EVE Search - WAR! UH! What is it good for?

All Channels

Warfare & Tactics

WAR! UH! What is it good for?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 0	Posted - 2012.04.23 19:48:00 - [1] - Quote Serious question. What is War good for? Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for? Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. The only thing is that wars in EVE usually end with one side paying off the other. And even then, that doesn't always work. The 1-week enforced peace coming in Inferno will help mitigate that somewhat, true. Time to admit something here: My corp is currently involved in a war that has dragged on for at least a month. I will not say with who. I'm not here to complain or demand that this be ended. My question is why is this allowed in the first place? The war has seen underhanded tactics from the attacking corp like dropping and joining their corp at strategic points, trying to catch us off guard, or get us CONCORDed (including one incident where a person dropped corp mid-battle. He was destroyed, no one got CONCORDed). Meanwhile, BOTH sides have used the docking-up tactic, which is not fun for either side. A representative for the attacking corp has even said: "We intend on getting paid or disbanding your alliance. Every dec we do ends with either or. It's your guys' choice which one." We've payed the corp menacing us. It hasn't worked. We've massed troops to face them. It hasn't worked. War is supposed to encourage people to blow each other up. It doesn't. The best tactics, the ones that cost the least, are unfun activities, like docking up, or running. And if a game becomes unfun, what's the point of playing? The changes come Inferno don't seem like they will change the viability of these tactics, or give better alternatives. Why? Because, as Massively said in one of its articles on the changes coming in Inferno, "The main thing that I think needs to be fixed with the war system is the complete lack of victory conditions for either side, particularly for the defender." The problem with War, specifically in EVE, but sometimes in real life too, there's no way to win. In EVE, this means it turns into a gank-fest, which is unfun for the target, or docking up for the duration of the war, which is unfun for both sides. To go back to Massively's words, again, "The ideal war system would be one that forces the attackers to commit and has clear victory conditions. It should make small corps engaging large entities riskier and encourage people to fight a war rather than dock up for a week." With the information I've seen, I don't have faith that war will be made fun come Inferno. So I ask again, when the best tactic in a war is to log off and go play Star Trek Online... War: What is it good for?
Fredfredbug4 Kings of Kill EVE Animal Control 226	Posted - 2012.04.23 20:29:00 - [2] - Quote This thread hurts my head. Every EVE trailer and advertisements depicts warfare. Thinking war should be removed from EVE is like thinking guns should be removed from shooting games. Come to nullsec one of these days. What you carebears deal with in hi-sec is hardly war.
Five Thirty School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2012.04.23 20:32:00 - [3] - Quote Highsec warfare is basically only for 3 things: - Griefing Industrial Corporations - Extracting ISK from targeted corporations - RvB PvP practice Many of your points about war are spot on. - There is no way to win - Attacking corps will only fight when they have a clear and decisive advantage - Defending corps will only fight when they have a clear and decisive advangage - Docking games are lame and a complete waste of time. Many of the problems with highsec warfare stem from the reasons that it is used. When an industrial corp has war declared against them by a PvP corp, they generally either stay docked up playing station games, or simply don't log in for the week. They move assets around with neutral alts, or ultimately, they just drop corp until the war is over. The fights and tears generally desired by the aggressing corporation are nearly always denied by the target corporation, making the war a frustrating waste of time for both sides. In my opinion, any corporation that pays a 'ransom' to have a war end is stupid. There is no system that requires the aggressing corporation to cease war activity, and even if they do end the war, there is no system in place (yet) to prevent them from re-declaring war 48 hours later. Logically, one would think that when an aggressed corp simply chooses to deny the aggressor any fights or tears, the aggressing corporation would simply sod off, but for some reason they don't. They spend hour upon boring hour camping outside stations in a hope to get a gank on an unsuspecting WT. How is this fun for any side? The solution is to stop paying ransoms, deny lols, give no tears, and basically turtle up until they go away.
Five Thirty School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2012.04.23 20:34:00 - [4] - Quote Fredfredbug4 wrote: Come to nullsec one of these days. What you carebears deal with in hi-sec is hardly war. This is precisely my point. High-sec warfare is NOT WAR. It's simply concord sanctioned griefing... in nearly all cases. It's easily likened to Manchester United coming out and throwing down money game challenges against grammar school football teams.
