EVE Search - War Dec reform

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

War Dec reform

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Konarr	Posted - 2009.12.08 06:34:00 - [1] In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset.
Julius Rigel	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:00:00 - [2] FID is that way.
SurVie Caldari Rage For Order Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:15:00 - [3] Edited by: SurVie on 08/12/2009 07:18:26 Originally by: Julius Rigel FID is that way. How about making a constructive post instead of trying to get your post count up I'm not an empire carebear but the op makes a good point. I actually never really gave the whole empire war thing much thought tbh. =============================================
Niccolado Starwalker Shadow Templars	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:20:00 - [4] Edited by: Niccolado Starwalker on 08/12/2009 07:21:16 Originally by: Konarr Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. Tell me, since when have war been all about fairness? If you dont want to PvP, the NPC corp is your place to stay. Eve have for six years been all about PvP in all important and unimportant part of the game. I dont see that change in the near future. And I dont want to have it changed in the near future. This is EVE. Not World of Warcraft.. Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL
Konarr	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Edited by: Niccolado Starwalker on 08/12/2009 07:21:16 Originally by: Konarr Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. Tell me, since when have war been all about fairness? If you dont want to PvP, the NPC corp is your place to stay. Eve have for six years been all about PvP in all important and unimportant part of the game. I dont see that change in the near future. And I dont want to have it changed in the near future. This is EVE. Not World of Warcraft.. War isn't fair but this isn't empires at war within an organized state it is corporations. In low and nullsec the wardec makes sense as their is no reasonalbe assumption of security but in hi-sec this is not the case. Police in any state would seek to stop violent outbreaks within their jurisdiction. If I could belong to a player corp and know that regardless of my corporations war status, Concord would take appropriate actions against perpatrators of violence IN EMPIRE then I would be much more likely to join a real player corp. Unfortunately the opposite is true and when player corps go to war, you can be podded IN EMPIRE right under Concords nose on a Jita run in a non-combatant vessel. Their is a security dis-incentive to join a player corp systemically built into the game and CCP is surprised when some people follow that dis-incentive. I am not suggesting a ban on PVP in Empire, I am however suggesting Concord treat violence in empire consistently or at least provide some kind of non-combatent designation so people that do not like PVP can tool around in Empire with the same Concord protection they would normally be provided if their corps were not at war.
Salmeria GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:24:00 - [6] Lookat dem people scared of PVP
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:31:00 - [7] Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 08/12/2009 08:34:09 Originally by: Konarr War isn't fair but this isn't empires at war within an organized state it is corporations. In low and nullsec the wardec makes sense as their is no reasonalbe assumption of security but in hi-sec this is not the case. Police in any state would seek to stop violent outbreaks within their jurisdiction. If I could belong to a player corp and know that regardless of my corporations war status, Concord would take appropriate actions against perpatrators of violence IN EMPIRE then I would be much more likely to join a real player corp. Unfortunately the opposite is true and when player corps go to war, you can be podded IN EMPIRE right under Concords nose on a Jita run in a non-combatant vessel. Their is a security dis-incentive to join a player corp systemically built into the game and CCP is surprised when some people follow that dis-incentive. I am not suggesting a ban on PVP in Empire, I am however suggesting Concord treat violence in empire consistently or at least provide some kind of non-combatent designation so people that do not like PVP can tool around in Empire with the same Concord protection they would normally be provided if their corps were not at war. Make concord an actual police then, that takes more time to arrive at the scene, not being magically aware of weapons fire(you would need to contact them), being destructable and avoiding them is no longer an exploit. After all, if you want to go with a more realistic approach, you need to apply it in a consistent way. Non-combat designation isn't an option, since these are wars between corporations and you are a just target by affiliation. Declared hostilities apply to all involved. It is only realistic, that you need to cut your ties to the organisation, if you choose to be left out of their affairs. So NPC corps fulfil the same function up to a point. I don't think CCP is surprised some people don't join player corporations. What they do want, is to give the people who aren't that concerned with wardec immunity more reasons to leave and try out playing with others. Or more likely make wardec immunity be the only reason for being in a NPC corp. You want the immunity, so you can stay in your starter corp to the end of the game. No one is forcing you to do anything else.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:35:00 - [8] Originally by: Konarr This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. Upset how? Here's a wardec reform suggestion for you: * An active wardec disables corp membership changes for the first week. * Wardecs can be made on a person-to-person basis, in part replacing the bounty system. * Killrights are made tradeable. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Konarr	Posted - 2009.12.08 09:07:00 - [9] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 08/12/2009 08:34:09 Make concord an actual police then, that takes more time to arrive at the scene, not being magically aware of weapons fire(you would need to contact them), being destructable and avoiding them is no longer an exploit. After all, if you want to go with a more realistic approach, you need to apply it in a consistent way. Non-combat designation isn't an option, since these are wars between corporations and you are a just target by affiliation. Declared hostilities apply to all involved. It is only realistic, that you need to cut your ties to the organisation, if you choose to be left out of their affairs. So NPC corps fulfil the same function up to a point. I don't think CCP is surprised some people don't join player corporations. What they do want, is to give the people who aren't that concerned with wardec immunity more reasons to leave and try out playing with others. Or more likely make wardec immunity be the only reason for being in a NPC corp. You want the immunity, so you can stay in your starter corp to the end of the game. No one is forcing you to do anything else. The tax doesn't encourage anything the intention is to discourage. Can someone please tell me why people are so adamant about having the option to bully people that don't want to fight you in hi sec space? Why do you have to do that? Does it make you feel big and important to pick on someone that doesn't like to fight? You all act like it is wrong to want to avoid conflict with other people. I have no problem with PVP when both sides want fight each other but the wardec system doesn't care about consent does it. It is a tool for people leverage against you when you do NOT agree to fight with them. And it gives them the ability to do so without any repercussion from the authorities. If you want to be a thug, have at it but take that crap out to low sec where it belongs or at least pay the piper for your bully attitude and accept what concord dishes out as your punishment for picking on people that don't want to fight but don't hide behind wardecs to make other peolpe play their game your way!!
Shade Millith International House of PWNCakes	Posted - 2009.12.08 09:39:00 - [10] Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:37 Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:09 You pay 11% corp tax for immunity to Wardecs in a PVP centric game. Get over it --------------------------------------------

Isareal Altara	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:21:00 - [11] Originally by: Shade Millith Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:37 Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:09 You pay 11% corp tax for immunity to Wardecs in a PVP centric game. Get over it Nope, I can pay less than the wardec cost and get immunity to Wardecs, that adds up to a total cost of `12mil setting up personal corps to hop in and out of. I can make that back in a short time... ya wardec corp A, hop into corp B... etc. With an alt in to hold the corp, means you take 24hrs to drop the wardec to dec the next once you hit the limit. Now multiply that by the number of folks that are going to be formed by those that don't want to pay the tax. The tax is just a minor insult.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:24:00 - [12] Yes the war dec system should be reformed. But it should be harder to avoid wars, not easier as the OP suggests. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Isareal Altara	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Rodj Blake Yes the war dec system should be reformed. But it should be harder to avoid wars, not easier as the OP suggests. Well if you check, CCP isn't happy at the wardecs being a pay to grief system and stated such...
Spurty Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:39:00 - [14] Edited by: Spurty on 08/12/2009 12:40:39 Originally by: Tippia Here's a wardec reform suggestion for you: * An active wardec disables corp membership changes for the first week. * Wardecs can be made on a person-to-person basis, in part replacing the bounty system. * Killrights are made tradeable. this guy has a working brain, please do at least two of these CCP exception on the membership changes though. CEO should be able to boot spies Originally by: Hurley I WAS NOT QUITTING SoT AND WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT JOINING IT. PL/SoT MADE A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT OR FIX IT.
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:49:00 - [15] Is it true Triumtittae is open recruitment to fight NC? because I have a hard on for NC to eat my space meat
S'Way	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:53:00 - [16] First off - Concord doesn't provide protection (as the OP said) - they provide consequences. EvE is a PvP game, you consent to pvp whenever you log in...even if you don't undock there's market pvp. (selling your mission loot is market pvp). People often assume being in an NPC corp means they can't get shot - but the fact is anyone who undocks can be shot down if someone has enough of a reason and makes the effort to do so. Having said that - the idea that as soon as you join a player corp you get decced is a myth...I know a lot of people who've been in one man corps for years and never been war-decced. Simply by not living in crowded space, not smacking in local (or flying haulers worth hundreds of millions afk) and not having fail-fit pos's people tend to leave them alone. If you want a 100% guarantee of no war-decs then the option is there...the guarantee NPC corps offer, price is 11% tax and no personal POS's for research/invention. Or simply play smart and avoid giving people a reason to dec you / hire someone to shoot people for you until the dec gets retracted / corp hop whenever decced. In fact the war-dec mechanics have already been changed (privateer nerf) to provide pve'ers with a safer environment. That and the alt corps people hop around these days to avoid wars + cost the deccing corp isk really mean you've got to upset someone or fly full haulers afk to get shot in empire these days. Realistically you can't have player corp immunity from wars in high-sec (which seems to be what the OP is asking for) with the benefits of player corps as they currently are (pos's in high-sec etc) or the economy would eventually collapse. (no risk researching of bp's/invention would flood the market).
