stuff.

@ Adriel:

Trebor mentioned the 90% in the CSM minutes. I am not sure where he got those numbers, but I was just taking it as a fact for now.

I am not against non-consensual wars or pvp in eve, since it is one of the defining features of this game.
I was just shocked because of those 90%. This means that 90% of the wardecs keep players from playing the game, which is simply terrible for new player retention.
Of course the idea with making only mutual wars valid is complete crap, I think everybody will agree on this.
But CCP should find a way (maybe better incentives) to get those numbers to at least 50%.
Wars should lead to pew pew.
Stuff getting blown up.
Fun.
If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

Trying to fight in that situation is difficult, but definitely not impossible - especially not now with the ally system. Get some good pvp allies and instead of staying docked and letting them have a fight, they could tag along with them in cheap low skilled combat ships. They'd get a bit of experience with pvp, they'd be putting themselves out there on the field facing the aggressor, the extra ships will definitely contribute, they may even have fun.

There's not really any mechanical reason why they have to stay docked, and they're certainly not at such a great disadvantage that we should discuss making all wars purely consensual. Which is why I think it's more of an attitude problem than anything else. Then again, eve is a sandbox, and if they decide they don't want to take part at all and stay docked up, that's fine. But that's a choice they consciously made, if the consequences of that are "I cant do anything :(" then too bad, they made that choice, so I don't think we need to change war mechanics based on them choosing that

I'm calling shenanigans on the "creating content" for people.

if you're driving them to another game/activity what content are you providing? Some nifty stealth kills in Dishonored? Another level up in torchlight 2?

There's a happy medium between no interaction and driving people away. Where people dont bother undocking, it is perilously close to the latter.

I agree, but the trouble is from CCPs business/customer experience standpoint - that may not be a sacrifice they are willing or able to make.

I don't know, of course, but many here seem to forget/overlook that they're running a business and that will drive their desciions even if some don't like it much.

I agree to your point, focusing on new players now, how would we assist them getting a good foundation of experience during a war-dec without

A. Losing the motivation to play the game based off of forced inactivity.

B. Gain interest in the fun gained by high-sec wars and let them parcipate on a artificial equal footing.

C. A resoultion which cannot be exploited by players who aren't new to the game*

The second part is more difficult to decided because time has created the gap by which new players cannot be expected to compete with old players, especailly in a pvp sense.

If I'm not mistaken, he said 78%. I took this as another made up statistic, based upon how fluid CCP Solomon's wager was.

Second, just because no kills occurred does not mean these wars drove those players away from the game. While I don't have an exact number, I can say that a very large number of a corp/alliances membership will log on the hours or days after a war finishes. Since we add every single target to our watch list (so we can hunt them down and kill them), I actually see how the populations often flourish after decs. Generally, when people quit the game because of our decs, they tell us, via convo, mail, or even youtube videos. However, it is not uncommon for us to stumble upon those who quit a few months down the road.

Before CCP even considers touching the decs, they need to find and publish metrics that actually show the number of people who quit the game over decs. I certainly won't deny that people definitely quit over decs, or that new players may take it especially hard in certain situations. But I do contest that a week of a grief dec here and there has as big of an impact on the membership as the CSM and several posters are implying.

Oh No! The Sky is Falling! A single CCP Dev expresses a single comment that you disagree with!
EVE is DEAD!

Hey...

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

So my only way of making ISK in EVE is being brought under the spot light again. great, will see how this unfolds.

And if Joe Pod is playing an FPS game and gets shot 89734793 times the moment he starts playing that game for the first time, does he quit the game and move to another game....no he tries to get better and better. Get better guns etc.

Zimmy ... this fits in context ...

I've asked HippoWhisperer to talk to his superiors
about putting my corp into a mutual wardec with both sides of RvB.