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 1	Posted - 2012.04.23 20:37:00 - [5] - Quote Five Thirty wrote: The solution is to stop paying ransoms, deny lols, give no tears, and basically turtle up until they go away. Exactly the problem. It's not fun FOR EITHER SIDE. Fred, I'm not advocating removing war decs altogether. I'm saying they need to change, because they're not fulfilling the purpose they're designed for, which is ships blowing up. And my point is: The changes to the war dec system that have been previewed as coming in Inferno won't fix the problems inherent in the system.
CROFTED taranus Industries inc 0	Posted - 2012.04.23 21:06:00 - [6] - Quote War I have no issues with war, one corp war decs another, kills a few ships, have a bit of fun. What I have a problem with is griefers. This is a game that we pay to play, relax and have fun. War should not be a forum for thugs and bullies to intimidate other player. When a corp is war deced the players should not be allowe to move corps. War is meant to be played out on the battlefield using tactics and superior ships. If you are not a war faring corp then you must not pay, you can only dock up or switch to an alt and work around it. Do not give them easy targets, if they want kills they will move on. But CCP must act to restore some balance in this game
Apolyon I AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 10	Posted - 2012.04.23 21:12:00 - [7] - Quote for lolfun or tears
Katja Faith Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 52	Posted - 2012.04.23 22:13:00 - [8] - Quote What the... what?!??! Can I have that 3 minutes back, please?
Five Thirty School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 46	Posted - 2012.04.23 22:18:00 - [9] - Quote CROFTED wrote: War is meant to be played out on the battlefield using tactics and superior ships. Yes, this is what it's meant to be. In reality, it is just a week of station games and both sides running away from fights while attempting to get a gank.
IbanezLaney The Church of Awesome 13	Posted - 2012.04.23 23:43:00 - [10] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Serious question. What is War good for? Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for? Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. The only thing is that wars in EVE usually end with one side paying off the other. And even then, that doesn't always work. The 1-week enforced peace coming in Inferno will help mitigate that somewhat, true. Time to admit something here: My corp is currently involved in a war that has dragged on for at least a month. I will not say with who. I'm not here to complain or demand that this be ended. My question is why is this allowed in the first place? The war has seen underhanded tactics from the attacking corp like dropping and joining their corp at strategic points, trying to catch us off guard, or get us CONCORDed (including one incident where a person dropped corp mid-battle. He was destroyed, no one got CONCORDed). Meanwhile, BOTH sides have used the docking-up tactic, which is not fun for either side. A representative for the attacking corp has even said: "We intend on getting paid or disbanding your alliance. Every dec we do ends with either or. It's your guys' choice which one." We've payed the corp menacing us. It hasn't worked. We've massed troops to face them. It hasn't worked. War is supposed to encourage people to blow each other up. It doesn't. The best tactics, the ones that cost the least, are unfun activities, like docking up, or running. And if a game becomes unfun, what's the point of playing? The changes come Inferno don't seem like they will change the viability of these tactics, or give better alternatives. Why? Because, as Massively said in one of its articles on the changes coming in Inferno, "The main thing that I think needs to be fixed with the war system is the complete lack of victory conditions for either side, particularly for the defender." The problem with War, specifically in EVE, but sometimes in real life too, there's no way to win. In EVE, this means it turns into a gank-fest, which is unfun for the target, or docking up for the duration of the war, which is unfun for both sides. To go back to Massively's words, again, "The ideal war system would be one that forces the attackers to commit and has clear victory conditions. It should make small corps engaging large entities riskier and encourage people to fight a war rather than dock up for a week." With the information I've seen, I don't have faith that war will be made fun come Inferno. So I ask again, when the best tactic in a war is to log off and go play Star Trek Online... War: What is it good for? I tried Star Trek Online - It is so bad that it is never an option. Id rather spend a month spinning my ship than go back to STO. Fix this **** See Sea Pea.
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 290	Posted - 2012.04.24 01:06:00 - [11] - Quote I are kyute kitteh! Poastin' in ur wardec-whinge thread #3,456,789,999,999,999,...,999! The invention of ice-hockey is proof that Canada deserves to rule the world. Eh.
Herping yourDerp Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 535	Posted - 2012.04.24 01:50:00 - [12] - Quote in highsec nothing, war doesn't exist its just stat padding. lowsec some moons, FW could become useful, some RP being a pirate or anti pirate. Nullsec helps drive economy, the lore of "fighting to defend your home", fighting for moons and other resources.
Cedo Nulli Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2012.04.24 03:42:00 - [13] - Quote "We've payed the corp menacing us. It hasn't worked." OP .. this has sealed your fate. Enjoy your disbanding.