Neci Maren Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:58:00 - [17] Stop being a victim.
Gun Gal	Posted - 2009.12.08 12:59:00 - [18] or , how bout this...... SUCK IT UP BABY seriously, this has been in the3 works for the better part of a year, and we have all heard the whines, the moans, the ideas. npc corps get taxed. DEAL WITH IT OR GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE
TimMc Gallente Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:03:00 - [19] Originally by: Isareal Altara Originally by: Rodj Blake Yes the war dec system should be reformed. But it should be harder to avoid wars, not easier as the OP suggests. Well if you check, CCP isn't happy at the wardecs being a pay to grief system and stated such... This is eve. Either you cry and quit, or you get up and fight. Wardecs teach newbies this, and they taught me that.
SketS47 Minmatar The Brutal Henchmen	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:07:00 - [20] awe boohoo ^^ did little kitty get wtfpwnd while mining at warin empire? yaarrr for empire wars, pirates life forever! Only idiots quote themselves -SketS47-

Isareal Altara	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:09:00 - [21] Originally by: TimMc Originally by: Isareal Altara Originally by: Rodj Blake Yes the war dec system should be reformed. But it should be harder to avoid wars, not easier as the OP suggests. Well if you check, CCP isn't happy at the wardecs being a pay to grief system and stated such... This is eve. Either you cry and quit, or you get up and fight. Wardecs teach newbies this, and they taught me that. Adapt or die is the motto And the adapt is the surge of 1 man corps with an alt as CEO in them... that can be insta left as long as they don't assign roles to themselves to avoid any and all wardecs at will. Or simply close the corp and form another, but that doesn't make it so the aggressor has to wait 24hrs to drop the wardec on the original corporation. So those are what you and the rest got to deal with now, especially with the taxes. Your tax only makes it so others will form the 1-2man corps en mass, it doesn't do anything really but annoy people
Forranz Malice. Tentative Nature	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:10:00 - [22] I think they should actually build upon the NPC tax. Make it relational to how long you have been in the NPC corp. Have the timer start from when it was implemented maybe? 1-3 months: 11% 3-6 months: 25% 6-9 months: 66% 9-12 months: 75% - cap at 75 This way, it gives people a reasonable amount of time to find a player corp. Who does this not affect? Traders, miners, spies, etc.
Opportunity Costs Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:11:00 - [23] The 2mil a week fee is a joke IMHO it should be like 2mil per week per member, that means if you want to wardec a 40 players corporation, would cost 80millions. And for alliances, 5mil per week per member. Want easy war targets over high sec? PAY FOR THEM. __________________________________ - Mining your own minerals doesnt drop your manufacturing costs! - Marginal earnings is what actually counts - Time is isk and enjoyment is isk aswell
Eelis Kiy Gallente Shadows Of The Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:15:00 - [24] Originally by: Shade Millith Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:37 Edited by: Shade Millith on 08/12/2009 09:40:09 You pay 11% corp tax for immunity to Wardecs in a PVP centric game. Get over it ^^
Learol	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:16:00 - [25] Edited by: Learol on 08/12/2009 13:16:39 Originally by: Opportunity Costs The 2mil a week fee is a joke IMHO it should be like 2mil per week per member, that means if you want to wardec a 40 players corporation, would cost 80millions. And for alliances, 5mil per week per member. Want easy war targets over high sec? PAY FOR THEM. I would rather have that idea reversed, the less members you have in your own corp the cheaper it is to wardec someone elseÆs, so a 5 player pvp corp can wardec and alliance for almost nothing, but a 100 player pvp corp intent on griefing a 10 player corp of newbies would need to pay a fortuneà *spelling
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:21:00 - [26] Originally by: Opportunity Costs The 2mil a week fee is a joke The 11% tax on only a small fraction of a persons income while in an NPC corp is a joke. Get over it, join a player corp, or find another game to play. You "I don't like PvP" people have it so much easier now then two, or even three, years ago. What do you want? You want a CCP GM to hold your hands while you play patty cake in High Sec? After what CCP has done to my "game play" over the years I hope they jack that NPC tax rate up to 50% on your asses. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Opportunity Costs Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.08 13:26:00 - [27] Originally by: Traidor Disloyal Originally by: Opportunity Costs The 2mil a week fee is a joke The 11% tax on only a small fraction of a persons income while in an NPC corp is a joke. Get over it, join a player corp, or find another game to play. You "I don't like PvP" people have it so much easier now then two, or even three, years ago. What do you want? You want a CCP GM to hold your hands while you play patty cake in High Sec? After what CCP has done to my "game play" over the years I hope they jack that NPC tax rate up to 50% on your asses. I would be happy that NPC corp taxes would get boosted to: - 30% mission rewards and bounty prizes - 5% base transactions tax (market) - 3% base broker's fee but only if CCP boosts wardec fees aswell __________________________________ - Mining your own minerals doesnt drop your manufacturing costs! - Marginal earnings is what actually counts - Time is isk and enjoyment is isk aswell
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Konarr This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. The way people *** and moan about war decs one would think that it was still late 2006/early 2007 and the "P" Alliance was still going whole hog through High Sec. What offends me is all the "I'm upset cause the bad men are making me pay an 11% tax" postings. You don't like it? Show CCP by taking your money and going elsewhere. Money talks, complaining on the forums only gets you so far. And to tell the truth it really looks like not many people give a rats ass about some Space Ship Commando having to pay an 11% tax to be immune from war decs. You want to jack the cost of war decs up? Go for it. But I bet CCP will then make NPC corps war deccable or kick your sorry asses out after a few weeks and to never ever return to a non-wardeccable corp. You all wanted balance right? All because of an 11% tax. *********************************************** I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Jamyl TashMurkon Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:18:00 - [29] HTFU
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:18:00 - [30] Originally by: Spurty Originally by: Tippia Here's a wardec reform suggestion for you: * An active wardec disables corp membership changes for the first week. * Wardecs can be made on a person-to-person basis, in part replacing the bounty system. * Killrights are made tradeable. this guy has a working brain, please do at least two of these CCP exception on the membership changes though. CEO should be able to boot spies Weeeell… I like the idea that it locks up both parties in a way – if you're the aggressor and find yourself in over your head, the same rule would mean you can't quickly mass-recruit a bunch of additional cannon fodder. But sure, a CEO decision maybe, branding the guy as a spy in his corp history so people won't ask for it all that willingly just to get out of there… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Hegbard	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:27:00 - [31] Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. EVE is so unrealistic!
Malcolm Cree	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:51:00 - [32] If you think the war dec game mechanics are somehow balanced and fair, then I would argue that you've never experienced being on the "shut down your corp" end of a war dec. You have medium sized corps preying on small corps, in an attempt just to get them to disband. Do you really think that is the intended game mechanic? People go into a childish mocking tone and get all "aww did you get bwowed up while mining?", but I argue that its these morons deccing high sec corps that are the real cowards. They're to afraid to fight in REAL pvp, they go after carebares. This game mechanic is broken, plain and simple. It highly favors aggressors, and at the very least, doesn't cost enough isk.
Cloora APEX Unlimited APEX Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:56:00 - [33] Originally by: S'Way First off - Concord doesn't provide protection (as the OP said) - they provide consequences. This is not 100% accurate. Consequences provide a certain amount of protection. IRL you don't have cops guarding you like personal bodyguards. Someone COULD come and punch you in the face or worse and be able to perform the act. The Police and the Justice system provide the consequences. This known consequence to these deeds is the protection. It isn't guarenteed but it works in RL and in EVE it works to some extent too. We have popped a Ice Mining Hulk in high sec because he was in a corp we didn't like. No dec we just suicided because we wanted to. We lost our ships and took a pretty healthy sec status hit but a +5.0 is worth anything so who cares. But for the most part people will only suicide you for some reason. The reason maybe as little as the lulz or as much as you have uber loot in your flimsy armored cargohold. Either way I like EVE's system. War decs do need some sort of redo but not like the OP says. More like what Tippia says. I like that.
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:59:00 - [34] Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 16:59:27 Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Eve have for six years been all about PvP Originally by: Shade Millith You pay 11% corp tax for immunity to Wardecs in a PVP centric game. Originally by: S'Way EvE is a PvP game, you consent to pvp whenever you log in I thought that Eve was a sandbox where you play the game that you want to play - that may or may not include PvP. Just because you play PvP all the time doesn't mean that everyone does.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:04:00 - [35] Originally by: Spacemanc I thought that Eve was a sandbox where you play the game that you want to play - that may or may not include PvP. Yes, but it also means that if someone else chooses to PvP you, there should be nothing to stop them. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:10:00 - [36] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Spacemanc I thought that Eve was a sandbox where you play the game that you want to play - that may or may not include PvP. Yes, but it also means that if someone else chooses to PvP you, there should be nothing to stop them. Surely its only fair that it works both ways? If I choose not to PvP, there should be something to stop them? Maybe the traders in EvE think that PvP should be stopped to make life for traders easier? Why should your playing style be forced on other people who prefer to play the game a different way to you?
