1: Usually known if you or anyone you know is invovled.
2: How can war deccing a WH corp happen, without it being because attacker has no clue and are just war deccing at random?
3: Easy to check both in and out of game, for everyone.
4: Would usually lead to 1,3 or kills if so.
5: Then there would probably be attacker losses in the war, and it wouldn't be a 0 kill war.
6: Easy to see, then there would be a surrender in the game, and not just an expire war due to bills stopping.

So, there can be wars that have a reason, but do most current hi sec wars have a reason? That isn't just to provide aggressor with random targets for a PvP roam of high sec.

I would say no. What would you say?

*EDIT* Clarified question.

1. I don't follow your reasoning here

I would say yes, all hisec wars have a reason.

Even if it's as simple as "we want targets" -- that is a reason.

Yes, hisec wars have "profit" as a goal at times.

Question was if it was common for high sec wars to have profit as a goal, not if it happens at all.

You are probably just gonna dodge the question again, so consider this my last attempt at getting an answer.

You can do it, and you can do it without any suggestions or input, just apply a little common sense.

Fix Hi-Sec Wars.

Don't like having neut logi help them means bringing your own neut logi or living with the fact that they are better organized than you.

Firstly... The logi is not "hurting" anyone. They are repairing someone. Those two things are opposite, by their very definition.

As such, they are interfering rather than engaging.

Do you also want a Logi who reps someone who has engaged a suspect to be Concorded as well, as they too are interfering in a conflict?

What's wrong with them in the first place?

And let's see you say something besides a banal generality like "carebears don't like getting shot at", because #1 that's tough luck for them, and #2 it's not exactly a problem.

What's wrong with them in the first place?

And let's see you say something besides a banal generality like "carebears don't like getting shot at", because #1 that's tough luck for them, and #2 it's not exactly a problem.

It would be nice if there were an API reference to public-facing corporation information, including war history.

Would love to be able to pull some data and calculate the mean and median isk destroyed per war. Would put money on the median value being 0.

Can that be gathered from killboards? Do they allow filtering by corp? Might help corps avoid deccing corps that will simply melt away

Can that be gathered from killboards? Do they allow filtering by corp? Might help corps avoid deccing corps that will simply melt away

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.

except there are counters to logi besides more logi.

except there are counters to logi besides more logi.

Your statement would be relevant if the discussion was merely on logistic ships.

That pretty much is the discussion.

what does the fact whether they are neutral or not have to do with countering them?

u can still use e-war, u can still switch targets, u can still bring neuts and u can still just plain shoot them.

the answer still stands, the counter to logi, neutral or not, is not just bring ur own logi, neutral or not.

Nevermind that, in exchange for the element of surprise, neutral logi open themselves up to being attacked by whoever else happens across the fight.

This is not insignificant.

That pretty much is the discussion.

There's room for differing opinions on this subject, but nobody who has ever really played this game would regard that risk as anything but the very definition of insignificant.

Flagging yourself for anyone to attack is insignificant? Do that in a trade hub some time and tell me how well it goes. Yeah, they can dock up to avoid being shot by other neutrals, but while they do that they're not repping their fleet, either.

Heck, if the defenders are halfway competent, they can have people in an NPC corp follow the neutral logi around to gank them if they try to have an effect on the battle. Although I suppose assuming competence on the part of the typical highsec corp really is asking too much.

So the "competent" solution to neutrals is... more neutrals? And it shouldn't be seen as problematic that the game mechanics promote as ideal a strategy wherein the preferred place for a character is an NPC corp? And you imagine this to be a fundamentally better solution than forcing logi to adhere to the same flagging as any other combatant... how?

You're trying to dress up extreme, carebearish risk-aversion as "competence".