Wardecs are trivially easy to avoid.

You don't get to talk about nerfing any part of them, until the dec dodging exploit is fixed.

It is not only the logistics, it is the entire concept that has gone out of hand.

Currently a high-sec war means: some random griefer Corp declared war on you, has people on all major trade-hubs waiting for you, that either try to one-shot you or - if there is any even remote danger for them - they doc. Effectively all they do is Jita-camping without Concord interfering.

I made a suggestion for this years ago and I think it is still a good idea:
If you declare war on someone, you need to pay a fee of (let's say) 10 millions per member in the corp you are declaring war upon. Each time you destroy a ship from that corp, you get some of that money back. After you killed an amount of ships of at least (let's say) 50% of that corp, Concord has returned the entire fee, and what you do afterwards is no longer Concord's business. Thats it.

That (and the logi change as suggested by the OP to limit the war to those who are in it) would ensure that a war will actually be a war, because now the one declaring it cannot afford just camping some trade hub, they need to aggressively attack. Because otherwise they pay a very high fee for "bothering Concord" with no return of investment.

Some numbers for those who like em:

Assume you declare war on a corp with 20 members, then you need to pay a 200m fee in addition to the normal war declaration cost. If you now kill someone from that corp, Concord returns 20m (50% of #members) of that money back to you. After 10 kills you got your 'bothering' fee back, and no further money is payed.

Assume you declare war on a corp with 100 members, you need to pay 1b 'bothering fee' and get 20m back per kill. After 50 kills you got your entire money back.

If you complain that a 1 billion fee is too much, please also keep in mind that you are as well interrupting the playstyle of 100 other players Disrupting or even disabling the day-to-day high-sec business of so many people should come with a reasonable price.

The price of a wardec versus the price of dissolving and reforming a corp. (the price of the latter is much, much lower by the way)

And a few clicks either way.

But that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that wardecs are 100% voluntary for the defender, thanks to the dec dodge exploit.

none at all.

oh, unless they want to win, in which case it's quite a bit

Since I had the same suggestion earlier in the thread...

Logis are different because it's a completely legal action to rep someone in high sec.

It's used outside of war-decs in many activities. Incursions use them, I've used them to keep a friend alive when he was having trouble with a mission. (Mission of Mercy, a level 2 which is tougher than some level 3's, he had just started playing, obviously.)

All of the other activities you mention are illegal in high sec outside of legal aggression, repairing someone is not. Making a otherwise legal activity Concordable makes no sense at all.

thats ridicilous ... you can dec a 200 man alliance with a corp of 30 and get no kills whatsover .. cos they decide not too undock for the whole war .... you would see wardecs stop overnight.... period...

It is not only the logistics, it is the entire concept that has gone out of hand.

Currently a high-sec war means: some random griefer Corp declared war on you, has people on all major trade-hubs waiting for you, that either try to one-shot you or - if there is any even remote danger for them - they doc. Effectively all they do is Jita-camping without Concord interfering.

I honestly don't know why anyone else is entertaining this incredible display of selfishness and entitlement.

Stuff.

thers no way to give logi risk before hand.

Merriam-Webstar, you should try it out.

Grief c: trouble, annoyance.

So a griefer can be one that cause trouble or annoy.

I made a suggestion for this years ago and I think it is still a good idea:
If you declare war on someone, you need to pay a fee of (let's say) 10 millions per member in the corp you are declaring war upon. Each time you destroy a ship from that corp, you get some of that money back. After you killed an amount of ships of at least (let's say) 50% of that corp, Concord has returned the entire fee, and what you do afterwards is no longer Concord's business. Thats it.

That (and the logi change as suggested by the OP to limit the war to those who are in it) would ensure that a war will actually be a war, because now the one declaring it cannot afford just camping some trade hub, they need to aggressively attack. Because otherwise they pay a very high fee for "bothering Concord" with no return of investment.

[...]

If you complain that a 1 billion fee is too much, please also keep in mind that you are as well interrupting the playstyle of 100 other players Disrupting or even disabling the day-to-day high-sec business of so many people should come with a reasonable price.

False.

In this context, no definition matters besides CCP's definition.

So, it's a reason for being as it is because that is how it is?

That isn't a reason.

Incursions and missions does not involve engaging in combat you need flags for, it is a completely irrelevant element for if a Logi should be able to engage in PvP without engement rights.

And that is exactly the point, why isn't it illegal for a logi to engage when it is for everyone else?

And you did say: "No need to concord anyone". So we can agree this was completely wrong and there is a need to concord everyone except logi that illegally engages?

*EDIT Added last sentence + fix spelling.

If I warp scram someone in high-sec at random, I would get Concorded.

If I remote repair someone at random in high-sec, there is absolutely no penalty, unless that person is involved in a limited engagement of some sort

, at which point I would go suspect.

The Logi are not engaging. They are interfering.

As to the 2nd, you are confusing me with the person who brought this back up. That's not something I said.

What exactly makes this "not engaging" but only "interfering"?

And how would a DPS ship removing an equivalent amount of HP from the opposing ship as the logi ship repairs be separated from the logi under this definition?

CCP doesn't have a definition for griefer. They have a definition for when grief play is punishable.

Seriously, take EVE and "MMO" away from the argument.

Is it "Griefing" when I land on your space in Trouble / Sorry / other game where it means you move back X spaces?
Is it "Griefing" when I deck out the Yellow and Green squares in Monopoly with hotels right before you get there?
Is it "Griefing" in Scrabble when I take some word you made, and build off it for 3x point bonus?

By the OP's assertion, yes it is.

Apparently anything that causes badfeelz is griefing.

Since you can't win a war currently, it is just always none at all :).

Although I don't agree it is none at all, I would say it is 30 seconds and 50 mill.

But checking on the amount of current wars that has no kill in them at all, and aggressors not even caring to try keep defender out of the system they normally come in (both the wars against Silverflames we have been able to come and go pretty much as we wanted,, worst was one ship getting scanned down with combat probes by a neutral alt, while looking for information on aggressor in local) - it is definitely way to low.

double_facepalm.jpg

At least you didn't mention Risk. Or, God help us, Diplomacy. That is the EVE of board games.

A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs using a game concept that is implemented to settle what diplomacy could not for pure ISK gain instead, while there are many other ways to gain much more money in the same time, then I think it is correct to call that person a griefer.

The core concept here is ISK gain, so if you take away the free money aspect, high-sec wars should return to what they are intended for.

If someone denies me access to trade-hubs

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?