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:13:00 - [37] Originally by: Spacemanc Surely its only fair that it works both ways? Maybe, but fairness isn't particularly sandboxy. Quote: If I choose not to PvP, there should be something to stop them? If you choose not to PvP, you die. Sooner or later, they grow tied of killing you and leave. Quote: Maybe the traders in EvE think that PvP should be stopped to make life for traders easier? No, because the traders in EVE understand that their profession would cease to exist without PvP. Quote: Why should your playing style be forced on other people who prefer to play the game a different way to you? Because otherwise, it wouldn't be a sandbox. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:20:00 - [38] My point was that Eve is about people following different careers - in fact thats what attracts me to Eve. You cant have PvP without ships and mods - you cant have mods without missions and manufacturing - you cant have manufacturing without research and mining. No-one is saying that PvP'ers should be forced to mine, or research or manufacture or run missions, so why do the PvP'ers want to force all the other "professions" into PvP so much? Theres plenty of other people to fight if you want to fight - let the others play the game they want to play.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:27:00 - [39] Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. Notrly, if you go solo and don't run your mouth, most of the time you won't get dec'd due to the fact it's really boring to try and camp a single person. Hard to hunt them down and be on at the same time they are...usually people don't bother with 1 man corps due to lack of targets.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:29:00 - [40] Originally by: Spacemanc My point was that Eve is about people following different careers - in fact thats what attracts me to Eve. You cant have PvP without ships and mods - you cant have mods without missions and manufacturing - you cant have manufacturing without research and mining. No-one is saying that PvP'ers should be forced to mine, or research or manufacture or run missions, so why do the PvP'ers want to force all the other "professions" into PvP so much? Theres plenty of other people to fight if you want to fight - let the others play the game they want to play. Actually, if you chose not to PVP (in this PVP oriented game) then you also have the option to become good at evasion. I have seen more than a few aspiring Han Solo's out there in their blockade runners deftly avoiding those who have war dec'd them. You can play the corp shell game, or step up to the challenge and outfly your opponents, or simply pay the pittance if you want to avoid combat at all costs. Of course, you could always form an alliance with others in similar circumstances, or hire mercs, or any number of more challenging and entertaining ways to respond to a war dec... but to each his own. You have a multitude of options available to you, this tax is only a slight balancing of one of those options. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.

Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:33:00 - [41] Originally by: Spacemanc You cant have PvP without ships and mods - you cant have mods without missions and manufacturing - you cant have manufacturing without research and mining. Actually, PvP exists just fine in EVE without ships and mods – everything you do (except running missions) is subject to PvP in some form. Having mods is not reliant on missions, but it does require manufacturing, which is subject to PvP. Research and mining are subject to PvP as well. Quote: No-one is saying that PvP'ers should be forced to mine, or research or manufacture or run missions, so why do the PvP'ers want to force all the other "professions" into PvP so much? Actually, the ones who really benefit from missions are the combat pilots. The rest is already done mainly by PvPers. Quote: Theres plenty of other people to fight if you want to fight - let the others play the game they want to play. The problem is that this assumes that those others have no effect on those who want to fight, which is not the case. What you suggest is entirely reasonable if you were to accept that it worked both ways – that carebears no longer affected the PvPers. This would mean that if you flagged your character as "carebear", you would be barred from using the market, barred from manufacturing, barred from mining, barred from exploration… all you could ever do would be to run missions, never sell what you earn and never spend your income on anything. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rellik B00n Minmatar Lethal Death Squad	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:34:00 - [42] oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. + LDSkill+hireLDS
Lady Katrana Wild Jokers	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:39:00 - [43] Originally by: Konarr neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. Because the police being bribed to look the other way while gangs shoot each other up is totally un-realistic and has never occurred irl You also have to remember this is the space future and these gangs killing each other are immortals.
D3F4ULT Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:41:00 - [44] I say no. Works as intended. EVE isn't realistic.
Malcolm Cree	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:41:00 - [45] Originally by: Rellik B00n oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:50:00 - [46] Originally by: Malcolm Cree Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. Very simple: it's another way to pay the aggression cost in highsec – the other way is to lose your ship to CONCORD. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:53:00 - [47] Originally by: Malcolm Cree Originally by: Rellik B00n oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently. If you ***** them, do they not bleed? Honestly, quit having such a helpless victim mentality. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
small chimp	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:55:00 - [48] i heard rumors that ccp is going to boost corp hopping?
Lady Katrana Wild Jokers	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:58:00 - [49] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Malcolm Cree Originally by: Rellik B00n oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently. If you ***** them, do they not bleed? Honestly, quit having such a helpless victim mentality. Ranger 1 you forgot the mechanic that makes the recipients of war decs unable to activate any offensive modules.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:05:00 - [50] Originally by: Lady Katrana Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Malcolm Cree Originally by: Rellik B00n oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently. If you ***** them, do they not bleed? Honestly, quit having such a helpless victim mentality. Ranger 1 you forgot the mechanic that makes the recipients of war decs unable to activate any offensive modules. Doh, you are right. At least CCP could nerf the mechanic that makes it impossible for communicate and/or organize with others for mutual defense while under a war dec. Thats really the main problem as I see it. So much for this being a sand box. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.

Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:06:00 - [51] Originally by: Malcolm Cree Originally by: Rellik B00n oh. Another one of these threads. I came expecting game enhancement ideas and was disappointed. In short, for the umpteenth time: There are so many War-dec avoidance methods its not even funny. Anyone asking for a change to the system to make it harder to wage war is apparently un-aware of this. I like some of the positive change ideas in this thread, the ones that still involve fighting. Everything else is just godamn silly. Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently. Thing is, EVE is a PVP game, if people didn't want to pvp at all, then they shouldn't have started playing.
Phony v2 Caldari Unknown Soldiers Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:07:00 - [52] you fail to understand that we are capsuleers. Concord isn't going to 'let' us kill each other? We are the elite. ______________________________________________ Yes? You, the idiot in the back, with the dumb question?
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:16:00 - [53] Originally by: Kitimortoa Thing is, EVE is a PVP game, if people didn't want to pvp at all, then they shouldn't have started playing. Eve isn't just a PvP game. If you have a problem with people not wanting to PvP, then you shouldn't have started playing.
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:20:00 - [54] Originally by: Malcolm Cree Please explain to me how the war dec system makes sense as a game mechanic at all. You have groups of pvp pilots going after high sec corps, without any danger to themselves. Its not even logical from a story standpoint. The purpose of war decs is obviously so real disputes can be settled, so people can't run and hide to high sec, etc. However it is only being used as a greifing method currently. Wow. That's the biggest bunch of BS I've heard in a long, long time. Without any danger to themselves? Since when? Eve invented the phrase, "Carebears with teeth." and "Industrialists with teeth." Since the concept seems difficult for you to grasp (must be a troll..), I'll break it down for ya. Those modules that you mine minerals for, that you sell for profits.. can be put on ships (you know, the other things you sell for profit).. and those modules can be used to shoot other ships.. especially the ones that war dec you. Next, you get make friends with people (WOAH! What a concept in an MMO, right?) who might be willing to help you for isk, or better yet, just because they like ya. Shoot, you might even win if you think smart. As far as the "not even logical from a story standpoint" garbage comment.. the "evil PVP'ers going after the poor, innocent "good" guys" concept is essentially the basis for almost EVERY Sci-Fi story there is. The purpose of war decs is to.. tada, have player corps fight each other. Where you got the idea of it being used to solve "real disputes" in an internet spaceship game is beyond me and smacks of utter arrogance and ignorance. Just like real life, these War deccers want your Nikes, and they're going to shoot you for them. Now, you can EASILY avoid war decs in so many ways both preventative and protective that it would require one to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that. You can move corps, you can move your operations, you can stay in station, you can run around on an alt, you can join an alliance, you can play something else, and the list goes on and on. And its not like a wardec last forever.. only a week! Dear God, man! Go outside, get some exercise.. smell the roses! I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:25:00 - [55] Originally by: Phony v2 you fail to understand that we are capsuleers. Concord isn't going to 'let' us kill each other? We are the elite. Perhaps this strikes close to the core of it as well. Many self avowed carebears view themselves as humble little hobbit leathersmiths, quietly making high quality sets of armor for the glory seeking warriors. Why should other warriors come and destroy their shop and steal their buckles? They view themselves as insignificant crafters, of no real importance, an innocent... and anyone that is aggressive towards them is just a bully. The fail to realize that in EVE they are a virtual demi-god. Immortal... unkillable by normal methods. In practical effect an unstoppable entity. Powerful... controling wealth on a daily basis that 99.9 percent of the rest of humanity can only dream about. Influential... whether pursuing agent missions, or trading, or mining, or even hauling your every action can have a dramtic effect on the economy. Which in turn affects the lives of billions. Deadly... if you so chose you can create and master the most destructive machines and weaponry the Universe has ever seen. Now, from this perspective, take a look at yourself. How can an entity such as this, a capsuleer, expect to escape the notice of his peers. Chances are high that you WILL be the target of aggression from time to time, and while you are not forced to fight you will be forced to find a way to deal with it. Not even Odin or Zeus could control the aggressive tendancies of their demi-god children, what makes you think that Concord or an Empire government is going to have better luck. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:25:00 - [56] Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Kitimortoa Thing is, EVE is a PVP game, if people didn't want to pvp at all, then they shouldn't have started playing. Eve isn't just a PvP game. If you have a problem with people not wanting to PvP, then you shouldn't have started playing. Wrong, EVE is a PVP game, it's stupid carebears like you who assume it isn't.