Katie Frost Asgard. Exodus. 38	Posted - 2012.04.24 04:57:00 - [14] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Serious question. What is War good for? Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for? Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. - Two null sec alliances fighting in 0.0 decide to cut the high-sec supply of their enemy's ships and mods = war declaration. Everything else is PvP practice for wannabe combat pilots.
Ravnik The Phoenix Rising P R I M E 9	Posted - 2012.04.24 08:34:00 - [15] - Quote Absolutely nothing! After a failed career as a comedian i decided to take up piloting. My flying techniques have got more laughs than my jokes ever did.....
Ferditjuh Minmatar United Freedom Front The 11th Hour Alliance 0	Posted - 2012.04.24 08:43:00 - [16] - Quote Disregarding everything else in the thread: I happened to be listening to this song when seeing your thread. +1
Halete Teraa Matar White-Lotus 86	Posted - 2012.04.24 10:13:00 - [17] - Quote High Sec, what is it good for? Remembers, fly Frigates - Capsuleers are more tenacious than baseliner crews.-á
gfldex 485	Posted - 2012.04.24 10:20:00 - [18] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. The resource you are missing is members. Players compete about resources, corps compete about players and alliances compete about corps. Yandrel wrote: My question is why is this allowed in the first place? Because space is dangerous. Running your own corp is a privilege, not a right. You have the right to be in an NPC corp. You may have the right to undock unless you make a group of players very very angry at you. Yandrel wrote: Because, as Massively said in one of its articles on the changes coming in Inferno, "The main thing that I think needs to be fixed with the war system is the complete lack of victory conditions for either side, particularly for the defender." That article is terrible, written by one who does not understand EVE. The victory condition is fairly simple: The winner still has a corp to speak of. When someone burns down your sandcaste, bring sausages.
gfldex 485	Posted - 2012.04.24 10:24:00 - [19] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Fred, I'm not advocating removing war decs altogether. I'm saying they need to change, because they're not fulfilling the purpose they're designed for, which is ships blowing up. May I ask where you got that knowledge from? When someone burns down your sandcaste, bring sausages.
Beat General Sons of Retribution Malice Alliance 30	Posted - 2012.04.24 11:21:00 - [20] - Quote remove pvp from the game, good idea .
Drew Solaert University of Caille Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2012.04.24 11:31:00 - [21] - Quote War stops the highsec corps becoming bloated ISK machines and is pretty darn good for the economy. Blown up ship? More mineral demand. This is good. People have different reasons for War. Griefing is one but tbh I truely think its serperates the men from the boys. My main (well more like alt these days) is in a fairly good highsec/lowsec alliance and we have been grief dec'd a fair few times, each time we have stepped up to the plate, and actively gone out looking for a fight. Yes it's annoying for the week or so but at the same time it pulls us all together. Then there are legitimate differences of opinion and revenge decs, and finally for the lulz decs, in a past life the small corp I was in was approached by a similar sized mainly bear corp who wanted the pvp practice and just a week of fun. Decided we could do with the break and damn it was one of the most enjoyable wars. Mainly because it was a mutual agreement and we'd ship up or down making the fights down to the wire. So yes it has a use in my eyes. I'll be joining the FDU on May 1st.-á Ladies! Please contain yourselves.
Reppyk The Black Shell 113	Posted - 2012.04.24 12:06:00 - [22] - Quote I DECLARE WARS BECAUSE I'AM A SPACE TYRAN WITH A CEO ROLE AND I WANT TO DEC YOU YOU AND YOU TOO (it's valid too)
Chav Queen whips chains and ballgags Care Factor 13	Posted - 2012.04.24 13:11:00 - [23] - Quote War is quite simply a tool that allows you to shoot people and stay withen the law. There are a thousand different reasons why people go to war. The most talked about is the high sec extortion, but wars have been caused by simply smacking in local or undercutting somone on the market.. somone salvaging a mission ect ect. ect. I even went to the fan fest with some friends once and at the breakfast table were some very noisy Germans who were playing music from a mobile phone and making alot of noise while we were hung over. Needless to say my friends war decced their corp when they got home. So yes war decs are very useful.
