Very far from, when they war dec I want to take out their costly logi ships and blow up their PoS while my corpies are striking their mining fleet.

But with the current system. all I can attack are cheap expendable ships.

Currently hi sec wars are just a bunch of griefers in a corp that only consists of PvP oriented ships and characters war deccing everything in sight that is an easy target, so they have some targets to gank. Cowardly keeping all their own logi and income out of the warring corp, making it pretty much risk free to declare the war.

All non-attackable and protected by Concord.

Please read before replying.

Were you here for the nanonerf? Back when nanofleets were a big thing, one of the common (and similarly disingenuous) arguments in favor of nano was, "If it's such a big deal just bring your own nano fleet!"

The problem with that is that, one of the key identifiers of a patently broken mechanic is that the mechanic is its own counter.

The one who surrenders (or chickens out by stopping the paying of bills) didn't win.

Extremely simple.

Can you shoot them when they undock?
Can you provide a compelling reason why you shouldn't be able to shoot them when they undock?
Is there an actual, good reason why they should be able to avoid being committed until they actually engage?

Risk/Reward is a far greater part of the game's ethos and, as already noted, OGB is being nerfed for much the same reason: It provides something for nothing by way of the "optimal" gameplay being a complete minimization of risk.

It's an outlier, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the rules of the game. I can't have a "Secret ally" in an offense-oriented ship show up and engage my wartargets, but for some reason it's okay with logi because reasons.

right so you need to wardec another corp because of a lame game mechanism, dont forget it takes 24 hours to kick in. its a flaw in the wardeccing system. period it should be adressed by CCP not by players with half working solutions.

How is anything I have suggested makign for less engaging wars in anyway?

Sure, some wars might not happen if there is suddenly risk for the aggressor, but Eve isn't about risk free.

I don't see any compelling reason why it's really that bad. If the "neutral" showed up in a Battlecruiser and started "helping", they would get Concordokken - If they show up in a Guardian, they don't because... reasons.

When pressed, everyone eventually seems to admit that neutral logi isn't really "good", but they resist getting rid of it anyway. The last-line-of-defense, fallback objection is generally, "But it breaks incursions," but I have yet to see anyone put forth a scenario in which it breaks incursions that couldn't be trivially resolved through the safety and existing Crimewatch mechanics.

and where the heck do you get the nerve to state that someone is not worthy to a corp? i always thought that the only reason to be corp worthy is paying monthly fee by cash or plex and ofc a corp that is willingly to accept, which the OP has managed, not every EVE player likes PVP

Eve philosophy: if you cannot defend it, you do not deserve it. By extension, if you cannot defend yourself while in a corp, you do not deserve to be in a corp.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/08/article-0-0290058B00000578-290_468x286.jpg

Kindly refrain from blowing smoke up my ass.

As far as module activations go, you can boost and you can logi.

Guns are not the outlier, unless neuts, vamps, TDs, damps, painters, webs, missiles, scrams, drones, ECM, and smartbombs (did I miss anything?) are also "the outlier", and that's a pretty long list.

The current rule is merely the existing status quo. It doesn't, in and of itself, constitute an argument against change.

An off the cuff idea about neutral logi...

What about not allowing them to operate from NPC corps & giving their corp a day long flag as valid war targets, if they rep a ship currently under a war-dec? It would allow use of them, but carry at least some consequence for their action, beyond a temporary suspect timer.

So because there can be neutral scouts (which really lack any practical way to be forced into a corp), you think that it's GOOD that optimal gameplay for logistics pilots means being in an NPC corp, even though that could be easily addressed? Really?

If there were a conceivable way to prevent that, I'd be fine with that too.

So because there is a game mechanic we can not fix (forcing non-combat pilots into corps), we should leave the rest of the game broken?

And I told you that is hardly a unique situation in the game. It's actually fairly normal.

In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?

Still waiting for the answer on the previous question, but I see since you have no basis for anything you say you just let it go and start up something new.