D3F4ULT Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:29:00 - [57] Originally by: Kitimortoa Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Kitimortoa Thing is, EVE is a PVP game, if people didn't want to pvp at all, then they shouldn't have started playing. Eve isn't just a PvP game. If you have a problem with people not wanting to PvP, then you shouldn't have started playing. Wrong, EVE is a PVP game, it's stupid carebears like you who assume it isn't. Admits to never engaging in PvP with this account that's existed for over a year. Therefore can confirm, "Eve is not JUST a PvP game."
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:30:00 - [58] Edited by: Tippia on 08/12/2009 18:31:14 Originally by: Spacemanc Eve isn't just a PvP game. There is exactly one activity in EVE that is not subject to PvP: accepting and running missions. Hell, it's not even a whole activity – it's just part of one. So sure, it's not 100% PvP, just 99.5… Originally by: D3F4ULT Admits to never engaging in PvP with this account that's existed for over a year. Wow. Colour me impressed. I sure couldn't make it a whole year in EVE without, say, using the market… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Synvaat	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:37:00 - [59] I enjoy how everyone is bashing on carebears as afraid of PVP and that only big corps hitting little corps is a problem. I have no issue with the defending corp docking up or breaking up when they get pwned by a wardec. It means PVP happened, or carebears cutting their losses. The bigger problem is the 5 or fewer man corps. They wardec the biggest carebear corps they can find, then dock up as soon as there is anything remotely dangerous. They don't have to PVP at all but they get full control over being at war for a cost that doesn't matter at all. So all you who just say "EVE is PVP" should go tell these guys to HTFU and undock if they want to be at war. (obvious alt post is obvious)
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:38:00 - [60] Originally by: Tippia Wow. Colour me impressed. I sure couldn't make it a whole year in EVE without, say, using the marketà You know exactly what we're talking about when we talk about PvP - no need to twist words just because you are fighting a lost argument. A large part of the Eve player base does not take part in PvP fighting, unless griefers abuse a game mechanic like war-decs, to kill them in supposedly hi-sec space.

Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:54:00 - [61] Originally by: Spacemanc You know exactly what we're talking about when we talk about PvP - no need to twist words just because you are fighting a lost argument. So why do you? You see, that's what people mean when they say that EVE is a PvP game: everything is done in competition with other players. If you then say "no, if we define away a large portion of the PvP activities as not being PvP, then it's not", you are twisting the word to mean something completely different. Quote: A large part of the Eve player base does not take part in PvP fighting, unless griefers abuse a game mechanic like war-decs, to kill them in supposedly hi-sec space. True(ish): a lot of players do not take part in fighting, but that doesn't mean that they do not take part in PvP. This is the intricate detail that carebears tend to forget when they clamour that they're "just doing their thing" and want to be left alone: they can't "just do their thing" because everything they do has repercussions on other players, and if they're allowed to affect people, then those people should be allowed to affect the carebears right back. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:03:00 - [62] So by your logic, there isnt in fact any such thing as carebears as we are all taking part in PvP Also by making hi-sec dangerous, cant you see that it is no different to introducing CONCORD to low-sec? Would you support that idea? Of course not, you would whine that low-sec is supposed to be dangerous, and that's why its called low-sec. Basically you want Eve to fit your playing style with zero regard for the rest of the playerbase.
Rellik B00n Minmatar Lethal Death Squad	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:03:00 - [63] Edited by: Rellik B00n on 08/12/2009 19:04:30 Originally by: Synvaat The bigger problem is the 5 or fewer man corps. They wardec the biggest carebear corps they can find, then dock up as soon as there is anything remotely dangerous. They don't have to PVP at all but they get full control over being at war for a cost that doesn't matter at all. Is this not identical to the anti-cloak argument then? If they are docked up where is the danger? If they are a tiny corp deccing a much larger corp where is the danger? I fail to see your point tbh. Originally by: spacemanc So by your logic, there isnt in fact any such thing as carebears as we are all taking part in PvP correct. + LDSkill+hireLDS
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:11:00 - [64] Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Tippia Wow. Colour me impressed. I sure couldn't make it a whole year in EVE without, say, using the marketà You know exactly what we're talking about when we talk about PvP - no need to twist words just because you are fighting a lost argument. A large part of the Eve player base does not take part in PvP fighting, unless griefers abuse a game mechanic like war-decs, to kill them in supposedly hi-sec space. EVE is based on PvP, sorry you missed that fact, perhaps you should unsubscribe and go play an MMO that has no PvP.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:12:00 - [65] Originally by: Spacemanc So by your logic, there isnt in fact any such thing as carebears as we are all taking part in PvP Oh, there are plenty of carebears – not because of their actions but because of their attitude. It's the fact that they refuse to see that PvPness in their actions, and refuse to accept that others should be able to push back that makes them carebears – only they should be allowed to affect others (except they blithely ignore that they do so and use that ignorance as an argument for their cause). Quote: Also by making hi-sec dangerous, cant you see that it is no different to introducing CONCORD to low-sec? Highsec already is dangerous, but have needlessly been made less and less so over time. In terms of changing play styles, you're right of course: a change in either direction will negatively affect some group, but the argument is rather that the more highsec is made safe, the safe people will want it to be, pushing it farther and farther in that direction for no good reason. Quote: Would you support that idea? Of course not, you would whine that low-sec is supposed to be dangerous, and that's why its called low-sec. Actually, I would much rather prefer a sliding scale of concord effectiveness than the cliff-like drop-off below 0.45 that we have now. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:19:00 - [66] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 08/12/2009 19:20:31 Originally by: Spacemanc So by your logic, there isnt in fact any such thing as carebears as we are all taking part in PvP Also by making hi-sec dangerous, cant you see that it is no different to introducing CONCORD to low-sec? Would you support that idea? Of course not, you would whine that low-sec is supposed to be dangerous, and that's why its called low-sec. Basically you want Eve to fit your playing style with zero regard for the rest of the playerbase. We aren't talking hi sec vs low sec danger. The fact is EVE as a whole is supposed to be dangerous. Some area's are more restrictive than others, but you are not supposed to be safe anywhere unless you take it upon yourself to keep yourself safe. No one is going to attempt to do it for you, unless of course you pay them (either directly or through a tax). Ultimately, you are responsible for protecting yourself and what is yours. People that are truly successful take that a step further and view themselves as being responsible for protecting themselves and the people that they fly with, and expect the same attitude in return. Once you get past that mental hurdle, you find yourself leading a large group of like minded people... and get accused of being a bully by people who don't really understand the game they are playing. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:20:00 - [67] Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:47 Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:07 Originally by: Kitimortoa EVE is based on PvP, sorry you missed that fact, perhaps you should unsubscribe and go play an MMO that has no PvP. I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. In fact the whole idea behind Eve is that you follow the path and career that you want to - PvP is just one of those paths. What you actually mean is that you have chosen PvP, and you think that everybody else should do the same. Originally by: Ranger 1 We aren't talking hi sec vs low sec danger. The fact is EVE as a whole is supposed to be dangerous. Some area's are more restrictive than others, but you are not supposed to be safe anywhere unless you take it upon yourself to keep yourself safe. No one is going to attempt to do it for you, unless of course you pay them (either directly or through a tax). Ultimately, you are responsible for protecting yourself and what is yours. Somehow I suspect that if there was a game mechanic that could be abused, to make low-sec safe, you would be whining.
