I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

Wahh?

Posting in "i'm a real bad dude so I harass indys , and it's wrong that they can get away from me thread...."







Oh, and when did the bricks go full pansy?

A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.

Quoting an "I'm an undeccable NPC alt keyboard warrior" post.

griefing in the sense that one single player can use this mechanic to intimidate another single player.

You should get suicide ganking removed too then. And sending eve-mails, because someone might threaten you! Those scary EVE players, no one should be able to threaten another in highsec!

There is no difference between a shell corp which folds because of a wardec and one that forms seconds afterwards and contains the same players. Or a corp with 20 members then when a wardec hits has 1 member and 19 "friends and allies", then when the wardec ends has a recruitment spree.

Sounds like a game mechanics problem then. If an entity has no will to fight and no territory or assets to protect, of course it'll just surrender.

When you are wardecced there are things you can do to fight back, like hire mercenaries, find recruit PVPers to shoot them, make amends with the person griefing you, move to a lower security status space so they can't bother you as easily, or undock in a PVP ship and fight them yourself. You have many, many options to take if you are wardecced.

There is no option for someone who spends 50m to wardec you to fight you because you can just ditch the war at your leisure. The fact that there are no options available for that person means that it's an exploit.

The problem is that the 'person' wardeccing the other 'person' has no clue what a war is. If you want consensual highsec PvP then you can invite someone to a duel. if you use the war dec mechanic to do this then you may be disappointed, and that's all there is to it. a corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything.

I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.

If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.

or not bother forming a corp in the first place which also grants players immunity with few drawbacks. that's pretty obvious.

i suppose that's a 'problem' too.

of course you could actually use the war dec mechanic to clear rival corp's assets out of systems you want. call me conventional if you will.

Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.

[http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wars



it's not there so players can grief other players.

It is. The fees and taxes on NPC corps should increase because you receive a ton of benefit for being in an NPC corp for very little cost. It hurts player corps because they have to compete with the low tax rate and risk-free NPC corp.

If by assets you mean POS, then yes, that is one way to use a wardec. It's not the only thing that wardecs were designed for though.

A rival corp with no POS can just re-create their corp and their members (their other corp assets) would still be out in space doing what they please, making your wardec completely worthless.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.

Part of EVE's stated goal at the beginning of its formation is they don't want life to be unbearable for more peaceful and unexperienced players (notice the word peaceful. Not just unexperienced). A corp war can very much do that for both. I can link you to the quote if you want. Though its an old quote its still something that shows in their design sometimes, such as war decs. They could easily do what you're asking in under an hour. So the question you should be asking yourself is if that's the way they were purely meant to be designed, why don't they. Answer? Because that's not the entire basis of their design despite it being what you want. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be things to encourage them to stick around, but trying to claim what you believe in is the intended design when there is evidence against that? Not very well educated. You're welcome to your views, but I'd stop with the mind reading.

it always was completely worthless and that is the risk you take in targeting groups of players. if they have no skin in the game they can quite legitimately disband. if you wasted 50M on that then you should have done your homework better. perhaps you shouldn't target people because that's not what wardecs specify. maybe you should check their war history, see if they have POS up etc.

In most cases they're not legitimately disbanding. They're disbanding to drop the wardec, then have all of their corp assets come back together in a new corp. There's fundamentally no difference between the two corps, they're using an unstoppable loophole (also known as an exploit) to evade the wardec.

You ask me why they haven't changed it yet. I say it's because it's coming soon because the Retribution expansion (the one about fixing crimewatch and wardecs) isn't over and done with yet, and it's only a matter of time before CCP listens to their playerbase.

Not according to CCP. And by 'corp assets' you mean members. corp assets aren't people too, so try and find a corp that owns some and they maybe won't leave you holding the sleeve of an empty coat. just sayin'!

"An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever."

For something that'd literally be copy, paste, adjust, I really doubt that's something they'd wait on.

All the months spent on balancing could be done in a couple of hours by some guy who can edit the game settings. It's not as easy to make a game or fix issues as you think it is, and usually the devs have other things on their plate to deal with too. It also doesn't help that the playerbase tries to cover this issue up because they think it's beneficial to them.

Sounds like an exploit to me, unless you can tell me how I can prevent someone from duplicating their corp to evade a wardec.

And yes, human resources (the players in your corp) are corp assets. If they weren't corp assets, why would they be valid wardec targets?

Balance issues also involve QA testing... something like you describe? Effects wouldn't be fully known until its introduced.