Not sure if they approve, but a few supporters could help my cause. ^_^

Two step asked the team if they felt theyGÇÖd accomplished all that they had set out to accomplish in overhauling the wardec system, as it appeared to him there appeared to be just as much random wardeccing and grief wardeccing as there was before the overhaul. Solomon joked that it would be so much easier to just remove the wardec system completely, to much laughter of the CSM. Then, more seriously, Solomon explained that the designers had been back and forth discussing this question, and that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.

Trebor: There is the important word you just said GÇô mutual conflict. Just as you can have a mutual engagement between two players, you should be able to have a mutual engagement between twogroups. But the current system, itGÇÖs a cursed mechanic, because most of the people who get involved want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?

Alek countered that this more often happened in the reverse GÇô a smaller, say 5-man corp, will wardec a larger 50-man entity, who will just dock up and refuse to fight. Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP.

Alek: As Stoffer [Soundwave] said earlier, you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players.

Alek explained that he has no problem with such a small group paying the price to be able to fight a larger group, and if the larger group refuses to participate, thatGÇÖs a decision they make for themselves. Meissa countered that Solomon was correct, most high-sec wardecs simply werenGÇÖt being fought out. Meissa likened this to simply paying other players to stay docked up.

Fozzie: A wardec where only one side wants to be in it isn't any less legitimate than a bounty that only one side wants. We're not going to go to anyone and ask them if they'd like to accept the bounty placed on them.

Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, itGÇÖs not.

SoniClover: The key thing here is that there is a legitimate reason to have a wardec system and that is to allow people to engage in a lethal fight in highsec. And that is important because it should be that the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others.

SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.

But---but--but....I like you, Solstice!

Please don't make me shoot you....

But seriously, Hippo has much more rep in RvB than me, I am basically just another mindless grunt. If Hippo agreed to take care of it, I am positive that you will see very satisfactory results in the nearer future.

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

I want to suggest that we take the pvp out of nul sec. There are to many big alliances in nul sec and carebears cant fly safe there. I tried to mine their with all the nice ore, but its just to evil. Maybe we should set the max size of a nulsec alliance to 50. Then its wayyy safer and all new carebears can also goto nulsec and mine better ore. A lot are probably thinking, wtf is he gone nuts.....well, that's exactly the way a lot of people think this highsec suggestion is.

And if Joe Pod is playing an FPS game and gets shot 89734793 times the moment he starts playing that game for the first time, does he quit the game and move to another game....no he tries to get better and better. Get better guns etc.

Removing pvp from highsec is like removing guns from an fps game......nuts!

They are discussing problems intrinsic to EVE Online's mechanics and culture, which is that 90% of the time, hi-sec wardecs don't go anywhere.

Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

@ Solstice: Ok. I'll do it, just to keep you from having to buy a new trasher every time you kill a pod.

The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.

I would argue that in many cases even if wardecs do not directly result in kill(s) , they are good for the game.

Few examples:


• A mining corp hires a merc corp to wardec their rival mining corp to keep them out of their belts. This is creates content for all sides of the conflict. The targeted corp has several options to deal with the situation. This is EVE's player interaction by emergent gameplay at its best.


• A 5 man corporation declares war on Goonswarm and hunts their pilots flying solo in highsec. Perhaps the war will never result in any kills, perhaps it will. The option to do this should always remain in the game.

Looking purely at kills/wardec is a really bad metric for measuring the success or failure of the current game implementation.

If the current mechanics are favoring turtling and station hugging, then those mechanics are bad and need to be changed. The problem is not the wardec corps. The problem is the indy corps that tell new players to quit playing the game for a week to avoid wars.

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!

That's where things go wrong, we dec smal and bigger alliances/corps every day and have no problems at all with people 'being docked'. The targets have a few options. Stay docked and your alliance/corps dies, get allies into your war or fight..... Just because people dont know how to hunt, doenst make the mechanism bad. Its like saying, I cant kill with this gun, so it must be a bad gun. Wrong....you have no idea how to use that gun properly.

My advice to CCP, stop trying to 'fix' things that aint broken, but focus on more important stuff, like bug fixing and better logs.

I blame killboards.