000Hunter000 Gallente Missiles 'R' Us	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:25:00 - [68] Tired of paying taxes? u want to spend your hard earned cash the way YOU like it? Join your OWN playercorp NOW!!! For only a few iskies, YOU can have your very OWN playercorp and never have to pay taxes EVER again! ... Now, i've been in my own solo corp for quite some time now and never EVER had a wardec! Actually it's a shame cuz i might enjoy the lil fun and play ________________________________________________
Rellik B00n Minmatar Lethal Death Squad	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:26:00 - [69] Originally by: Spacemanc ...stuff.... are you trolling or obtuse? Or maybe both? + LDSkill+hireLDS
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:30:00 - [70] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 08/12/2009 19:34:29 Originally by: Spacemanc Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:47 Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:07 Originally by: Kitimortoa EVE is based on PvP, sorry you missed that fact, perhaps you should unsubscribe and go play an MMO that has no PvP. I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. In fact the whole idea behind Eve is that you follow the path and career that you want to - PvP is just one of those paths. What you actually mean is that you have chosen PvP, and you think that everybody else should do the same. Originally by: Ranger 1 We aren't talking hi sec vs low sec danger. The fact is EVE as a whole is supposed to be dangerous. Some area's are more restrictive than others, but you are not supposed to be safe anywhere unless you take it upon yourself to keep yourself safe. No one is going to attempt to do it for you, unless of course you pay them (either directly or through a tax). Ultimately, you are responsible for protecting yourself and what is yours. Somehow I suspect that if there was a game mechanic that could be abused, to make low-sec safe, you would be whining. There are plenty of mechanics that can be "abused" as you put it, to make low sec safe. EVE is heavily weighted in favor of the defender. Cloaks, ECCM making you near impossible to scan down, warp core stabs, gate guns, warp to zero, the ability to make safe spots, invulnerability timer after jumping through a gate or undocking, the ability for a neutral to remote rep you without becoming aggressed or a valid target... the list goes on and on (although I think of it a using the mechanics available, which is not abuse). Of course the game mechanics that make low sec the safest are the ability to shoot back, form corps and alliances for mutual defense, and the god given ability to not think of yourself as a sheep. I'm not whining in the slightest. In fact, one of my greatest joys is anti-pirate work for my corp, or accepting a contract to protect a small player corp from aggressive military or economic threat. What was your point again? ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.

Drykor Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:36:00 - [71] It realistically is 5% tax AT MOST, seriously, if you're carebearing in highsec you don't need more isk. Suck it up.
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:44:00 - [72] Originally by: Spacemanc Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:47 Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 19:22:07 Originally by: Kitimortoa EVE is based on PvP, sorry you missed that fact, perhaps you should unsubscribe and go play an MMO that has no PvP. I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. In fact the whole idea behind Eve is that you follow the path and career that you want to - PvP is just one of those paths. What you actually mean is that you have chosen PvP, and you think that everybody else should do the same. Originally by: Ranger 1 We aren't talking hi sec vs low sec danger. The fact is EVE as a whole is supposed to be dangerous. Some area's are more restrictive than others, but you are not supposed to be safe anywhere unless you take it upon yourself to keep yourself safe. No one is going to attempt to do it for you, unless of course you pay them (either directly or through a tax). Ultimately, you are responsible for protecting yourself and what is yours. Somehow I suspect that if there was a game mechanic that could be abused, to make low-sec safe, you would be whining. Read this: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/About_EVE_Online#How_is_EVE_Online_Different.3F It in no way implies that you can completely avoid pvp. This is probably the most important part that you have seemed to overlook: "Players that enjoy the freedom and opportunities for creative thinking an open-ended game offers have become mesmerized by EVE, while others that depend on structured, repetitive game style have not. For this reason we don't contend that EVE is for everyone, but for those that enjoy a bit more of a challenge. "
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:50:00 - [73] Originally by: Spacemanc I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. Ok. So what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:02:00 - [74] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Spacemanc I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. Ok. So what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? Tippia you're just trolling - every one knows that PvP refers to fighting. Eve isn't just about fighting - there's many paths you can follow that involve zero fighting, and many many people follow those paths. You might not like that - but its true.
Zartanic Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:04:00 - [75] It's so easy to avoid a wardec or get fun out of it I don't know why so many get stressed over them. If any corp does not have simple contingency plans for a wardec they are incompetent, its as simple as that. The bounty system needs fixing though and certainly kill contracts should be implemented. There should be a downside to failure though (like a timer) so they are not done without some planning and thought. I'm a carbear but the big attraction for me in this game is the fact that others want to kill me for whatever reason (tears, loot, I don't really care) so the easier that is for them the deeper the game will be for me.
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:05:00 - [76] Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Spacemanc I think its you thats missed the fact that Eve isnt based purely on PvP. Ok. So what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? Tippia you're just trolling - every one knows that PvP refers to fighting. Eve isn't just about fighting - there's many paths you can follow that involve zero fighting, and many many people follow those paths. You might not like that - but its true. Generally Tippia doesn't troll, he just has a tendancy to say things people don't like without sugar coating it for those with thin skins.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:09:00 - [77] Originally by: Spacemanc Tippia you're just trolling - every one knows that PvP refers to fighting. No. That's just your assumption. When people say that EVE is a PvP game – the view you're trying to argue – then they mean it in exactly that way: that everything you do is done in competition with others. So again: what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Baneken Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:10:00 - [78] To put things in to perspective there is an MMO game that consists of nothing but PvP and it called Warhammer Online and it also failed rather miserably. Why ? Because it had nothing to gain, nothing to lose just mindless zerging day fater day after day in other words it was pure PvP for you. It has endles free trial now so go ahead and try it out.
Zartanic Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:12:00 - [79] Originally by: Baneken To put things in to perspective there is an MMO game that consists of nothing but PvP and it called Warhammer Online and it also failed rather miserably. Why ? Because it had nothing to gain, nothing to lose just mindless zerging day fater day after day in other words it was pure PvP for you. It has endles free trial now so go ahead and try it out. WHO is just fighting PVP, EVE is a LOT more PVP than that (I wont list it again) which is why its a far better game. Anyone who thinks PVP is restricted to ship combat is not understanding the fundamental nature of EVE.
Malcolm Cree	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:16:00 - [80] Originally by: Orakkus Wow. That's the biggest bunch of BS I've heard in a long, long time. Without any danger to themselves? Since when? Eve invented the phrase, "Carebears with teeth." and "Industrialists with teeth." Since the concept seems difficult for you to grasp (must be a troll..), I'll break it down for ya. Those modules that you mine minerals for, that you sell for profits.. can be put on ships (you know, the other things you sell for profit).. and those modules can be used to shoot other ships.. especially the ones that war dec you. Next, you get make friends with people (WOAH! What a concept in an MMO, right?) who might be willing to help you for isk, or better yet, just because they like ya. Shoot, you might even win if you think smart. As far as the "not even logical from a story standpoint" garbage comment.. the "evil PVP'ers going after the poor, innocent "good" guys" concept is essentially the basis for almost EVERY Sci-Fi story there is. The purpose of war decs is to.. tada, have player corps fight each other. Where you got the idea of it being used to solve "real disputes" in an internet spaceship game is beyond me and smacks of utter arrogance and ignorance. Just like real life, these War deccers want your Nikes, and they're going to shoot you for them. Now, you can EASILY avoid war decs in so many ways both preventative and protective that it would require one to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that. You can move corps, you can move your operations, you can stay in station, you can run around on an alt, you can join an alliance, you can play something else, and the list goes on and on. And its not like a wardec last forever.. only a week! Dear God, man! Go outside, get some exercise.. smell the roses! You honestly think things like corp hopping or just not playing are solutions? The fact that these are answers means this mechanic is broken. And, my corp has been at war more than it hasn't. We've never even done anything to make enemies. It makes it impossible to start your own corp, long story short. We would join an alliance, but most of the people who play this game seem to be complete *******s, to be honest. Just like my old alliance, they some how expect everyone to pvp full time and somehow have unlimited isk. Not to mention, the idea of high sec combat is so utterly ridiculous, anyway. Its all station camping, and combined with the crappy undocks on most stations, etc, the whole situation is just fail. I just want to know who these people are... who has such a small epeen that they spend 3 hours camping a single miner in station.

Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:19:00 - [81] Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 20:21:18 Originally by: Tippia When people say that EVE is a PvP game û the view you're trying to argue û then they mean it in exactly that way: that everything you do is done in competition with others. So again: what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? If you read the thread, I was disputing posts by people who were saying that EvE was all about PVP, when they were referring to fighting. Everyone knows what PvP refers to. Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No It is obvious that we were talking about combat, and now you have lost the argument that Eve is all about combat, you've decided to try a use semantics to try and win your arguement.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:28:00 - [82] Originally by: Spacemanc If you read the thread, I was disputing posts by people who were saying that EvE was all about PVP, when they were referring to fighting. Everyone knows what PvP refers to. Again, your assumption. You'll notice that the ones who use it this way are mainly the carebears – the ones who, as I mentioned, refuse to realise that there's more to PvP in EVE than just combat, which is the whole problem. Quote: It is obvious that we were talking about combat, and now you have lost the argument that Eve is all about combat, Your assumption, and no, that was not the argument. Again: what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Zartanic Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:32:00 - [83] Ultimately there has to be a better way to encourage players to blow up ships or assets. Without this destruction there would be no market, no mining, no need for carebears. But ship PVP has to be more fun to more players. The 11% tax does nothing for that at all I think. War Decs do need thinking through as they should encourage PVP not station camping or blobbing. But its not even wardecs that's an issue, really it's PVP tactics in EVE that are so boring for many players who would otherwise happily take part in it. WOW PVP was more interesting and that's saying something. I still do find it funny though how so many are against doing their own corp. I've never been wardecced in a solo corp and they take a few minutes to set up. Players already have wardec immunity if they just managed to work it out and plan a bit. I also do not understand how players can demand safety in a game that is PVP centred. That's silly.