In order for Crimewatch to be consistent, it would need to have similar punishment for similar "crimes".

So ... which one doesnt belong?

"Stealing from a can" "helping in fight by shooting at the enemy of friend" "helping in fight by repping friend".

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

On the "CONCORDOKKEN!" side of the line we have nothing but combat actions: Shooting, disrupting, Ewaring, droning, missiling, etc.

On the "Suspect" side of the line, we have one specific combat action - logi - and theft. Nothing else on the suspect side of the line actually has ANY chance of endangering another player without their taking action.

If I loot a wreck, I go suspect. I do not endanger the victim of the theft, unless he aggresses me.
If I blow up an MTU, I go suspect. I do not endanger the owner of the MTU, unless he aggresses me.

If I remote rep a player, I go suspect, and I'm DEFINITELY endangering the opponent of my target. The nature of the action (and its consequences) has FAR more in common with "red" actions than "yellow" ones.



Er... The suggestion is, "Slightly modify the criteria so that it's Y instead of X." Saying, "But the criteria is X!" isn't actually a response. We know what X is. We started with X, and then suggested it be changed to Y.

Being able to choose when to turn on your suspect flag and when not to, is far less risk than being a war target.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be anyone hiding in NPC corps.

Yes, I suppose if you just want to consider any arbitrary statement as being equally valid simply because someone said it, you certainly have a point.

Back in reality, you still can't conclusively assert that you've definitively determined to know their mind on any arbitrary topic.

I mean, not without looking like an idiot, anyway. I guess there's nothing stopping you from actually making the claim.

So basically, except for the part where it's entirely unworkable at a fundamental level, it's a fantastic idea!

And if it weren't for gravity, I could flap my wings and fly.

Ah, here we go with the mindreading and bizarre belief that nothing every changes, again. Round and round we go.

Actually, at most all you can refer to that is that their famously soft-touch re: player interaction is still present, and that's a good thing.

And "easy" re: difficulty and "easy" re: labor are entirely different. There wouldn't be any inherent difficulty, that I'm aware of, in making such a change - that doesn't mean it wouldn't be labor intensive, and it doesn't make your mind reading any less fallacious. There is such a thing as "Good enough, for now" in a prioritization queue.

Quick, tell us what they're going to do three patches from now! Would love to start planning out my market orders now.

Well, rereading this thread is really just disheartening.

What do hi sec wars do?

Positive:
1: Provide a mechanic to take out PoS and POCO that's in the way

Negative:
2: Makes it a stupid thing to be in a player corp for the majority of the players in the game.

Under the assumption that player corps is intended to be a good thing, the mechanic must be said to just be completely broken at this point.

I don't see you mention war decs doing anything positive for any of these corps?

Wars aren't the reason you join E-Uni however.

In addition, wars tend to weed out corps which attempt to recruit & grow without actually understanding the mechanics of the game.

Maybe new corps under a year old can't be war dec? This might give a false perception though...

Why do you want the logi to be risk free until needed first time? This doesnt seem simple to me, looks rather complex. Treating people differently based on their role in a fight, and this would mean you would suddenly be in war with parts of different corps.



So DPS, Scram, ECM, Neut etc should no longer be concorded if they engage illegally?



How is different treatment for the logi fair?

That I can't strike back and make them _very_ sorry they inconvenienced my corp by forcing one of us to spend 30-60 minutes researching if they are a thread.

When a developer team is interested in determining if a particular mechanical strategy is balanced, they can utilize multiple models to determine the level of balance of that mechanical strategy. One of the first red flags that a mechanical strategy is imbalanced is if the only viable counter of equal (or greater) power to that mechanical strategy is itself. To create an analogy: You are arguing that in a game of rock/paper/scissors, it is okay for scissors to beat rock and paper, because you can always pick scissors as well.

Pretty ******* insignificant, dude.

The only places anybody "happens by" a fight in Eve are gates and stations - both of which provide the logi an immediate get out of exploding free card.

It is, without a doubt, the very definition of insignificant.