If a corp that is wardecced fights back and fails, they will be wardecced by a dozen corps more.

Better to stay docked and keep your killboard clean.

war dec system is fine.

hey ccp moron if you want consensual pvp go play one of the dozen pve mmo's where you can duel all you want.

OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.

I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact.

People, let me be clear. CCP are not seriously suggesting removing wardecs or aggression from hi-sec.

They are not doing this.

They are not doing this at all.

They say so in the same minutes you guys are quoting.

Sir, looking at the thread it seems clear that the idea of hellokitty-wardecs is widely rejected as a horrible idea.

I, personally, do not use the wardec system to attack anyone. I am just extremely concerned about the big picture of high-sec and the changes towards making Eve just another themepark MMO.

Why............... just why would we want another EQ clone ?

Not talking WoW here since EQ was the first true themepark based MMO, and now you wan't to bring the same sort of "duel" concept to Eve , jesus christ, that is something i can't and will never accept

There is a point in War deccing other corps, some corps rely on Merc corps to do their dirty business , its all apart of Eve and now you wanna change that and basicly remove not only 1 aspect about the game but several...........

If that would ever be the case i'd cancel every single account i own.

Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen!

Except there's no danger of these changes being implemented anyway, since CCP does not approve of them and is not interested in making them.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!

Really?

He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no.

I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.

I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.

James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen.

I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

...
However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.
...
I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.

I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon

I have no problem with the concept of war, in theory it is a good thing which makes the game more interesting and helps to drive the economy. I think in practice it can be difficult to have a fight at all.

My opinion would be that the ratio of members in each corp should be considered when calculating the cost of declaring war, not to make it impossible for a one guy to declare war on a hundred but to make it as expensive as it is (should be) daft.
Currently an industrial corp wanting to displace another industrial corp needn't disrupt its own operation by declaring war, it pays a tiny merc corp that is outnumbered more than ten to one that will likely never undock/uncloak for the duration of the war to disrupt the victim (rather than fight them). A system that meant the two industrial corps had a direct war would seem a little more fun, purposeful and most importantly provide an opportunity for people to actually shoot at each other.
Perhaps the aggressor should be penalised in some way if they fail to take part in their own war.

People actually shooting at each other would also seem a way of opening roads into low and null from high, I might like shooting at people but Ive yet to need to inspite of having been at war, so far I havent needed to fit a gun to a ship to get through a war and that seems wrong (not to say that I diddnt buy ships to loose in a good cause).

I dont know what a solution is but wardecs dont currently imply that a war will take place, it is a system of irritation at best and it would be good to fight when you are at war - making lemonade when you have lemons.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I would much rather see the system left open so the players decide how it's used. If you, as an industrial corp, make the mistake of hiring a ****** merc who doesn't kill the people you hired them to kill, that's on you. If you got scammed by them, that's on you. The mechanics shouldn't be changed so that the player interaction has to go down like a script - they should be left as far open as possible to allow for players to write their own narratives and make their own choices.

Retribution already ruined highsec wardecs, s

Im not sure you understand the mechanics of an industrial war as it currently stands.
The point is disruption, that means preventing the victim corp from flying sitting ducks, not killing them.

It doesnt need to go down like a script but you cant remove all (sensible) gameplay from a player and suggest that they have choices beyond not playing, people not playing doesnt help.

Thank you for the response. While I completely understand the fact that CCP needs to consider this mechanic from a business sense, I would really like to see actual metrics showing it was a problem before anything was considered to drastically hamstring the mechanics. At the very least, I would like to know that you actually had real metrics rather than wagers and gut feelings before destroying a rather intimate portion of EVE.

Thanks for starting this thread and for all the contributions thus far. The range of opinions here echoes the sentiment that the war declaration mechanic is a complicated subject that often polarizes the opinions of those who care about it. This session was one of the most heated debates I took part in during the whole summit.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Prior to my first comment, Hans made a fine statement that one of the good parts of the war mechanic is that groups can engage in fights where they can control the numbers involved, a mutual conflict in high security space.