And it's not very helpful insisting something is an exploit (corp hopping) when it clearly isn't considered such as it's hard to get advice on this bar asking on the forums, like the OP did.

It's kind of clear that they didn't do any sort of QA testing with regards to wardec evasion being a legitimate mechanic because there are plenty of unwanted consequences (like joining a non-NPC corp being a mistake in highsec) that result from this exploit being in the game.

It's something they need to address in the future because CCP is slowly running out of easy things to fix. When they realize that none of the mechanics that they've changed this expansion have done anything to fix highsec's stagnation problem and have been ineffective and worthless in general, they will understand that changes like I have suggested need to be made.

It's about time we used the proper terminology for major game problems that have been swept under the rug for years. Exploit.

If you think it is an exploit, then petition it. Once you get the response back from the GMs saying "Working as Intended", then you need to HTFU. Geez, it's only 50mil isk.

Then they should change their definition of exploit to "Anything we say is an exploit is an exploit and nothing else". Not "An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever." It's crystal clear that in CCP's definition of an exploit it should be classified as one.

It usually takes them a while before they officially classify it as an exploit and start taking action after they discover how much damage it is doing to the game (usually through player feedback), much like it took a while for them to classify loitering in incursions as an exploit. They know it's a problem, they're just not sure exactly what to do about it, because giving the GMs a ton of new exploit petitions to deal with is not the answer. They don't necessarily have to officially classify it as an exploit and have the GMs start doing things in order for it to be fixed by the devs though.

I hope the discussion we are having, along with what the rest of the playerbase is saying and doing raises a few eyebrows and shows them exactly what needs to be done, because this is the kind of constructive discussion that CCP needs to have in order to fix the wardec system and make highsec meaningful.

Then they should change their definition of exploit to "Anything we say is an exploit is an exploit and nothing else". Not "An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever." It's crystal clear that in CCP's definition of an exploit it should be classified as one.

It usually takes them a while before they officially classify it as an exploit and start taking action after they discover how much damage it is doing to the game (usually through player feedback), much like it took a while for them to classify loitering in incursions as an exploit. They know it's a problem, they're just not sure exactly what to do about it, because giving the GMs a ton of new exploit petitions to deal with is not the answer. They don't necessarily have to officially classify it as an exploit and have the GMs start doing things in order for it to be fixed by the devs.

I hope the discussion we are having, along with what the rest of the playerbase is saying and doing raises a few eyebrows and shows them exactly what needs to be done, because this is the kind of constructive discussion that CCP needs to have in order to fix the wardec system and make highsec meaningful.

It''s quite easy to argue that the kind of corp you're having problems with isn't 'meaningful' though. if the corp is (by definition) the target and not the players then corp hopping doesn't seem like an exploit if all the corp is is a collection of players.

If the problem was as simple as you describe, the worst of worst coders could solve it immediately. This isn't in question. This isn't difficult, its quite literally the easiest thing they could do.

Forcing people to stay in corps they don't want to is a bad idea though. If they don't like the corp for any reason, they NEED to be allowed to leave even if penalties are involved.

Now where the problem arises is one can tear down their corp and reform... which in a way, prevents wardecs meant only as a "get out of CONCORD free" card on small, inexperienced corporations, which is likely why they don't consider that an exploit either. Now when you get into solving corp wardecs with those factors in mind, THAT is when it becomes hard.

Players that are part of a corp are corp assets. The corp can use those assets for its advantage, like for shared mining ops, or for income through bounty taxes, or for defense. It doesn't matter how useful those assets are to the corp, like if they are "a collection of players", they are still assets.

You should go work for CCP then.

What exactly is a small, inexperienced corporation though? You can't have a classification where people can avoid wardecs at their own pleasure if they fit into that classification, because then everyone will gravitate, and have already gravitated towards that classification, making the use of the mechanic worthless and at the expense of all other classifications.

Small, inexperienced corporations aren't necessarily going to learn the ropes of the game by themselves, sometimes they need to visit the school of hard knocks in order become more experienced and excel as a corporation. Some players might find that they enjoy this kind of gameplay after being exposed to it, but because they aren't exposed to it at all and because the classification everyone says they are in severely limits this type of gameplay they never end up experiencing it.

If you think it is an exploit, then petition it. Once you get the response back from the GMs saying "Working as Intended", then you need to HTFU. Geez, it's only 50mil isk.

I'd agree with you if it was actually only 50 million isk. There is cost scaling based on the number of people in a target corporation, the justification for this is that you are "paying for targets".