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:33:00 - [84] Tippia - my last post before I leave you in your pit of dumb. Even you refer to PvP in the same way earlier in this very thread. You tried to argue a dumb point and you failed. get over it dear boy
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:35:00 - [85] Originally by: Malcolm Cree If you think the war dec game mechanics are somehow balanced and fair, then I would argue that you've never experienced being on the "shut down your corp" end of a war dec. And you don't know how to avoid this kind of thing in high sec. I've been wardecced by alliances and corporations. And it is easy to avoid them if you know what you are doing. Originally by: Malcolm Cree You have medium sized corps preying on small corps, in an attempt just to get them to disband. Do you really think that is the intended game mechanic? If you are not ready to protect yourself then you are in the wrong corp. Originally by: Malcolm Cree People go into a childish mocking tone and get all "aww did you get bwowed up while mining?", but I argue that its these morons deccing high sec corps that are the real cowards. They're to afraid to fight in REAL pvp, they go after carebares. I have always wanted to know what the heck is "Real PvP". Please enlighten me on that will you. Originally by: Malcolm Cree This game mechanic is broken, plain and simple. It highly favors aggressors, and at the very least, doesn't cost enough isk. Learn how to fit your ships, watch local, have your ship ready to warp out at the first sign of trouble. What is needed is a higher cost and greater skills needed to start a corporation. Cause right now any Tom, Richard, or Harry can start one. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:37:00 - [86] Originally by: Spacemanc Tippia - my last post before I leave you in your pit of dumb. I accept your surrender. After all, ad hominem argumentation only shows you have no argument. Quote: Even you refer to PvP in the same way earlier in this very thread. Your assumption. You are referring to the "If you choose not to PvP, you die" I assume? No, it's still the same. Quote: get over it dear boy Now that you've not been able to come up with a single non-PvP activity in EVE (even though I think I actually gave you one for free), I think I will. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Dire Radiant	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:38:00 - [87] Edited by: Dire Radiant on 08/12/2009 20:39:24 Originally by: Spacemanc Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No Traders and miners regularly fund wars. If my trading corp gets .01 isked enough for your corp to show up on the radar your corp will get a dec, infiltration, and hauler alts suicided. And to those who think the war dec fees are too small, you are ignoring the opportunity cost in war. If fees are so low, why do mercs charge so much? I've tried many times to talk them down using the war dec fee is so low argument, but they always see through it.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:39:00 - [88] Originally by: Spacemanc Edited by: Spacemanc on 08/12/2009 20:21:18 Originally by: Tippia When people say that EVE is a PvP game û the view you're trying to argue û then they mean it in exactly that way: that everything you do is done in competition with others. So again: what parts of EVE, according to you, is not a matter of player vs. player? If you read the thread, I was disputing posts by people who were saying that EvE was all about PVP, when they were referring to fighting. Everyone knows what PvP refers to. Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No It is obvious that we were talking about combat, and now you have lost the argument that Eve is all about combat, you've decided to try a use semantics to try and win your arguement. Err... actually yes. Corps that specialize in Trade wage not only economic war but often War Dec competetors when possible to interdict their ability to move finished product or move materials around. Corps that specialize in mining that wish exclusive rights to an area often war dec other mining corps to drive them from the area. I have participated on both sides in both types of War Declarations. Obviously you have not. Which is fine, but it means that you are speaking from ignorance of the events in the game universe that surrounds you. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 20:52:00 - [89] Originally by: Spacemanc Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No Actually, they do...often...a lot of the time they hire mercs to do the wardecs due to lack of pvp ability.
Ruziel Minmatar Twilight Military Industrial Complex	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:00:00 - [90] Originally by: Spacemanc Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No I have seen and heard of turf wars over mining spots escalate into wardecs. So yes, it does happen. People get bent out of shape over all sorts of petty things.

Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:02:00 - [91] Originally by: Kitimortoa Originally by: Spacemanc Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No Actually, they do...often...a lot of the time they hire mercs to do the wardecs due to lack of pvp ability. My point exactly
Malcolm Cree	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:03:00 - [92] How about this for a simple solution: Allow decced corps to just pay more to concord to end the dec. I mean, that makes logically storyline sense, if you're going to justify them allowing payment to turn a blind eye. Why can't we outbid the pirates to end the wardec?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:18:00 - [93] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 08/12/2009 21:25:40 Quote: My point exactly My god you are obtuse. Lets give you an example: Corp A: Largish, comprised of 80 or so players between the 6 month to 2 year range. Corp B: Smallish, comprised of a dozen or so retired war vets and the alts of null sec players. Corp A: Has gotten confident enough if their mining organization to strip mine not only the home system both corps share, but the surrounding systems as well. They take the ore and refine it, producing ships at below cost because they operate on the principal that "What we mine is free" and thus foolishly ruining the local economy. Corp B: Attempts to educate them or at least work out an arrangement so that they have at least some opportunity to mine and produce in their own system, but they are met with sullen silence from the larger corp. Faced with a choice of either relocating or bringing pressure to bear of their own, Corp B decides to War Dec Corp A. Corp A: Takes heavy losses at first, reeling in suprise from just how effectively a small group of experienced combat pilots can disrupt mining and production operations. Starting to bleed both members and isk, Corp A fights back in the best way it can... it uses the considerable isk that it has pulled in to hire a group of Mercs to interdict Corp B. This is a common scenario, one that I have personally taken part in. You need to open your eyes to the gaming environment around you. You don't believe that constant undercutting is a Player vs. Player situation? You don't believe that the people you are undercutting should have the option of declaring war on you to leverage "their" strengths against yours? Price manipulation, stockpiling, corporate spying, assasination, insider trading, war declarations, suicide ganks... all are part of the PVP experience that is EVE... all are weapons that are as much at your disposal as the next person. To ask for protection for yourself from any one aspect and say that its because you yourself don't participate in PVP is at best highly ill informed, and at worst a lie. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
RC Denton	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:33:00 - [94] Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. That way you can achieve parity between corps that are militarily strong, and ones that are finacially strong. There is more than one way to pvp in EVE.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:43:00 - [95] Originally by: RC Denton Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. That way you can achieve parity between corps that are militarily strong, and ones that are finacially strong. There is more than one way to pvp in EVE. Corps that are financially strong but combat experience weak throw their money at a mercenary corp to protect them currently, for that very reason. For Concord to accept two bribes for separate sides in a war would be morally and ethically wrong. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:44:00 - [96] The alliance mechanic is the biggest offender and roadblock to empire pvp. For 1bil isk - which was not even a large sum in late 2004 - you get an extra chat channel, a logo (lol, maybe), sovereignty benefits, and increased protection from player aggression. The only downside is upkeep costs, which are pretty trivial compared to what most corporations pay in office rent. The increased war cost is what the vast majority of existing alliances are taking advantage of. If they did not have this benefit, they would have zero reason to exist. This moronic dichotomy unfairly punishes standalone corporations by making them more inviting targets, despite (theoretically) having fewer resources and allies. Any empire based standalone corps approaching 50-100 players have to contend with war decs on a regular basis. Any aspiring mega corps with 100+ players will be in a constant and perpetual state of siege, guaranteed. There aren't many 0.0 corporations that can handle that for long, and I suspect the majority of such corps either die or move to 0.0 at that point. Hence, empire remains a sea of individuals - pretty boring. I would scrap the concept of alliance war declaration entirely, and just keep corp-vs-corp declarations in the game. The benefit of being in an alliance would come from your allies being able to jump into the fight in your defense for free and without jumping through beaurocratic hoops.. The second way players evade normal exposure to pvp is npc corps. The easy fix for that is to rework factional warfare so that you can be flagged for pvp by opposing factions' militia for having high empire standings. In other words, a +9.0 Gallente mission carebear wandering into Caldari space (or low sec) can be attacked without sec hits by Caldari Militia pilots. You'd still be safely protected by the Gallente Navy in your favourite mission hub, but your freedom to go anywhere you want becomes severely restricted. I bet this would also do wonders for inter-regional trade. The only people who would be perfectly safe anywhere in high sec are the ones that stay in NPC corps and do not have too much favour with any one faction. Miners, newbs, traders. I think this sounds entirely reasonable to me, and would make empire a lot more interesting. You'd have more incentive to form proper corporations and alliances than you do now. But of course, I'm fully expecting the YOU CANT FORCE ME I WILL JUST QUIT AND EVE WILL DIE cries to follow any such suggestion.