I then posed the question of whether the CSM thought mutual high sec pvp was goal of the system, or was the goal of the system to facilitate one sided wars? Admittedly my devils advocacy is not obvious from the minutes but I was genuinely interested in what they thought was the goal of the system and to judge the extent with which they were considering the wishes of all players that are affected by it.

Part of the reason this system has been so problematic and difficult to balance is because there are so many strong and passionate opinions about what the system should be.

I hope this clears things up, thanks for reading.

-Solomon

Give players a reason to build an empire. A reason to fight for it. Things they can't simply roll up, toss in the back of their ship and run. Docking up should no longer be the most logical decision. It should be the worst decision.

That and the EVE Uni guy needs to stop teaching people to do exactly what's contributing to the problem.

However, I expressed an opposing opinion during the discussion because I felt that (with the exception of Trebor) the voice of the CSM was one sided in favour of the "sharks" and I wanted the opposing argument to have a voice in the room, I feel it's important. I expect the CSM to be cognizant of and consider the wishes and opinions of all player types in EVE and there are a good many players who don't like being war decced. As a business, we would be fools not to consider the impact this system is having on those customers.

Docking or not undocking when you're being attacked the the way to go. Look at how -A- taught us all why you don't ... you-know-what to -A-.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.

Cold and harsh, just like EVE Online.

I guess now we're the ones out in the harsh cold.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

So you are literally ok with allowing people to be completely immune to undesirable interactions with others in EVE. You are actually advocating that people should be allowed to be completely exempt from any risk to their gameplay because they are paying customers. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am glad to know where you stand.

No, he isn't saying that at all. He is saying that their input should be considered and that a mechanic which solely serves to victimize those people is probably bad. On the other hand if things go more the direction of meaningful goals that don't make docking up/logging off the best solution we have the same mechanic actually working properly.

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

Let me say it again.

The basis of his arguement for advoacting the removal of high sec wardecs is THAT IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO QUIT.

That is untrue. No one quits due to a wardec. They disband there corporations. THAT needs to be addressed, not the removal of wardecs in high sec.

It's supoosed to be a negative impact. It's a declaration of war. Someone else want to blow you up or prevent you from doing something.

Not undocking and disbanding corporations is the problem.


CCP has said themselves that you are not allowed to simply play EVE without anyone being able to impact you, while having impact on the game yourself. Which is what some of you keep advocating.

I have no problem with them investigating ways to encourage defenders to be more active during wars. I have a *huge* problem with them discussing the removal of non-consensual decs and replacing them with mutual only wars.

You guys TELL your newbies to dock!

-stuff-

Good luck on the CSM, guy.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

Yeah that's the problem, people refusing to fight. The war dec mechanic issue is somewhat academic, really. They'll use whatever is available to avoid the fight, when in fact "fight" is the point of the game.

Problem permeates every aspect of the game. Even hardened PVP'ers try to disengage and avoid when the fight goes sour.

Maybe they need to make all rewards happen when you see your own ship explode.

Let me say it again.

The basis of his arguement for advoacting the removal of high sec wardecs is THAT IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO QUIT.

That is untrue. No one quits due to a wardec. They disband there corporations. THAT needs to be addressed, not the removal of wardecs in high sec.

It's supoosed to be a negative impact. It's a declaration of war. Someone else want to blow you up or prevent you from doing something.

Not undocking and disbanding corporations is the problem.


CCP has said themselves that you are not allowed to simply play EVE without anyone being able to impact you, while having impact on the game yourself. Which is what some of you keep advocating.

Wrong guy, this is not the CSM guy you're looking for, he's not the Eve Uni CSM guy

Telling people to dock in case of war is silly, my mains first corp did that and paid for the dec to go away, I quit the day they paid, I'd been playing a month and even then I saw that it was bad advice.

And... Sometimes it's nice to ruin shark's day by hiring some badass mercs to net them up and club them over the head. Yeah!