Which is funny because wars take 24 hours to start up so a "target" that has been "paid for" can one second contribute to increasing the cost of declaring war and then leave the corp before the warp goes active and never actually become a target.

It's one of the several reasons why the "paying for targets" justification for cost scaling is a very obvious lie, what cost scaling actually is, is a way to cater to the endless whining from Ivy League and some of the more pathetic big nullsec alliances about mean people camping the jita undock.

They made sure people wardeccing another corp could not jump out once it started.

Sometimes... I can't imagine learning much from being a new corp that comes into the game from another game and ends up with their ass kicked by a bunch of trolls looking for easy targets though. Not exactly the greatest first introduction to the game if you're not prepared for it. One can learn to put up with such things, buuuuut going off the deep end is not the most ideal of learning experiences for some. Some who could turn out to be good players end up drowning instead, so again, where things get tricky, figuring out where that balance lays.

Completely false. Anyone can dodge a war that they started at any time by disbanding corp, or by dropping corp. It's not just carebears who are abusing this mechanism.

[

You're not fooling anyone, you're just abusing the fact that you can drop a form of non-consensual PVP at your whim, which is an exploit because there's nothing anyone can to do stop you.

Problem is a lot of those mechanics aren't particularly visible and not always particularly cost effective. Try to imagine a small corp being forced into a corp war. They don't have much in the way of experience, cash or skill, but a larger corp decides to lock them down. Even mercenaries were made more visible, perhaps they can't afford them. In the end, it allows them to essentially fall into a grief situation. Now you can say it doesn't count because it falls under game mechanics, but there is more to it than mechanics. It still unnecessarily drives people away, and its not going to be just because the game isn't for them. Being tormented is something that can drive away even the best players. Its worse than market PvP and all that, because that's more a direct competition, not necessarily you being singled out. Not sure if I'm explaining this well, but typically combat is a bit harsher.

Diplomacy is limited. You underestimate trolls being trolls. Some people just like to watch the world burn and take every opportunity to make it happen.

That's a clearly a baseless rationalization for discarding diplomacy as an option without actually trying it..

What I am not new to is declaring war on people and them getting blown up over and over again and trying every game mechanic they possibly can to get out of it and at no point opening a convo with anyone and asking what exactly they can do to make us stop shooting them.

You underestimate trolls being trolls. Some people just like to watch the world burn and take every opportunity to make it happen.

Says you, some random in EVE university who speaks for absolutely nobody in the griefing community.

I mean it's not like I personally have extensive experience in this area and know that you're completely wrong or anything.

There is no difference between a shell corp which folds because of a wardec and one that forms seconds afterwards and contains the same players. Or a corp with 20 members then when a wardec hits has 1 member and 19 "friends and allies", then when the wardec ends has a recruitment spree.

You're not fooling anyone, you're just abusing the fact that you can drop a form of non-consensual PVP at your whim, which is an exploit because there's nothing anyone can to do stop you.

That's because high sec wars are not intended to be a form of non-consensual PvP.

And defender corp members who drop cannot re-join for 7 days either.

If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.

There is one game mechanic that has always existed game-wide and doesn't necessarily cost anything. Diplomacy is the any corp's best bet for survival. They could join an alliance, they could find friends and ~blue the universe~, there are so many diplomatic options. Small, poor, inexperienced entities packed full of new players like Dreddit and Goonswarm have been using diplomacy to practically take over portions of the game. Take notes from the big blue donut stereotype you like to use, highsec.

well. show me someone outside of this blue doughnut who will say this is good for game as a whole? Not sure. Eve Online is about conflict and wars and not about blue ISK-farms.

So if you force people into these alliances/groups you hurt the game.

Or these players and don't want to be involved in the war system could say, remain in the employ of an NPC corp.

A revolutionary idea, I know.

I'm about to submit a petition regarding a corp who's members drop and then rejoin corp during war. Is this an exploit I've read so many posts saying it is and so many saying it's not?

Why does CCP not simply lock corps when they are dec'd to prevent such exploits? or place a 7 day timer on leaving corp so the War Dec'r gets his war dec for the full 7 days.

Another option would be for CCP to charge ISK to move corporations to prevent people war dodging.

because people like you always say "remove NPC corps", "move players after 2 months of play time into some FW corp" or similar stupid things

This does really need adressed. A corp that is war dec'd should have a 7 day timer on leaving the corp or the war dec should follow players for the seven days who choose to bail. You pay the fee for 7 days and you should get those 7 days.

Can someone from CSM please support this or a future candidate put it forward, I'm looking at you James 315 as you'll get my vote. I'd like to see and hear people piping up about this at fan fest too please.