Neutral logi isn't "cloak and dagger fuckery" to anyone but the newest player. Cloak and dagger fuckery, on its face, should be unpredictable. This is the exact opposite of the spanish inquisition: EVERYONE expects it, because it's the "correct" tactical decision. It's the objectively correct thing to do, 100% of the time. There's no cunning involved, and there's certainly no tradeoff.

Relative to the risk assumed by any actual war target, it absolutely is.

It's laughable (and a little pathetic) to see people try to argue this. If it didn't significantly minimize the risk, people would just put their logi in corp because why the hell not?

If the risk of neutral logi is as great as you want to pretend it is, why are you so afraid of logi being forced into corp?

When I say I don't agree of war-dec mechanics if they enable "pay-to-grief," most people will assume I'm instantly supporting making hi-sec "safer" or more "carebear-friendly." What I'm saying is I don't support a system which doesn't make the game fun for both sides of the conflict. Remember, people, that this is a game - we pay CCP a sum of our real-life money (or have someone else do it on our behalf via plex) to have fun. If the wardec mechanic is not serving the purpose of entertaining the people that are affected by it, then it needs to be revamped. If one side of the wardec is having fun and the other isn't, I consider that the mechanic failing to achieve its purpose.

My belief is that the way to fix hi-sec war declarations (and to a larger extent, war declarations in general) is to avoid any measure which will restrict or curtail the tactical options either side of the conflict has at their disposal, but instead on positively incentivising both sides to fight each other on comparable terms. Fixing this problem has to be done with carrots, not sticks.

So OGB, drone assist from inside PoS bubble etc isn't broken?

Afterall you can just bring your own OGB, or shoot the drones.

I don't support an end to nonconsensual PvP. I support a way of making those subjected to nonconsensual PvP engaged in its outcome and willing to participate in it.

War dodging is in no way an exploit just as people being able to arbitrarily wardec you isn't an exploit. If people switch corp your wardec has interfered with their business.

Q: What about corp-hopping?
A: We're adding tracking in the backend to track this. How we will then display it in game is undecided, but we do have stories in the backlog (todo list) for the character war history to show if the character left a corp at war. We also want to have it cost a little to corp-hop during a war. We're also looking into not allowing you to join a corp you've left during a war while that war is still ongoing. We're also exploring some limitations to joining and leaving a corp on the fly.

The Corp Hop Song

WeGÇÖve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first. Note that this rule only applies for non-mutual wars GÇô mutual wars do not prohibit players from entering or leaving corporations. The main reason for this change is to combat the popular alt corp hopping (this doesnGÇÖt stop it completely, but limits it a lot).

Your primary problem is the words Highsec and Wars in the same sentence.

There is plenty of space for wars in low and null and no matter how hard you try you will never have "fair" wars in highsec because wars are never fair.

Completely remove the whole silly highsec war feature and be done with it.

If you want wars go to nullsec and lowsec and don't all join up the same side

Actually Star Citizen has mechanics that are at least as bad as the current Eve war system.

so not really a good argument in this case.

CCP will release those numbers if and when they want to release them. Until then any speculation on those numbers is nothing more then that: speculation.

When they are their own target, I think the fun goes away. If they wanted to fight PvP oriented people, they wouldn't be playing in high sec currently, but be off in low and null. But this is all speculation.

It might be so, and current changes surely seems to suggest that CCP does not want social people in the game as anything but targets. If that is the case however, I know a few people who won't be here much longer as we are here to play WITH others, not AGAINST others (since a lot of people are going to misunderstand this, let me clarify that killing each other can very well be playing WITH each other, the difference is in reasons).

Q: Limit on number of wars?
A: No, apart from the increased cost of war deccing many.

The other story is a bit of refactoring of the war declaration cost. WeGÇÖve removed the cost multiplier based on number of wars youGÇÖre in, as this was causing issues when wars are being copied around, plus itGÇÖs much more severe to be multiplying the base cost now compared to before (50 million and 2 million respectively).