Wrong guy, this is not the CSM guy you're looking for, he's not the Eve Uni CSM guy

Telling people to dock in case of war is silly, my mains first corp did that and paid for the dec to go away, I quit the day they paid, I'd been playing a month and even then I saw that it was bad advice.

I mean, let's take can flipping as an example. Apparently having an entire corp able to shoot you wasn't enough? It has to be the entirety of eve? Or what about the nerfs to the Orca that have made it consistently less and less useful to those living the Suddenly Ninjas lifestyle? And what have we ever gotten in return? I could write entire books about the ways in which CCP has taken a look at some of the incredible people doing fantastic work in highsec and decided that they need to be weighed down so they can't jump as high or run as fast.

Because talking means that whatever will be done with 100% probability? Interesting. I'd rather expect that they discussed about variety of options even if those options would not get implemented. You see, while they do that, they may 1) come across good arguments for and against said options, 2) come across new ideas that might solve the problems better than any previously mentioned options or 3) find out that all solutions are worse than the original problem and that it is therefore better to just maintain what is. As it is, all the ideas I have seen players throw on these boards have so far fallen to the 3rd category, but I would not stiffle the discussion like you would (at least on Dev/CSM side).

I swear I don't get it. People complain about not getting to shoot people in hi-sec and give as an example that, if they canflip, they will get pvped by everybody around in hi-sec.

My problem lies in the change of a fundamental principle in eve, which is that other people can mess your **** up. If non-consensual decs are removed, the ability for people to interfere with others in HS is damn near removed, which literally flies in the face of everything the game is. As such, I don't think it should have ever even come up as a serious topic. Since it did, I absolutely condemn it in the hope that those advocating the near total safety of large portions of the player base realize how detrimental this would be to the identity of the game.

If people don't like that their sand castle can be destroyed by others, then they should either stand up and fight for their castle, or consider other games. We shouldn't be trying to make this game into something it isn't.

I think it might have more to do with seeing members of our CSM actually tell CCP that they're ok with removing pvp from high sec.

I think most of us are well aware CCP won't do it, but to know that we have people representing us saying they should is just wrong.

It doesn't make it ok, they're our representatives.

I think it's safe to say that even CCP was a little shocked any of the CSM's would suggest such a change.

Removal of PvP of any sort from high sec sholdn't ever be a point of discussion.

The problem is that nobody has said anything about removal of wardecs, other than rigth now it's silly and they would rather remove it than leave it as it is. And then inmediately everybody goes nuts and 'OMG THEY REMOVIN WARDEC' instead of 'CCP says that they will have to do something with wardecs because rigth now sucks hard'.

Sometimes I wonder of this game isn't played by a bunch of histerical teenager girls.

The big thing I'm making a stink about is the fact that discussion between CCP and the CSM had people on both sides advocate that only consensual decs should be allowed in high sec. I'm not screaming that they're removing war decs, I'm pointing out how dumb of idea it is to remove non-consensual wars.

Yeah that's the problem, people refusing to fight. The war dec mechanic issue is somewhat academic, really. They'll use whatever is available to avoid the fight, when in fact "fight" is the point of the game.

Problem permeates every aspect of the game. Even hardened PVP'ers try to disengage and avoid when the fight goes sour.

Maybe they need to make all rewards happen when you see your own ship explode.

The only way to get people to undock and fight is to give them a reason to do it. Corporate or Alliance pride just isn't there anymore due to the fact it is so easy to disband and create a new corporation. Perhaps some sort of corporate adjustments or rewards for corporate/alliance age would cause people to keep them going and take pride in them. Maybe new rewards or options within your corp settings for ISK destroyed etc etc... such as corporate emblems for ships... you can only change tax rate to a certain minimum % based of age... I dont know.

People who don't want to PvP, won't PvP, they'll dock up and blueball attackers. Regardless of rewards for actually fighting a war you can't force people into it.