Well another point I'd like to make is that older players have no business being in npc corps in the first place. If you leave a corp you should be placed into generic corp which would be decable and awoxable.

They want to be unaffiliated and undisturbed, why shouldn't that be their choice?

Highsec would still be peaceful. Vastly more so than any other section or playstyle in the game. You just won't necessarily receive peace all of the time for free and you actually have to work towards it if you tend to do things that affect other people's gameplay.

Really don't think any solution that makes people more afraid to join a corp in the first place is a good idea, frankly. Definitely think if the aggressor should get refunded though if certain things happen.

Well another point I'd like to make is that older players have no business being in npc corps in the first place. If you leave a corp you should be placed into generic corp which would be decable and awoxable. Being able to hide within an NPC corp is a joke. NPC corps should be for new players to the game and not a skirt for cowards to hide under.

A quick fix would be for the NPC corps that exist now to be war dec'able while placing new players into non dec'able school corps for a maximum fair time frame.

Yep, "people like me", all six of us in Placid who will give gf's at around downtime.

What do you propose then, to fix the ridiculous nature of highsec wars, which are now completely consensual, and heavily punishing the attacker if the defender doesn't want to fight?

Then they should change their definition of exploit to "Anything we say is an exploit is an exploit and nothing else". Not "An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever." It's crystal clear that in CCP's definition of an exploit it should be classified as one.

It usually takes them a while before they officially classify it as an exploit and start taking action after they discover how much damage it is doing to the game (usually through player feedback), much like it took a while for them to classify loitering in incursions as an exploit. They know it's a problem, they're just not sure exactly what to do about it, because giving the GMs a ton of new exploit petitions to deal with is not the answer. They don't necessarily have to officially classify it as an exploit and have the GMs start doing things in order for it to be fixed by the devs.

I hope the discussion we are having, along with what the rest of the playerbase is saying and doing raises a few eyebrows and shows them exactly what needs to be done, because this is the kind of constructive discussion that CCP needs to have in order to fix the wardec system and make highsec meaningful.

anyway, beside the 15-20 trolls on this forums that are crying over this, who really want this mechanic to change?

There's clearly people in both CCP and the CSM who aren't totally happy with the current wardec situation. CCP allow the corp dropping "exploit" to continue for want of a better solution.
You can't force the defender to fight, but you can give him better incentives to fight. And no, "getting to undock and play Eve", is not an incentive.

if it is a problem for war between corps and alliances then put the timer on the other side. you can leave but you can't rejoin.

it's already like that!

as long as the war remains, you cannot rejoin a corp if you leave during the war, as long as the war is active.

Which activities in EVE are the ones that do not affect other people's gameplay?

Translation: Eve Online is a sandbox, but it is my sandbox, and unless I can restrict how others play I am heading to the forums to cry.

Working as Intended then.

some people just suck at pvp, no matter how long they train or they practice. so whatever incentive you give them, they wont change.

"well eve is all about the sandbox and PVP!"

no it isn't. the risk is there, but if some people want to play this particular game the way they want, without interaction, without risk (by staying docked or by droping corp) it's THEIR choice.
if you remove that choice, most will just find another game.

I guess being able to disband your corp and make a new one within those 7 days to skip the timer is working as intended too? Even more wardec mechanics that you can dodge, further proving that corp hopping is an exploit.

I guess being able to disband your corp and make a new one within those 7 days to skip the timer is working as intended too? Even more wardec mechanics that you can dodge, further proving that corp hopping is an exploit.

it's already like that!

as long as the war remains, you cannot rejoin a corp if you leave during the war, as long as the war is active.

I've not heard one good reason why this is a problem if the corp is nothing more than a shell. if they corp hop then they lose their rights on you also.

There are no activities that don't affect other people's gameplay. That means if you are affecting someone else's gameplay and they don't like it, it's only fair for them to have recourse.

That is not correct. You cannot rejoin until the war ends, or seven days, whichever comes first.

But who paid for those rights? A reason why I'd agree with refunds..

Its not like CCP does not know there are issues here. From the last CSM minutes:
"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."

Remember this is a game. People play it for fun. If being in a war is not someone's idea of fun, then they will:

Drop corp for the duration. If the rules were changed so as to block them from doing so:
Stay docked up for the duration. Or if forced to undock:
Not log in that pilot for the duration.

I've not heard one good reason why this is a problem if the corp is nothing more than a shell. if they corp hop then they lose their rights on you also.