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:52:00 - [97] Originally by: DigitalCommunist The alliance mechanic is the biggest offender and roadblock to empire pvp. For 1bil isk - which was not even a large sum in late 2004 - you get an extra chat channel, a logo (lol, maybe), sovereignty benefits, and increased protection from player aggression. The only downside is upkeep costs, which are pretty trivial compared to what most corporations pay in office rent. The increased war cost is what the vast majority of existing alliances are taking advantage of. If they did not have this benefit, they would have zero reason to exist. This moronic dichotomy unfairly punishes standalone corporations by making them more inviting targets, despite (theoretically) having fewer resources and allies. Any empire based standalone corps approaching 50-100 players have to contend with war decs on a regular basis. Any aspiring mega corps with 100+ players will be in a constant and perpetual state of siege, guaranteed. There aren't many 0.0 corporations that can handle that for long, and I suspect the majority of such corps either die or move to 0.0 at that point. Hence, empire remains a sea of individuals - pretty boring. I would scrap the concept of alliance war declaration entirely, and just keep corp-vs-corp declarations in the game. The benefit of being in an alliance would come from your allies being able to jump into the fight in your defense for free and without jumping through beaurocratic hoops.. The second way players evade normal exposure to pvp is npc corps. The easy fix for that is to rework factional warfare so that you can be flagged for pvp by opposing factions' militia for having high empire standings. In other words, a +9.0 Gallente mission carebear wandering into Caldari space (or low sec) can be attacked without sec hits by Caldari Militia pilots. You'd still be safely protected by the Gallente Navy in your favourite mission hub, but your freedom to go anywhere you want becomes severely restricted. I bet this would also do wonders for inter-regional trade. The only people who would be perfectly safe anywhere in high sec are the ones that stay in NPC corps and do not have too much favour with any one faction. Miners, newbs, traders. I think this sounds entirely reasonable to me, and would make empire a lot more interesting. You'd have more incentive to form proper corporations and alliances than you do now. But of course, I'm fully expecting the YOU CANT FORCE ME I WILL JUST QUIT AND EVE WILL DIE cries to follow any such suggestion. I think that both of those suggestion have a great deal of potential. The suggestions for war decs on alliances in particular could work very smoothly when the treaty system comes into play. One option on the treaty could be "mutual defense" which when enabled would allow corps adhering to that treaty to participate in each others wars. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Ava Starfire	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:57:00 - [98] OP...have you ever been wardecced? Im guessing your just sitting in a station, shaking like a kitten, terrified of what will happen if you click the "create corporation" button. Our corp was wardecced four times in its first six weeks of existance. Winner, them Wardec 1) Experienced corp of pvpers vs us. They won pretty soundly, we did fight back, my first ever "real" eve PVP kill (thorax) was in this war. Ended, we survived. Learned a lot. Wardec 2 and 3) 2 or 3 man corps wardecced us. First one lost his vagabond to a lolsquad of ruptures and vigils and dropped the war. Second corp had one active member, who was killed and podded repeatedly in the first few hours. Both dropped war. Winner, us. Wardec 4) Corp no 1 wardecced us again, this time fun was had by both sides, and even a sort of friendship between our corps. Keep in mind, no one in my corp is really a diehard pvper. But damn, it isnt hard to jump in a ship and go fight. And fwiw, its a lot more fun that shooting rocks or running missions. I have a feeling wardec no 5 will be the one WE start=) Winner, all parties involved. Youre afraid of things that dont exist. Get in a frig and go f***ing SHOOT SOMEONE. You wont die IRL, i promise! Space is fun!
Slave 775 Ministry of Punishment Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.08 21:59:00 - [99] Originally by: DigitalCommunist /cut This moronic dichotomy unfairly punishes standalone corporations by making them more inviting targets, despite (theoretically) having fewer resources and allies. Any empire based standalone corps approaching 50-100 players have to contend with war decs on a regular basis. Any aspiring mega corps with 100+ players will be in a constant and perpetual state of siege, guaranteed. There aren't many 0.0 corporations that can handle that for long, and I suspect the majority of such corps either die or move to 0.0 at that point. Hence, empire remains a sea of individuals - pretty boring. I would scrap the concept of alliance war declaration entirely, and just keep corp-vs-corp declarations in the game. The benefit of being in an alliance would come from your allies being able to jump into the fight in your defense for free and without jumping through beaurocratic hoops.. /cut So this means i wardec a corp inside an alliance and i can only attack said corp, but the whole alliance me ? Rest of your proposal is brillant ! Centuries ago, the Bible warned of dangers posed by evil men described as master[s] at evil ideas and scheming to do bad. (Proverbs 24:8) PRIVATEERS Officialy nerfed by CCP 05/07
NEMESIS SIN FURY.	Posted - 2009.12.08 22:11:00 - [100] Originally by: Ava Starfire Edited by: Ava Starfire on 08/12/2009 21:57:40 OP...have you ever been wardecced? Im guessing your just sitting in a station, shaking like a kitten, terrified of what will happen if you click the "create corporation" button. Our corp was wardecced four times in its first six weeks of existance. Wardec 1) Experienced corp of pvpers vs us. They won pretty soundly, we did fight back, my first ever "real" eve PVP kill (thorax) was in this war. Ended, we survived. Learned a lot. Winner, them Wardec 2 and 3) 2 or 3 man corps wardecced us. First one lost his vagabond to a lolsquad of ruptures and vigils and dropped the war. Second corp had one active member, who was killed and podded repeatedly in the first few hours. Both dropped war. Winner, us. Wardec 4) Corp no 1 wardecced us again, this time fun was had by both sides, and even a sort of friendship between our corps. Keep in mind, no one in my corp is really a diehard pvper. But damn, it isnt hard to jump in a ship and go fight. And fwiw, its a lot more fun that shooting rocks or running missions. I have a feeling wardec no 5 will be the one WE start=) Winner, all parties involved. Youre afraid of things that dont exist. Get in a frig and go f***ing SHOOT SOMEONE. You wont die IRL, i promise! \0/

Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 22:42:00 - [101] Originally by: Malcolm Cree You honestly think things like corp hopping or just not playing are solutions? The fact that these are answers means this mechanic is broken. And, my corp has been at war more than it hasn't. We've never even done anything to make enemies. It makes it impossible to start your own corp, long story short. We would join an alliance, but most of the people who play this game seem to be complete ******s, to be honest. Just like my old alliance, they some how expect everyone to pvp full time and somehow have unlimited isk. Not to mention, the idea of high sec combat is so utterly ridiculous, anyway. Its all station camping, and combined with the crappy undocks on most stations, etc, the whole situation is just fail. I just want to know who these people are... who has such a small epeen that they spend 3 hours camping a single miner in station. Been there, done that. My corp even moved away from the region we were at to start over. As far as alliances go, yes, when you join an alliance, you can't just have it your way and not help anyone else. However, there are plenty of alliances out there, and generally only very power hungry tend to have "alarm clock OPs". Most don't and most realize that you gotta have isk to fight in the first place. You are asking to change a whole dynamic, merely because of a lack of knowledge, even a lack of desire to get that knowledge, on the part of certain detached players. I for one am VERY glad that its still people, and not iskies, that are still a source of power in Eve. I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.*
tikiana	Posted - 2009.12.08 22:52:00 - [102] Originally by: Spacemanc Tippia - my last post before I leave you in your pit of dumb. Even you refer to PvP in the same way earlier in this very thread. You tried to argue a dumb point and you failed. get over it dear boy I always have a chuckle when people get condesending like this 'get over it dear boy' seriously its funny back to the point though spacemanc you are a moron and should imediatly quit the game and never look back, pvp does not mean fighting and only fighting. It does mean player Vs player. Your assumption that as a miner i'm not involved in pvp is wrong, if i get to that asteroid which gives me a 10% increase in refining before you, i just beat you and if this was a true exampkle i certainly wouldn't be above making sure you knew about it in local. Sure you can go and find another asteroid but guess what you just wasted time, and this game is all about time, money and beating everybody else. In all honesty pvp fighting is really crude, when there is economic and industrial PVP do be done. A tactic that i've seen used is if you want to push another corp out, find where they mine and sell their goods, then clear it out before they can, undercut them. keep doing it, it can take a while but eventually if their miners log on and there is nothing good to mine or their traders can't get the sales they'll move. you'll never have needed to fire a shot. guess what that last paragraph is all about, beating other players, your maybe not killing them, but your beating them and thats what player VS player is all about. Hell i go about making sure i beat people in my own alliance to make sure I'm on top. If you can't understand this, then this isn't the game for you and you should **** right off ----> to WOW or what ever other game you want to play because i just beat you
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:06:00 - [103] tikiana its all about context Read the OP - thats how forums work. PvP was referring to combat, in the same way that it is 99% of the time in Eve. The only thing you've won is a prize for publicly showing that you fail.