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 5	Posted - 2012.04.24 13:23:00 - [24] - Quote gfldex wrote: Yandrel wrote: Fred, I'm not advocating removing war decs altogether. I'm saying they need to change, because they're not fulfilling the purpose they're designed for, which is ships blowing up. May I ask where you got that knowledge from? Simple reasoning. Ships blowing up = demand for new ships = keeps the economy moving and the money flowing. When money stops flowing, economies collapse. Look at what happened in 2008-Now in America. Look at what happened when Incursion launched. Lots of ships exploding, lots of ships being bought. EVE had a healthy economy. My point is that war CURRENTLY doesn't encourage things going boom. War encourages waiting it out. What war needs is a way to definitively end a war on the DEFENDER'S terms. Right now, it's all Offense. All that encourages is bullying. I want a war to mean something. I want a reason for BOTH sides to commit forces. In Null sec and FW, if people dock up, you lose your moon, your station, possibly even your system. In High sec, if people dock up, they lose NOTHING. And again, I don't see Inferno changing anything.
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 5	Posted - 2012.04.24 13:24:00 - [25] - Quote I mean, when I'm considering having my PVP alt join Red vs Blue just so I can have some actual PVP... and I'm already in an alliance that is AT WAR... THERE IS SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH WARS!
Fireflyb1 Mind's Haven 5	Posted - 2012.04.24 13:40:00 - [26] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Serious question. What is War good for? Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for? Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. The only thing is that wars in EVE usually end with one side paying off the other. And even then, that doesn't always work. The 1-week enforced peace coming in Inferno will help mitigate that somewhat, true. Time to admit something here: My corp is currently involved in a war that has dragged on for at least a month. I will not say with who. I'm not here to complain or demand that this be ended. My question is why is this allowed in the first place? The war has seen underhanded tactics from the attacking corp like dropping and joining their corp at strategic points, trying to catch us off guard, or get us CONCORDed (including one incident where a person dropped corp mid-battle. He was destroyed, no one got CONCORDed). Meanwhile, BOTH sides have used the docking-up tactic, which is not fun for either side. A representative for the attacking corp has even said: "We intend on getting paid or disbanding your alliance. Every dec we do ends with either or. It's your guys' choice which one." We've payed the corp menacing us. It hasn't worked. We've massed troops to face them. It hasn't worked. War is supposed to encourage people to blow each other up. It doesn't. The best tactics, the ones that cost the least, are unfun activities, like docking up, or running. And if a game becomes unfun, what's the point of playing? The changes come Inferno don't seem like they will change the viability of these tactics, or give better alternatives. Why? Because, as Massively said in one of its articles on the changes coming in Inferno, "The main thing that I think needs to be fixed with the war system is the complete lack of victory conditions for either side, particularly for the defender." The problem with War, specifically in EVE, but sometimes in real life too, there's no way to win. In EVE, this means it turns into a gank-fest, which is unfun for the target, or docking up for the duration of the war, which is unfun for both sides. To go back to Massively's words, again, "The ideal war system would be one that forces the attackers to commit and has clear victory conditions. It should make small corps engaging large entities riskier and encourage people to fight a war rather than dock up for a week." With the information I've seen, I don't have faith that war will be made fun come Inferno. So I ask again, when the best tactic in a war is to log off and go play Star Trek Online... War: What is it good for? Stop b1tching and move to low or nullsec, where people WANT to shoot you. Joking aside, .. stop b1tching and move to low or nullsec :P
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 5	Posted - 2012.04.24 14:21:00 - [27] - Quote Additionally, according to this CCP Devblog, quote: "Seeing how many of you blow each other up and how often you do so is an important metric for seeing how much fun everyone is having." Ships going boom = Good economy Ships going boom = People having fun High Sec Wars != Ships going boom ergo High Sec Wars != Good economy High Sec Wars != People having fun
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 1361	Posted - 2012.04.24 15:14:00 - [28] - Quote Things I used highsec warfare for as an industrialist: Power grab in an alliance (we hired mercs to show the leadership was inept and take over. Instead the alliance fell apart.) Evicting industrial corporations that were competing for the same belts as us. They lost half their members and moved 15 jumps away after losing their POS. I've been griefed, but I also found wardecs very useful in accomplishing my goals. It's a great tool of social engineering and area denial that gives you an advantage over your competition. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 1361	Posted - 2012.04.24 15:16:00 - [29] - Quote Yandrel wrote: High Sec Wars != Ships going boom Wrong. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you.