And currently that recourse includes suicide ganking them, bumping them, putting bounties on them, stealing their mission loot, stealing their cans(yeah I know, who uses cans now), salvaging "their" wrecks, trying to scam them, and many other creative endeavours.
What you don't get to do is wardec them and negate their Concord protection.

Because corps aren't shells, you don't understand the concept of what a corporation is other than a tax shelter because you've been living like this and exploiting the system for so long. You have been incorrectly educated by the system. Players shouldn't have this mindset, it's something that game avoidance tends to bring on people.

The fundimental problem is that the current implimentation of a war dec does not promote mutually fun pvp. It is totally one-sided fun, and that type of implimentation has now naturally progressed to the point where one side fails to get the combat and fun it was seeking, and the other side feels forced into not playing the game in any form of what they consider fun.

What really needs to happen is that mutually fun pvp needs to be designed into the game, promoted and encouraged. To realize that and articulate it is easy. But the design, and the promotion and encouragement of that design, is much more difficult to solve.

I respectfully suggest that those sincerely interested in truly fun and rewarding pvp in this game begin focusing on how that might be so implimented, promoted and encouraged, as to appeal to more than merely those seeking totally one-sided combat that is virrtually risk free and highly rewarding for them, while at the same time punishing, demeaning and totally unfair for the victims.

If and when such a design is conceived and implimented, and promoted and encouraged, it would not only naturally lead to desired pvp, but greatly add to the fun of the game.

Right now the focus of those who arguably want this is more on complaining about the lack of totally one-sided forced pvp in whiuch they get all the rewards and the victims get only punished. If and when the same energy and creativity gets redirected to finding a more mutally beneficial solution, the benefits could be huge for all.

It's impossible to have mutually fun PVP.

I really like the idea of locking people into a corp for the duration of a war. So many cool things you could do!

Off the top of my head, get an awoxer into Corp A. Have awoxer's bros promptly declare war on Corp A. At least a week of locked in fun!

I respectfully suggest that those sincerely interested in truly fun and rewarding pvp in this game begin focusing on how that might be so implimented, promoted and encouraged, as to appeal to more than merely those seeking totally one-sided combat that is virrtually risk free and highly rewarding for them, while at the same time punishing, demeaning and totally unfair for the victims.

CONCORD tries to protect you from everyone else who doesn't pay to wardec you. Sounds like a good reason to still have them to me, because there are a lot of people out there who aren't valid targets to you.

Concord are not there to protect, they are there to punish.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.

That would be a problem but then the corp ceo could mearly set this known awoxer as a red and thus the problem would be solved..

It's not an exploit.

If people are leaving the corp you war decced en masse then mission accomplished, you won.

re: mutually fun PvP

What if kills between wardec'd corps generated Concord LP using the faction warfare system?

Possibly with a higher rate of return for the defender than the attacker, to give them some motivation for actually getting out and killing the attackers?

My thought was really a question - where is this coming from? And that makes me wonder if what's really happening is the BBD (Big Blue Doughnut) is starving the PvPers in nullsec of their fun, so they've come to highsec hoping to have some pew, only to realize that there even fewer people there to shoot.

Yeah, how about we cut all the crap in this thread and implement a 7 day war follow for any one who craps themselves and drops corp?

What's a wardec?

Put yourself in the shoes of an average miner in Eve

Ah, but the average miner/industrialist/mission runner/trader/whatever ...

When the most attractive (and pretty much only) option as a highsec wardec group is to beat up on new players...

Your assumption is flawed.

Is it?

Yes. While it might be the most attractive option (to you and yours), it is certainly not the only option available. There are a decent number of corps operating in highsec that won't disband because of a dec and contain experienced pilots.

If you want to drive off a competitor, shooting them is actually not required to win the war - having them leave, or simply remain docked while you lay claim to their potential resources is winning, based on the initial goal.

Market rivals - deccing them is next to pointless anyway since dedicated trade characters rarely, if ever, undock. You'll have more impact by trying to identify and gank their shipments than you will be deccing them directly

But if you wardec a five man industrial corp expecting them to man-up and provide you with gudfites, you're just deluding yourself. They won't do it (unless they're simply really into PvP or they're masochistic) - and they have absolutely no reason to. Even if the mechanic changed today, all that would happen is people would start having two sets of alts, one for wardecs in NPC corps, and one for non wardecs in their player corps. It wouldn't change their behavior a wit - just which character the log into.

Do you know why hardly anyone hires mercenaries, or bothers to look for allies?