The problem to fix isn't people hopping out of the corp. I bet they would rather not. Like somebody said before, they either hop or stop logging because they cannot stand not undocked. Griefdecs are the problem, and hopping is just the consequence.
Giving benefeits to older corps would just be a form of force people to not hop, still having them stationspinning and ultimately quitting.

Very true, blueballing doesn't stop you going about your business.

Long story short, if you can't defend your corp you shouldn't have one. When a corp has 20 mackinaw pilots and 2 guys who actually know how to fit a Rifter for PVP, OF COURSE they are going to suffer losses to stronger opponents. You shouldn't be able to opt out of PVP simply because you aren't ready for it.

One of the consequences of creating a corp is the possibility of war. Accept it.

Circular fallacy.

The current war declaration system is broken. It's not broken because the aggressor can go kick over some innocent defender's sandcastle. It's broken because the aggressor doesn't have their own sandcastle to defend.

My experience with war declarations has been that the aggressor is usually the smaller corporation, and all they do is high sec war. They declare war on a large number of corporations in order to have sufficient number of targets and then they either hunt mission runners or camp a high sec gate.

In most cases, the defenders could smash the aggressor very easily if they had a way of forcing a fight. The problem is that the aggressors have plenty of neutral alts to watch surrounding systems, and high sec is full of stations where they can dock up if the defenders form up in numbers.

Since high sec war is all the aggressor does, they never have need to fly through gates alone or do missions. This does not expose them to sufficient risk to let the defenders have a chance to force a non-consensual fight on the aggressor.

What I would like to see is some sort of objective by which the defender can win a war. Tie the war to some sort of anchored structure that the defender can destroy if the aggressor is unwilling to fight the fair (or unfair) fight. Make that structure expensive enough that when the defender wins the war by blowing it up, the loss is painful to the aggressor.

If you want the defenders in wars to fight back, then their FCs need the ability to form fleets. You don't get many volunteers asking people to form up to get blue balled. You get fleets together by going to extract ISK and tears from your enemy.

Too many times I've seen a friendly fleet get a jump away from the aggressor war targets just to have their neutral eyes report us so they can easily dock up before we can fight. If the aggressor isn't willing to fight the war they started then I should get to stomp on their sand castle and watch the ocean refill the crater left behind.

Wars don't need to be mutual, but the risk needs to be.

Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that adding more structure grinding to the game is a healthy decision, even in high sec. That's why I'm advocating the modified mutual dec system. If the defender is capable, they should be able to punish the aggressor by keeping them locked in the war for a long period of time. This forces the aggressors to decide between fighting, hiding, running, not logging in, dropping corp, etc - the exact same options given to the defender when the aggressor is doing well. Adding arbitrary structure grinds (which suck for everyone involved) is not the right path.

Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, itGÇÖs not.

I have subscribed to EVE with the belief that the above statement has always been one of the core values of our beloved game. It is the one thing that makes this MMO different from all the other "Hello Kitty Online" games out there.

Today I was shocked to find one of CCP's own employees making the following statement in the recent CSM meeting minutes (page 68):




Is this really CCP's official stance? Is making all high-sec engagements mutual really CCP's primary goal?

In my eyes the very idea of forcing wardecs to be consensual and "honourable" duels is an abomination against the very idea of EVE. It is not simply a change within the game, it is changing the game itself.

Please discuss your opinions about CCP Solomon's radical new ideas about EVE in this thread, but lets keep the trolling to the minimum.

Edit: Here is a really good writeup on the positions of different CSM and CCP members about the issue. Remember the names of these pro-hellokitty CSM members in the upcoming election.

Personally, I love it when the defenders form up fleets. That's the entire reason why we do fun decs. We go after people who look like they'll come after us. The problem we face is that they make that decision once. They lose their fleet and never come back, it's sad really.

Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that adding more structure grinding to the game is a healthy decision, even in high sec. That's why I'm advocating the modified mutual dec system. If the defender is capable, they should be able to punish the aggressor by keeping them locked in the war for a long period of time. This forces the aggressors to decide between fighting, hiding, running, not logging in, dropping corp, etc - the exact same options given to the defender when the aggressor is doing well. Adding arbitrary structure grinds (which suck for everyone involved) is not the right path.