Haulie Berry 20	Posted - 2012.04.24 15:52:00 - [30] - Quote Yandrel wrote: Five Thirty wrote: The solution is to stop paying ransoms, deny lols, give no tears, and basically turtle up until they go away. Exactly the problem. It's not fun FOR EITHER SIDE. As you obviously have an agenda in favor of only one of said sides, I can't help but wonder if the other side actually appointed you as their advocate, or if you assumed that role unbidden.
Marsan Production N Destruction INC. 19	Posted - 2012.04.24 16:00:00 - [31] - Quote Katie Frost wrote: Yandrel wrote: Serious question. What is War good for? Even with the changes coming in Inferno, what is War good for? Wars traditionally are for conquering territory and resources, or money, but occasionally they have had the goal of total destruction of the opposition. - Two null sec alliances fighting in 0.0 decide to cut the high-sec supply of their enemy's ships and mods = war declaration. Everything else is PvP practice for wannabe combat pilots. Last time I checked most NS folks use alts in neutral corps for logistics in HS.
Eryn Velasquez 33	Posted - 2012.04.24 16:31:00 - [32] - Quote Marsan wrote: Last time I checked most NS folks use alts in neutral corps for logistics in HS. Every war I'd been in has been annoying. Either the leadership told us to station up and/or lock down our wormhole, we spent days chasing smack talkers who were too scared to fight with less than 1 to 3 odds, or we had to deal with neutral repers who tended to out numbered the war targets.... Totally agree. Marsan wrote: In any event what wars need is a way for the defender to win the war. As it stands now an attacker can declare war sit in station all day and only come out when someone is mining or hauling. He can leave corp and go mission or the like. If a war target appears he can dock up and rejoin corp. What needs to happen is that the attacker needs have to anchor a POS or something like that in HS. If the defender destroys it the war is over. The defender gets the attackers deposit, and the attacker can't redec for a period of time (weeks). Ideally this should be an anchorable object like a customs office. Moderately hard to reinforce, and allowing the attacker(in terms of the war, not the structure) to set the time it comes out of reinforcement. Also neutral repers need to be concorded, and changing corps while in a war should take 24 hours. One additional thing - joining a corp during war should have a random timer set between 10 to 30 minutes after the corp accepts the application. GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á
Yandrel Combine Mining and Manufacturing Ltd New Genesis Syndicate 5	Posted - 2012.04.24 18:54:00 - [33] - Quote Exactly. CCP said in their War panel at Fanfest that they wanted to make it easier for war to backfire on the agressor. However, there's still nothing stopping the agressors from counter-turtling, again, making it unfun. You're right, Haulie Berry. I'm heavily biased on one side. Mainly because I have trouble putting myself in the mindset of a bully.
Ewo Deveraux Papercut Syndicate 1	Posted - 2012.04.24 19:52:00 - [34] - Quote Well, with the introduction of Dust514, we all better get used to wars. But CCP needs to think of ways to make wars profitable, or the consequences of pacifism so unbearable, so that players will feel compelled to get sucked into them, just like in real life. I could think of two situations where wars could be fun. 1) Wars to prevent catastrophy: Like in Settlers of Cataan: Cities and Knights, you have to cooperate or the barbarian hoards invade. I imagine NPC hoards would be interesting, where if you collaborate you can fend them off, if not your system becomes unsafe. Players would have to act in the place of CONCORD. It could force you to organize larger region-wide governance structures. Now that would be interesting. The larger your militia, the less you get rocked by invaders. 2) Wars of conquest: You could grant bonuses to corps that dominate territory rewarding cooperation and warfare. For example, maybe no player-owned stations or planetary extraction unless you dominate the system. Or extraction bonuses to those who dominate the system. The non-linear rewards for conquering territory would stimulate land grabs and generate automatic pvp warfare that is rational, organized, and profitable, not just grudges or griefing. Whether people fight to repel invaders or to extract riches, either way wars force people to collaborate, organize, and form governments. It is collaboration, not explosions, that are fun. They will not just collaborate to start wars, but collaborate to enforce the peace as well. You could set it up as a prisoner's dilemma game, where everyone profits if no one fights, but if someone breaks the peace, you have to win or you will be destroyed and impoverished. You could control security without concord, but simply by shifting the rewards or disincentives of warfare. Either way, the reason war is fun is not because you blow stuff up, but because it is fun to collaborate on missions. But if there is no reward for warfare, it sure does seem like griefing, which everyone hates because it is so irrational and sociopathic.
Ewo Deveraux Papercut Syndicate 1	Posted - 2012.04.24 19:56:00 - [35] - Quote In short, CCP needs to set up a rewards structure that will pull normal, rational people (non-bullies and griefers) into combat.