Do you know why hardly anyone hires mercenaries, or bothers to look for allies? It's because those who are wardecced are poor, inexperienced and have a very small amount of contacts. Most of the players who have the tools to hire mercenaries or to create power blocs simply don't have to, because they receive the same (if not better) benefit for no cost. There would be a lot less grief wars if mercs were more affordable, which is only solvable by having more competition (if there's higher demand, there will be more supply), or if older players that could afford mercs would hire them and have their protection ability "trickle down" on younger and poorer players who they enjoy playing with.

A greater reason for not hiring allies is that it's an inferior solution to just dropping corp. Hiring mercenaries doesn't allow you to bypass the fact that there is a war going on. It still keeps you partially locked down. In the end you are paying isk to respond to someones aggression when you could avoid it altogether.

Adding this 7 day war follow while preventing vets from entering NPC corps would be a simple and easy to implement nerf to high sec. No longer will people be able to make zero risk isk.

Lrn2trvialize"highsec pvp"

Nerf ganking as well.

If you blindly wardec someone without assessing the situation then you have deservedly lost your isk. When you attack a shell corporation they are going to burn it to the ground and leave. That's what they are designed to do. Maybe you might actually have to think about how to deal damage to industry operations instead of just camping their station.

Whitehound, please add me to your contacts so I can eve mail you.

I agree that you shouldn't be able to avoid war-decs by dropping from corp; after they introduce a mechanic in which I can pay 50M isk to force another corp to mine for me for 7 days. Could even set it up so that they can hire a mining corp to do their mining for them if they want.

You're not fooling anyone, you're just abusing the fact that you can drop a form of non-consensual PVP at your whim, which is an exploit because there's nothing anyone can to do stop you.

Interesting idea. So they'd still dock up for 7 days? Or "hire" a one-man alt corp to stay docked for 7 days?

o/ RF! nice work on trying to seduce Push! might see you around and apply some pressure on you aswell :) Hope to see you soon in a JF or in a ... more expensive haul :D

Is that your corp that just war-decced us?

If so, i'm so sorry you just lost so much money for nothing.

Red Frog and Black Frog Freighter/JF Pilots are all out of the Red Frog alliance.

I find it amusing that after all this time, people still wardec the Frogs. From my understanding the only people actually wearing a Frog Alliance uniform are the contract managers who rarely, if ever, undock (or even need to).

Making good use of the highsec anti-"pvp" mechanics.

that doesn't prevent you from ganking our freighters tho!

CCP gives you mechanisms to mess with others, and then gives those others mechanisms to avoid being messed with.

Bottom line is, if you can stop an industrialist from making a living, that industrialist won't be able to fund his accounts with PLEX, resulting in many of the industrialists dropping their subscriptions.

This does really need adressed.

Go find a pvp corporation to fight and not a bunch of miners and you will get your war. I suspect though that the OP is not actually after a good fight rather they are after some easy targets without the risk of losing a ship to CONCORD.

You seem to think there's something wrong with picking on miners. Newsflash, there isn't.

Are you cramming 20 billion into them and autopiloting to Jita?

no, your pick are somewhat... well.. unusual lately.

of the 6-7 last high-sec ganks from the goons, there was 3 with less then a billion in them.

There is definitely something wrong with crying like a little kid with a scraped knee when the miners you're trying to pick on trivially evade your amateurish offensive, though.

"Moooom, I'm trying to be a **** to this guy and he won't let me! It's not faaaaaaair"

You seem to think there's something wrong with picking on miners. Newsflash, there isn't.

Victory does not always mean destruction of ships or other assets.

If an attacker declares war on a defender in highsec, the defender may immediately nullify/reject the incoming war declaration at trivial cost, and resume gameplay as if the war declaration did not occur. The attacker cannot impact this process.

Let's take a step back, and look at the mechanic of war evasion in it's entirety, without labelling anyone as a "miner" or a "ganker". I'm going to sum up the current state of affairs, you tell me whether this is healthy for New Eden in the long run.



Do you feel this is healthy for New Eden - that everyone who subjects themselves to risk in highsec does so entirely voluntarily, and can turn off his "non-suicide PvP flag" at any time he chooses, at minimal cost? Is this the New Eden you signed up for?

Actually yes, this is exactly why I started playing EVE. A sandbox game where I can do whatever I want within the game along with other players doing whatever they want. I have even been ganked while mining a couple of times but that is just part of the sandbox.

You imply that forcing wars on players would be good for New Eden, I do not think it will because those players who have little or no interest in pvp are soon going to leave and we are back to where the subs were when I started playing and they were celebrating getting over 10k online at once. While that would not be a problem as far as I am concerned it certainly would be as far as CCP and their shareholders are concerned.