No, but an inactive enemy is a defeated enemy. If you won't come out of the station while I'm free to go about my business, I've won the war without firing a shot.

if you dont want painful combat forced upon you no matter where you are, you are playing the wrong game

however, i would support a seperate server with no PVP so the absolute carebears can see how boring this game would be without it

I am deeply saddened by this, but not at all surprised.

Trebor: Realistically, in the context of the game, that **** just does not happen. 90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?

So much constructive discussion in here, so few blatant trolling- I am impressed with you, GD.

I am still waiting for the answer about the validity of Trebor's 90% claim.


(CSM Minutes, Page 69)

From the look of it I'd say that this number was just a hyperbole, but still I'd very much like to see real numbers, if those even exist.

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

I often think back to my experiences in Ultima Online when discussing the war dec system. Removing it's teeth would be akin to introducing the Trammel/Felucca divide, for those that remember it.

Well, for example, forcing your rival mining corp to dock up and stay inside while your corp grows fat in the fields is in my opinion a useful tactic. This is just one example. There are issues with old players being in NPC corps, but that discussion should be had in some other thread.

The problem with war decs IMO it that there is no ingame ability to set a goal or win condition.

If the aggressor set the win condition to be first to 10 kills and when this goal was achieve the war automatically ended, the defenders might be more willing to accept the war and give them a good fight.

To make such a system work the aggressor should have to put up an isk deposit. If they win they get the isk back but if they lose, the defender gets the isk. Everyone wins!

Additionally, the 24 hour waiting period before the war legal starts could be used for the defender to negotiate terms. For example there could be an in game system where the defender can request that the aggressor is unable to war dec them again for a given time period after the war ends (CONCORD enforced).

So by staying docked you could win a war? No.. try again.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

No one disbands a 100 man corp because of a war. And if 100 guys are to afraid to undock then it's working just fine.

If 90% of the wars currently just drive players away, then there is a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

Yeah, where are these mercs? I've been attacked, how can I find the ******* mercs right now, dammit.

It just seems to me, that they've got some odd view of wardecs being all be about getting as much combat as possible. When players then use the tools for their own differing goals, they see it as a failure, since those wars weren't about getting loads of fights happening between both sides. This isn't really a problem with the system. It's more of a problem with using an awfully limited metric to measure the success of the system.

Sure thing. I don't give a ship about PvP.
I don't want to have any interaction with any nullbears/newbbears.

There is a saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
So I never argue with nullbears. It's very good CCP might make this change about Wardec, saves me some time.

This was basically why I argued the point so strongly. If wardecs are driving people away from the game, or having unwanted second-order effects on things like newbie training (ie: EVE Uni), then they ought to be looked at with a cold eye. And as a member of the CSM, I think it's important to ask "unaskable" questions that challenge people's preconceptions and get them out of their comfort zones.

I'm a member of DNS, a group that likes to hot-drop people, so I understand that like me, most players like to go out and blow other people up. But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

But most != all, and it would be a foolish business decision on CCP's part to limit their market to people who want to blow other people up. So the balance of risk in hisec needs to be set with that in mind, because the players that don't like getting blown up are paying their subscriptions too, and those subscriptions help fund the future development of the game.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.

wardecs have been fubard'd since they changed their stance on corp jumping.

Sorry? please explain...

Firstly, let me state clearly that there are no plans to change the war declaration mechanic into a system that caters to mutual high sec pvp only.

Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

We have no plans whatsoever to introduce microtransactions.

Sorry? please explain...

Before you call me a fool again Rek Seven.
Please tell me more about your great idea and how you would setup goals for wardecs. Enlighten me.