Zyress Caldari Provisions Caldari State 60	Posted - 2012.04.24 20:02:00 - [36] - Quote Ravnik wrote: Absolutely nothing! Say it again...
Lyric Lahnder Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 22	Posted - 2012.04.24 21:02:00 - [37] - Quote We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time. I support the idea of having defenders find ways to end the war, for instance if they do pay off a corp they cant be war decced for a while. It should scale though. Let say your money you ransom from another corp scales to the next time you can war dec them. The more isk, the longer time from when you can war dec them again. But also the down side of that is if the war ends at the end of war declaration and the defender doesn't pay up, you cant war dec them for the indicated time period.. Then it becomes more of a gamble. You really have to know you can hurt enough of your war target entity for your war dec to be worth it. In this situation you really got to be able to twist the knife to the point where the members are screaming for leadership to pay the damn bill and get it over with. With this mechanic you would also have to be able to declare war longer then one week, corps can stay docked up for a week easy and not have it crimp there style isk wise. Corp a decs Corp b: Month long war, ransom is 10 Billion isk, 3 month retainer, 30% value of ransom payed to initiate. Corp b: still standing at the end of war declaration, hasn't agree to pay. Corp a: Cannot declare war again on that corp for 3 months. Had corp B agreed to pay, they would have had a month of there lives back, and the war decers would have left with there initial investment plus 7 billion in profit. The bigger question is how to determine the cost of the ransom how it scales with time and the cost of the war for the corp initiating it. If the cost of war decs is based off of what your trying to extort the other corp for and not there membership size war deccing becomes more like playing texas hold em. Will they hold or fold? How well you can you read the man across the table? Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers.
Five Thirty School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 49	Posted - 2012.04.24 21:21:00 - [38] - Quote Lyric Lahnder wrote: We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time. This is where you've totally missed the mark. Corps that don't want to fight simply don't undock. I had a war just last month that basically involved the WT corp camping outside the station I was in, then later us camping outside the station they were in. Guess how many ships got blown up? ZERO.
Haulie Berry 21	Posted - 2012.04.24 21:29:00 - [39] - Quote Five Thirty wrote: Lyric Lahnder wrote: We need a war dec system in Hi sec. Eve isnt eve if you can be undocked and safe all the time. This is where you've totally missed the mark. Corps that don't want to fight simply don't undock. I had a war just last month that basically involved the WT corp camping outside the station I was in, then later us camping outside the station they were in. Guess how many ships got blown up? ZERO. You say that like it's not okay. Really, simply being disruptive can be every bit as financially damaging as destroying things.
Five Thirty School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 49	Posted - 2012.04.24 21:57:00 - [40] - Quote Haulie Berry wrote: You say that like it's not okay. Really, simply being disruptive can be every bit as financially damaging as destroying things. It's not even financially disruptive... out of corp alts to haul things and mine materials. Research / Invention / Manufacturing still go on as usual. The system is just lame. Make both sides duke it out with no safe zones or something, but the way it is now is just stupid station games by both sides.
Valkyrie D'ark Armed Resistance Movement 4	Posted - 2012.04.25 06:35:00 - [41] - Quote I just decided to randomly read the forums about Tactics and Warfare hoping to learn some cool tricks. Instead all I find are these posts complaining about wardec system one way or another. Do you people have no imagination? If you cannot engage in proper PVP yourself find someone that can! Make friends, allies... if you have no time for such nonsense and prefer to spend all your efforts making ISK then spend some of that ISK to hire Mercs! Be creative, be bold pilot, your fate lies in YOUR hands, not in some random griefers. Get rid of the notion that you're not good or strong enough.... if you must, ask for help in tactics, strategy, direct or indirect intervention... BUT FFS, PLEASE STOP WHINING ABOUT WARS! Thank you :)
Marsan Production N Destruction INC. 21	Posted - 2012.04.25 15:56:00 - [42] - Quote The problem is that the answer to finding good pvp is to get out of HS. The current war system doesn't promote good fights. This is why I live in a wormhole. No npc stations, no neutral reps, no local, no hot drops... PS- The best way to lose pursuers from a HS war corp is to jump through a LS gate.
Astroniomix EliteTroll 59	Posted - 2012.04.25 17:44:00 - [43] - Quote My personal favorite method for getting rid of unwanted wars in neutral alts in catalysts.