Gankers often claim that hisec "carebears" are the minority but this is simply not true, to see this all you have to do is open the galaxy map and set the colour to show active pilots. If they were correct and carebears were the minority then hi-sec would be dim and low/null would be glowing.

You may want to get people into low/null sec and wars the simple fact is CCP are not going to risk losing a good chunk of their player base.

Then why does every single EVE trailer focus on player-generated conflict, instead of showing some footage of some people setting their ice mining lasers then not playing EVE for the next 20 minutes while their cargo fills up? If you are correct, and most people come to EVE to not play single player mining in space, then why doesn't EVE's marketing material and strategy reflect this?

Then why does every single EVE trailer focus on player-generated conflict, instead of showing some footage of some people setting their ice mining lasers then not playing EVE for the next 20 minutes while their cargo fills up? If you are correct, and most people come to EVE to not play single player mining in space, then why doesn't EVE's marketing material and strategy reflect this?

The same reason every single car advert shows someone bombing around some fancy location and not taking the kids to school or doing the weekly shopping.

That and you seem to think that mining is the only thing going on in hi-sec.

If you make the prey too vunerable that ecolocical niche will be hunted to extinction in relatively rapid manner. The people in that niche will either "die off" in the sense of quitting eve or find a new niche in EVE. I'm afraid that if you take away all options to avoid hi sec wars then many of the preys populating these niches would just die off instead of finding a better niche to populate and considering that they are supposed to be the "90%" results of such exodus might, in turn, be quite bad for the EVE as a whole.

Your first comparison is besides the point and strays too far from the scope of this discussion, I will discuss it no further.

Let's take a step back, and look at the mechanic of war evasion in it's entirety, without labelling anyone as a "miner" or a "ganker". I'm going to sum up the current state of affairs, you tell me whether this is healthy for New Eden in the long run.



Do you feel this is healthy for New Eden - that everyone who subjects themselves to risk in highsec does so entirely voluntarily, and can turn off his "non-suicide PvP flag" at any time he chooses, at minimal cost? Is this the New Eden you signed up for?

If I remember correct then approx 90% of active characters live in hi sec

More like 65% in highsec, when you exclude low SP alts. And even then, some of those could be missioning alts/JF alts etc of players who operate elsewhere normally.

Then why does every single EVE trailer focus on player-generated conflict,

Let's take a step back, and look at the mechanic of war evasion in it's entirety, without labelling anyone as a "miner" or a "ganker". I'm going to sum up the current state of affairs, you tell me whether this is healthy for New Eden in the long run.



Do you feel this is healthy for New Eden - that everyone who subjects themselves to risk in highsec does so entirely voluntarily, and can turn off his "non-suicide PvP flag" at any time he chooses, at minimal cost? Is this the New Eden you signed up for?

A valid purpose of a war declaration is to provide the attacker with a group of targets of his choice, that is unlikely to be able to defend themselves, has no interest in PVP gameplay and has no significant corporate assets such as POSes.

Counterquestion - do you fell that the statement



should be correct?

Absolutely. I don't believe war in EVE should require any justification at all.

then there isn't any justification to make them mendatory, or to make them follow a player, or to impose them on anyone. Even if he's not hiding in a NPC corp.

This does really need adressed. A corp that is war dec'd should have a 7 day timer on leaving the corp or the war dec should follow players for the seven days who choose to bail. You pay the fee for 7 days and you should get those 7 days..

Then I had better explain it for you, the reason CCP does not show mining operations in trailers is because those trailers are advertisements for the game and as mining is one of the least exciting activities in the game it makes sense not to show it in trailers but show the more exciting combat.

The same reason car adverts show the exciting things you do with cars, the same reason action movie trailers do not show the characters sat around chatting but instead blowing shizz up.

Advertising...

Get it now?

If a player has "no interest" in PvP gameplay he can remain in an NPC corporation and in the safety of the captains quarters.

I do think that it is wrong that declaring war has no consequence for an aggressor that fails to be aggressive. If the defender comes out to fight then the aggressor should have to face them. I also think that it makes no sense that war can be declared randomly; there should be some reason for it and some goal that it aims to achieve. War should be a major event that has some lasting impact for each party, in Eve it is just a week long irritation GÇô it seems reasonable that people would want to avoid it.

To be able to ensure carebears can keep their accounts funded on PLEX, there MUST be a way for them to avoid war so that they can go about their business of making ISK. CCP wants them to keep their accounts funded, so CCP must provide a mechanism for this to be possible.

