1. A "griefer" is a player who engages in "grief play"
2. "Grief Play" as an activity varies based on "house rules"
3. CCP has explicitly defined a unilateral wardec as "Normal Gameplay" rather than "Grief Play"

Therefore, someone wardeccing an industrial corp is not a "griefer".
QED.

Also, highsec wars would be vastly improved if they were free.

if someone decs u and then doesnt come anywhere near u then whats the problem?

And that is based one what offical source? Link please.

And that is based one what offical source? Link please.

...[Grief Play] should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars.

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.

Ask and ye shall receive.


The above rulings about "grief play" (and a wardec not constituting as such) apply to your comments as well.

Since the logi has valid engagement with the suspect, no.

Repping the enemy of X, is hurting X.

The link you give, has as argument for the wars not being considered grief play the following "A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way."

I have boldfaced the important part. It would seem the changes to the war dec system, is actually in conflict with the basis of how CCP understands "grief play".

But enough of the off-topic discussions please, enough of the posts in this thread is about off-topic and personal attacks. The topic is "Improve hi sec wars".

If you have no suggestions for how to make hi sec wars better, or arguments for why a suggestion is good or bad, please go troll somewhere else.

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.

How exciting to find a Bene Gesserit truthsayer in our midst, able to provide insights and such sweeping proclamations into the motivations of all players involved in issuing wardecs...

However and sadly, for your heresies against HTFU and attempt at (yet another of these f#$king) stealth nerf-hisec threads, we must add a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue in your name...

An innocent carebear will be murdered in hisec, and informed it was because of you and your heresies. When these pansified heresies stop, we will stop. Until then, the spice...er....tears must flow.

The part you should have paid more attention to is "in any way".

If they even salvage the wrecks, they are profiting. If they are even theoretically in competition with you in the local market, they are profiting.

If they ask for ransom, they stand to profit from it. If they could potentially increase their reputation as mercenaries to entice further employers, they stand to profit from it.

When aggressor only decs the war to have target opportunities, but doesn't care about the war. Nothing of that happens. The only thing of what you mention that is affected is their rep as mercs, but it goes down from another 0 kill war, and not up.

That is current problem in hi sec wars, that some of would like fixed. The wars that actually have a single kill are few these days.

Are you actually telling me that they are not salvaging or even looting your wrecks?

Those wrecks only exist in your imagination.

Try actually read the posts in the thread.

Oh, so you're telling me that if they caught you, they wouldn't loot your wreck. Gotcha.

I don't see how OPs suggestions would change anything TBH

Suspect flag already makes interfering in a war a risk. No idea what the other suggestion aimed to accomplish, 100m isn't an amount of money that will deter anyone.

High sec is far too save, if anything more power should be given to war decrees.

bear in mind any time you increase risk you have to increase reward...hisec isn't too safe, it's supposed to be lo risk lo reward. I think making the interfering logi a war target would be fine, I'd even be happy if the logi dragged their corp into the war at the appropriate cost. Do you think the Germans ignored it when the neutral americans started shipping goods to the UK in WWII? It make sno sense for someone to interfere with a war without their corp becoming a combatent.

When aggressor only decs the war to have target opportunities, but doesn't care about the war. Nothing of that happens. The only thing of what you mention that is affected is their rep as mercs, but it goes down from another 0 kill war, and not up.

That is current problem in hi sec wars, that some of would like fixed. The wars that actually have a single kill are few these days.

Frankly, theres not much wrong with wardecs themselves. They work as intended. Just because you don't want to get wardeced as it is interfering of your gameplay it doesn't mean its broken. A reasonable fee was paid for the simple right to kill you without interference. The only thing that is odd is high-sec combat mechanics. Basically it allows you to decide whether to comit assets to a fight after it has started. That is the only thing that is different from any other combat in EVE. In low-sec, wormhole space and null you have what you bring to the field and its all engageable from the get go. High sec just makes it so that support assets can be inserted on a need basis. Hence the only thing that is broken is the ability to have logistics support unengageable before they are used, and then only engageable for 15 min after their use. Making it so they are valid targets for the entire conflict (or at the very least until they are killed once) is the only real necessary move.

...(stealth nerf hisec mantra redacted)....

1. Defender logged off for the week.
2. Attacker had bad intel, and defender actually lives in W-space (so no locator agents).
3. Defender dropped corp, and left holding alt in CEO position (pretty much #1)
4. Attacker is a merc, and the job is "blockade"
5. Defender is better than the attacker thought, and doesn't lose ships.
6. Defender paid off the attacker, and it was accepted
7. Probably more stuff I'm not thinking about.