Ryday Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2012.04.25 20:04:00 - [44] - Quote here's one way to fix wardecs. If you're at war and you undock you can't redock at that station for 30 min. If anyone reps or boosts someone who's at war then they become part of that war for a day after a 5 minute countdown. That would at least do away with most 1 member griefer corps who use neut reps.
Daemon Ceed Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 61	Posted - 2012.04.25 23:35:00 - [45] - Quote CROFTED wrote: War I have no issues with war, one corp war decs another, kills a few ships, have a bit of fun. What I have a problem with is griefers. This is a game that we pay to play, relax and have fun. War should not be a forum for thugs and bullies to intimidate other player. When a corp is war deced the players should not be allowe to move corps. War is meant to be played out on the battlefield using tactics and superior ships. If you are not a war faring corp then you must not pay, you can only dock up or switch to an alt and work around it. Do not give them easy targets, if they want kills they will move on. But CCP must act to restore some balance in this game War should not be a forum for thugs and bullies to intimidate war? WTF? What do you think war has ever been for? I agree that if a corp is decced the players shouldn't be able to jump corps for a certain amount of time. The "battlefield" war ended looong before video games, where idiots lined up with innacurate short ranged muskets and stood still to be shot to bits. War today is guerrillas in nature. There is hit and run. Cloak and dagger. You're vision of war is dated and naive. This might be a game that YOU play to relax and have fun, but your version of fun and relaxation is not necessarily the same as everyone else. Personally, I relieve a lot of stress from my day by blowing something to pieces. You don't want to take away my stress relief and fun, do you? Ofc not. Post with your main or GTFO!
Eryn Velasquez 36	Posted - 2012.04.26 06:13:00 - [46] - Quote Daemon Ceed wrote: War should not be a forum for thugs and bullies to intimidate war? WTF? What do you think war has ever been for? I agree that if a corp is decced the players shouldn't be able to jump corps for a certain amount of time. As long as neutrals which RR, instant joining a corp and other coward "tactics" are used, this should not be changed. Daemon Ceed wrote: The "battlefield" war ended looong before video games, where idiots lined up with innacurate short ranged muskets and stood still to be shot to bits. War today is guerrillas in nature. There is hit and run. Cloak and dagger. You're vision of war is dated and naive. Why should a internet space game adapt the psychopathic behaviour of so called modern warfare? Daemon Ceed wrote: This might be a game that YOU play to relax and have fun, but your version of fun and relaxation is not necessarily the same as everyone else. Personally, I relieve a lot of stress from my day by blowing something to pieces. You don't want to take away my stress relief and fun, do you? Ofc not. But you want, that others play the game your style? So you can take away their stress relief and fun? GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á
Princess Nexxala The Rock Hard Roosters Villore Accords 33	Posted - 2012.04.26 15:20:00 - [47] - Quote 10/10 Brilliant thread! Is sexy time?
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 62	Posted - 2012.04.26 21:27:00 - [48] - Quote there needs to be an incentive for the defender to actually fight the war. Maybe the attacker has to put some money into the pot and declare some official goals and if said goals are not reached, the defender gets the pot or maybe the attacker pays to concord for each ship they destroy and if the defender manages to keep up in killing, they get part of the money.... i need to think some more on that...