Scream all you want for nerfs to high sec, to NPC corps, to missions, to... whatever. It will fall on deaf eara at CCP is the result of the change would be to limit the ability of high sec carebears to generate enough ISK to fund their accounts with PLEX, regardless of what other players do.

No, you're not entitled to ISK for your PLEX.

You know what aggressors do when they can't handle the defenders?

They drop to an NPC corp.

It works both ways here, allowing people to shed wars at their leisure is a stupid mechanic/unplanned loophole/exploit because it removes any sort of risk or consequence for anyone involved in a war.

1) CCP accidentally created these mechanisms by mistake, and good for nothing carebears have been exploiting them. If you just demand they be removed, one more time, CCP will finally get the message that they should willingly take the revenue hit because no one wants those dang carebears in this game anyway.

2) CCP wants me to keep playing, and knows for that to be possible, I much be able to largely ignore pests and go about my business making ISK and buying PLEX, so has intentionally created these game mechanics that so many griefers are angry about. No matter how many times you rant and rave, CCP will ignore you, because they like the effect carebears have on their revenue and bottom line profits.

I'm going with 2.

So which CSM candidates are going to put this forward? Allow war decs to follow players for 7 days who bail from corp?

Thats a false dichotomy.

3) CCP wants you to keep playing and going about your biz while also interacting with others, even if you think they are pests.

You've obviously never had the full EVE Online Experience if you seriously believe everything in the game is working as intended.

It sure is working as intended when you're benefiting from it.

What is the other option? I can't escape war dec, can't make 500+ million ISK per toon, per month, can't buy PLEX, stop playing the game. Tell me, who benefits from that?

CCP's Wallet.

People who use PLEX for subscriptions, because PLEX prices are cheaper now that there are 4 more on the market.

Wardecs are meant to be non-consensual. When you corrupt wardecs using corp hopping exploits you are fundamentally changing the way they were designed to be. Take away the exploit and they are fine the way they are.

A corp with no anchored assets has no reason to defend anything because the human resources the corp has are immune from the war if they or the corp chooses them to be. Take away the immunity and people suddenly have reasons to defend themselves.

THEY WILL UNSUBBBBBBBBB

My problem with wardecs isn't ppl that drop corp when dec'd but decc'rs who spam wardecs and never show up to fight. If you declare a war you should be rsponsible for aggressively prosecuting it, not setting in trade hubs hoping they'll blunder into you. Most wardecs I've seen pass without a shot being fired. Not a huge inconveinence if you typically fly pvp ships and have an alt for making trade hub runs just disappointing. A deccing corp should have to ideally engage the target or at least make an appearance in the opponent's headquarters system once every 24 hours or have the dec dropped.

But NPC corps are there to, I donno ~protect newbies~, you definitely cannot prevent people from becoming a NPC corp alt, or else all the unsubs....

If NPC corps existed to protect newbies, then CCP would have created them such that only newbies can be in them.


NPC corps clearly exist to allow ANY carebear to avoid being driven out of the game by unwanted war dec... this is why anyone can join.


i know you don't like it, but there it is.

Assumes that the person buying the PLEX would still buy them with real, even if the ISK price is lower. Fail.

Besides, the desired change to not be able to escape war dec would not effect just me and my 4 accounts. It would effect ALL high sec carebears that fund their accounts on PLEX, the majority of PLEX consumers.

Occam's Razor:

Back in early 2011, the game reached all time player highs. PLEX were 380m. People still bought and sold thousands of them.

A couple months ago, PLEX were 600m a shot. Did people start buying tons of PLEX? No, volume was about the same as it is today, where it is 500m isk.

There is very little correlation between people purchasing the PLEX and their ISK cost. Sure people would like more bang for their buck, but the people who decide they are going to buy PLEX and sell them are going to do it regardless.

Even if they were, I find it absolutely hilarious that the player group that is the most disposable

and the group that largely doesn't pay for the game is so adamant about their overpowered playstyle not being changed one bit, over players who are paying for their accounts and want to play a fun game. No one is going to buy PLEX when the only people who are left are the people who play for free.

You made a million assumptions on both options and then you attached "Occam's Razor" in there in order to somehow seem smarter.
But in this case, it doesn't seem make you smarter, since you have no real point to be made, with no real argument, and your entire case is built on a tower of assumptions.

Please read through this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Why should war consist of "open combat"? What if I want to avoid fighting them until my neutral scout spots their Orca, then kill that instead?