So my goal is to destroy this POS. (Oh the wartargets take it down before war)
So now my goal is now to destroy 2 battleships and 2 cruisers. (Oh the wartargets stay docked or simply undock unfitted ships to get the war over with)
So now my goal is to make everyone leave corp (Again everyone does but one holding char.. again I lose the war)

Awesome stuff.

1. Your goal would be to remove the POS. If it's not there anymore then your goal has been achieve and you can put your own tower up. Your enemy has in effect surrendered to your demands.
2. If you kill these 4 ships then you win. If they don't undock, how is that any different from the way it is now?
3. Why would such a goal even be an option?

Do you really need me to think for you?

First off id like to state that im very new to this game still...

My total experience of pvp so far has been getting blown out of the sky in situations where i stood absolutely no chance of winning.
This may be down to my own stupidity as a "noob" player but it still leaves me feeling slightly bitter when i consider people actually taking pleasure from killing someone in their first few weeks.

Example 1 - First week of play: Entering low sec for the first time in my first destroyer whilst traveling to collect from a station (woops.... my own stupidity)
Example 2 - ~2 weeks in: Joined a corp and we got a wardec within my first week with them. I decided I would be fine continuing to run level one security missions in a little frigate because surely nobody would go out of their way to target an obvious noob running level ones...
I was promptly blown up by someone using an ~8 year old character who was solo hunting us (Again probably my own stupidity but at the same time was it really worth it for him?)
Example 3 - ~3-4 weeks in onto a new wardec from a different corp: I decided to go looking for a fight in the hope of finding a 1v1 so i chose a frigate i didnt mind losing and went for a prowl. I actually spotted a lone enemy rifter which ive heard are quite nasty in pvp but decided to chase him anyway. Through a jump gate straight into the mouth of a talos and two other ships. (Dont ask me how I didnt spot them because they just sort of appeared after I decloaked and went for the rifter...)
Now fair enough... I was baited into a trap. A lone frigate flown by a character with around ~1,000,000sp baited into combat with four people.
To me thats a bit low but i guess thats just how it works on eve. Ill get used to it and hopefully outgrow it but i dont think ill be doing that to noobs. Personally i think the rifter should have been the one to kill me, then i might have actually learnt something.

On a whole the corp was taking an absolute beating so after two weeks of barely playing i decided to leave and just play it safe in an npc corp until i have a few million more sp.

Im still too new to the game to say whether or not i think this system is right or wrong but i do know that i wont be joining a player corp again until i can at least hold my own.

Edit. I think stupidity is probably the wrong word... naivety maybe or just plain ignorance :p

I have a question for you all.

What if there was no way to unanchor a POS or the POS modules. Maybe re-position by re-anchoring, but not being able to remove the module. So the only way to remove a POS and the modules there was to blow them up.

I know this does not 'fix' war decs, but it would offer a bit more incentive to fight and or recruit mercs to defend it if it can't be rolled up and packed away to avoid the war dec.

Did you know that there wasn't always a war declaration system in EVE right? I mean EVE was fine then, and I'm sure it will be a great game after the mechanic is tweaked.

Well, for example, forcing your rival mining corp to dock up and stay inside while your corp grows fat in the fields is in my opinion a useful tactic. This is just one example. There are issues with old players being in NPC corps, but that discussion should be had in some other thread.

Well, most eve players are not satisfied with nearly having shot a POS or a ship. You do know they dont show up in killboards?

I have an awsome new idea.

Let Tactical S ammo destroy PI infrascture you find belonging to the war declared corp. May need a special locking module that makes you suck in space combat but allows targeting of buildings on the ground at least.

Small scale destruction, little time investment, no need for a dreadnaught, and maybe a new mechanic needed to prevent 'scutteling' of a colony if threatened.

I have a question for you all.

What if there was no way to unanchor a POS or the POS modules. Maybe re-position by re-anchoring, but not being able to remove the module. So the only way to remove a POS and the modules there was to blow them up.

I know this does not 'fix' war decs, but it would offer a bit more incentive to fight and or recruit mercs to defend it if it can't be rolled up and packed away to avoid the war dec.