Kazu'ul OMG PWNAGE 0	Posted - 2012.04.27 00:20:00 - [49] - Quote I dislike the idea of griefing small corps being more profitable or easier. If anything, I believe it should be the other way around, One member mentioned the idea of CONCORD 'sanctioning' each pilot, and for that there is a fee. I.E. Corp A (500 people) decs Corp B (10 people)- at a cost of let's say 500 mil for 1 week. Corp A sends corp B ransom notice - "We'll leave you alone for 1 billion isk) (and yes, I agree the timer for re-dec should scale, even furthermore I suggest the possibility of Corp B recieving dec immunity from anyone else, to prevent alt-corp griefing that we all know happens) I believe the cost should scale with A. The amount of players decing corp has and B. The amount of current wars defender is in I can't say this is their goal, but elimination of assets is a good thing in the long run - this nerf to incursions and anything in which people make too much money is a good thing in my eyes. I have not played this game for 7 years and accumulated 70M SP to have my assets and skills deflated - I worked my ass off a long time ago in LEVEL 3 missions (LOL!!!) to get a paltry sum of isk that a newb can make in a day nowdays - inflation has already impacted people such as myself enough, let's stop before PLEX costs 2 billion. I agree with changing the 'war' system - it is not fun most of time and involves docking up and un-fun tactics for the most part - concording neut reps is a good start in my eyes, but the idea of forcing someone to not be able to dock is reminiscent of living in low sec circa 2005 where you undock and get shot by people before your screen even loads - there's now an invulnerability timer to prevent these grossly unfair situations, and I don't think denying station games is the way to go. Station games should be a perfectly viable tactic - if the agressing corp has nothing better to do than camp you all day, thats fine. You obviously must have pissed them off, or they are just very angry nerds wasting your time, pissing YOU off. Either way, I see nothing wrong with that. While that is happening, no money is theoretically being made and thus is helps decrease the general assets of eve in the macro game. What I dislike is the gangbang/blob aspect - it should not be easy for larger, established corps to pick on smaller ones wether through a wardec cycle exploitation system or through making it more cost effective to do so - if you own a POS, you can't just 'unanchor' everything once war is declared - let's say you're raising a BC BPC by ME1 - that takes a week, and cancelling the job does not allow you to unanchor your lab, sadly. If this were changed, that would be a good start. Anyone in hisec with a POS is incredibly vulnerable to station game tactics, as they can camp your station and bash your POS - there's your reward as an attacker and motivation as a defender, but what would motivate someone without a POS to engage in war? I leave the question open for you -
Lyric Lahnder Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 31	Posted - 2012.04.30 16:10:00 - [50] - Quote I always thought it might be interesting if you could kick some one from station. In order for this to happen you would have to have Very good standing with the station owners faction and you would have to pay a some of Isk, LP, or a personal standing hit, or all three. Your bribing the station owner to boot the person from the station. This action would also give the person an agression timer to that station. So you could warp off and dock at another station you just couldnt dock immediately at the station you were just booted from. Again this wont hurt the booted persons standing with that faction, they were just kicked from station. The counter to this is the person in station would be given the option for a short period of time to pay slightly more isk or lp not to be booted by said faction. Another mechanic would be that once you were given this warning you would have 30 seconds to respond and you would have access to nothing but this window, that way people wouldn't be able to switch out to a pod or a less expensive ship or just clone jump. This mechanic would be good for three reasons 1. It fucks with the idea of station games completely. If your in a heavy ass faction battleship it will take a while to warp off. 2. Its and ISK LP sink. Good for the economy in the long run. 3. It may not make missioning any more interesting but it gives people one more reason to accrue standing and lp with a faction. The cost of this would have to be determined by the player getting kicked standing toward the station owners faction versus yours. Its expensive, however if there standing toward the faction is bad and yours is good it would cost less and vice versa. Just one idea for fixing station games. Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers.
Blobber NL The Ultima Thule 4	Posted - 2012.04.30 18:08:00 - [51] - Quote Katja Faith wrote: What the... what?!??! Can I have that 3 minutes back, please? You are one slow reader. But in my opinion high sec war is only used to grief mostly industrial/mining/missioning corps. Just anoying... ppl cant play for weeks and eventually stop playing (happened to me and a few mates of me a few times). Being in a corp to learn stuff as a noob etc, and constantly being wardecced. Awsome. Wauw. Sweet... If griefer corps really want some kills they should go nullsec or lowsec. You get the point.
StonerPhReaK Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent 51	Posted - 2012.05.01 13:34:00 - [52] - Quote Jus click the surrender button and wait your 24 hour timer.
Bad Messenger draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 130	Posted - 2012.05.01 17:54:00 - [53] - Quote Wardecs are for allowing to attack war targets in highsec. How you want to use it is your call.
Lharanai Empyrean Guard IMPERIAL LEGI0N 149	Posted - 2012.05.02 20:36:00 - [54] - Quote Oh OH Oh HERE HERE HERE I have THE SOLUTION FOR THE WAR DEC problem there is only ONE way to end an war, both sides have to agree to peace, and if the defender does not agree the aggressor corp has to pay another round, uh and if the aggressor has no money his corp gets disbanded and all members thrown into NPC corps....... seriously don't take me serious :) Touch my ** and I will your with an rusty and into your , and then I will your until you ******************
Lharanai Empyrean Guard IMPERIAL LEGI0N 149	Posted - 2012.05.02 20:41:00 - [55] - Quote sorry for the sarcasm....seriously....just gtfo of highsec, do some exploring in low, or something different...EVE is a game not a job :) Touch my ** and I will your with an rusty and into your , and then I will your until you ******************

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.