Tajwel Kura	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:19:00 - [104] Edited by: Tajwel Kura on 08/12/2009 23:19:09 Originally by: Spacemanc tikiana its all about context Read the OP - thats how forums work. PvP was referring to combat, in the same way that it is 99% of the time in Eve. The only thing you've won is a prize for publicly showing that you fail. The OP is using word 'PVP' in wrong context. What of it? The rest of us understand that PVP refers to player vs player game play aka competition of players over resources. This competition is same in nature irrespective of whether it is done with wallet, mining laser, or a gun. Instead of 'PVP' the OP should have used word 'combat' because they are plenty of players out there who won't enjoy combat in EVE but nevertheless they participate in competitive game play, also known as player vs player game play, also known as PVP.
Zartanic Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:21:00 - [105] Edited by: Zartanic on 08/12/2009 23:25:38 Originally by: Spacemanc tikiana its all about context Read the OP - thats how forums work. PvP was referring to combat, in the same way that it is 99% of the time in Eve. The only thing you've won is a prize for publicly showing that you fail. Combat is a tiny part of PVP in EVE. The threat of combat is far more important. Its the same as countries, the majority of what they do is diplomacy, politics, flexing muscles, economic wars, intelligence gathering, corruption, direct threats or provocative behaviour and all sorts of PVP that does not even involve ships. Trade is certainly PVP that's obvious, look at ISK wars and markets being cornered as well as all sorts of threats, wars and politics from that. The very threat and existence of PVP changes peoples behaviour in EVE continually. It's that element which makes it more than games which spoon feeds PVP. It also means PVP must be freeform and unrestricted as far as possible. So any changes have to be thought through very carefully. Simply nerfing war decs will do nothing except dull the edge of the game. Really if you think of PVP as just being ship v ship you are missing the underlying purpose and driving motives to EVE. On top of all that: 1. Any corp that can't handle a war dec is incompetent. Mercs are easy to hire. 2. War decs are easy to avoid anyway. 3. War decs are rare against solo players (I never had one ever) 4. Ship to Ship PVP can be cheap and fun for all parties. Its the other styles of PVP that are dangerous.
Jesslyn Daggererux Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:31:00 - [106] Originally by: SketS47 awe boohoo ^^ did little kitty get wtfpwnd while mining at warin empire? yaarrr for empire wars, pirates life forever! Linkage ill just put this here. as i remember it, we whipped your alliance. our records show you made the founding corp, had a service make it an alliance, and promptly died to us. Originally by: CCP Fallout Hola, esta forum es ingles solamente. This forum is English only. Welcome to my lock. Now please, zip your pants. I don't need a show.
Kitimortoa	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:37:00 - [107] Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Kitimortoa Originally by: Spacemanc Do traders ward dec fellow traders when they're outbid? Do miners war dec fellow miners when a belt is mined? No Actually, they do...often...a lot of the time they hire mercs to do the wardecs due to lack of pvp ability. My point exactly lol you are a dense one aren't you?
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:47:00 - [108] Originally by: Zartanic Combat is a tiny part of PVP in EVE. Really if you think of PVP as just being ship v ship you are missing the underlying purpose and driving motives to EVE. Strange - you had this to say on another thread yesterday Originally by: Zartanic Edited by: Zartanic on 07/12/2009 21:01:51 FW suggests PVP is common all over EVE and that's not the case. I dont dispute that trading or mining etc is players competing, but in Eve, PvP generally refers to player vs player combat. This point is proven by your post yesterday. Hope that helps
Yelan Zhou Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:50:00 - [109] Uhm realy, PvP is not only about shooting. I am a merchant(mainly) and I am in constant competition versus other players. I am also often endangered by pirates wich might choose to engage my vessels etc etc. Belive me, traders are basicaly "hardcore" PvPers if this involves shooting or not.
Beowulf Veridis	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:57:00 - [110] Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. The 11% tax is fair and equitable, I have no complaints.

Dire Radiant	Posted - 2009.12.09 00:15:00 - [111] Originally by: Spacemanc I dont dispute that trading or mining etc is players competing, but in Eve, PvP generally refers to player vs player combat. So -- then whats your beef with corps shooting one another? You've acknowledged that all aspects of Eve involve competition... Competition that has the potential to escalate into a war dec. Actions have consequences.
Dakius	Posted - 2009.12.09 00:37:00 - [112] Wardecs are easy to avoid, just make a new corp (cost 1.6 mil to their 2 mil). Backlash is because of reason for NPC corp tax, they want more players in player corps. Reason those people stay away from player corps or stay in 1 man corps is because CORPMATES CAN KILL YOU. CCP is blind to this thus players get ****ed and backlash.
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.09 00:41:00 - [113] Originally by: Dire Radiant Originally by: Spacemanc I dont dispute that trading or mining etc is players competing, but in Eve, PvP generally refers to player vs player combat. So -- then whats your beef with corps shooting one another? You've acknowledged that all aspects of Eve involve competition... Competition that has the potential to escalate into a war dec. Actions have consequences. I don't have a beef with corps shooting one another. I don't have a beef with war-dec's either on the whole, but I do have a problem when the mechanic is "abused" to grief in hi-sec. I'm not suggesting that war-decs be removed from Eve, but maybe it could be tweaked in some way. Even better, lets balance it, and let "carebears" pay CONCORD for protection in low-sec?
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc. Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.12.09 00:42:00 - [114] Originally by: Spacemanc I'm not suggesting that war-decs be removed from Eve, but maybe it could be tweaked in some way. Even better, lets balance it, and let "carebears" pay CONCORD for protection in low-sec? Why do you not pay a corp for protection in low sec? Slade Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat! ≡v≡
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.09 00:48:00 - [115] I was just kidding Slade. Low-sec is low-sec, and I think it should stay that way (though it would be funny seeing the tears if that idea was adopted). I was using that to make the point that hi-sec should be hi-sec, but at the moment you can get around that with war-decs - so maybe a small tweak is needed. And dont get me wrong - I'm not someone who sits in hi-sec all day, but at the same time I think that the game should be as fair as possible to the players that choose to do that.
Dire Radiant	Posted - 2009.12.09 01:45:00 - [116] Originally by: Spacemanc I don't have a beef with corps shooting one another. I don't have a beef with war-dec's either on the whole, but I do have a problem when the mechanic is "abused" to grief in hi-sec. There is no way for you to distinguish between high-sec war dec for the lols vs me hiring a griefing corp to stop you from mining, missioning, trading, etc on my turf and having them tell you the dec is for the lols. Originally by: Spacemanc I was using that to make the point that hi-sec should be hi-sec What does hi-sec mean to you? Take into account that in Eve, actions will always have consequences.
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.09 02:13:00 - [117] Yes I agree there's no easy answer, because its almost impossible to differentiate legitimate use and griefing. You know, despite the tears it would cause, maybe my CONCORD for hire in low-sec isnt such a bad idea to balance things. You could make it a per ship cost, limit it to say 1 hour,and make it very expensive - maybe with one of the pirate NPC factions doing the policing as "mercenaries" The thing is that this would bring alot of carebears into low sec, and also after a while, many would "risk" going without the "insurance" (or maybe they couldn't afford it) This would also make pirates think twice, because it would be a gamble weather or not the intended victim had protection. Despite the tears, it could actually turn out to be a net gain for pirates, and also carebears could say "high sec isn't always hi sec" and everyone else could reply "low sec isn't always low sec"
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.09 03:22:00 - [118] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/12/2009 03:22:42 The main problem with your argument is that you mis-understand what Hi-sec is. It's High Security. Not complete security, not ultimate security, it's high security. A place where you can not be shot at by any Tom, ****, or Amarr without consequence or at a whim. They are forced to either formally war dec you, giving you free reign to shoot back or evade as you choose, or they have to suicide gank, which costs them their ship by default. You have a high degree of safety, but you will never have any promise of complete safety anywhere in EVE. This, thankfully, is the very foundation of the game. If you wish immunity from war decs, the cost is a paltry 11% tax on a small part of your income. The only thing left to worry about then is the odd suicide gank, which is easily made undesirable with the most rudimentary of precautions. Stop trying to change the very fabric of the game because you either don't understand it or don't have the stomach for it. Neither we, nor CCP, is here to cater to your whims. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.09 03:33:00 - [119] Originally by: Slave 775 So this means i wardec a corp inside an alliance and i can only attack said corp, but the whole alliance me ? Rest of your proposal is brillant ! No, obviously if they want to jump into the fight they're making themselves targets as well. What this means is that an alliance can consist of pure industrial corps, and pure pvp corps. The pvp corps can go on the offensive and fight enemies without needlessly dragging people who don't want to pvp into it. This level of control brings stability to the whole alliance concept, because your members can stay within the alliance (and thus alliance chat) on characters and corps meant for mining, freighter runs, pos operations etc instead of resorting to alts. Alliances can also grow without fear. Right now, the bigger you are the more targets-per-isk your attackers have. So declaring on bigger alliances = more value. With this change, that no longer applies. Hell, you could have a Sinq Laison Federation of 1000 corporations and 20000 members if you wanted, without impacting any corps autonomy. Each member would benefit from having a large pool of allies that do not have to pay isk or wait to come and help you. Smart mercenary corps would take avantage of this by selling themselves as security forces, and joining alliances. Reacting to each individual act of aggression would not cost anything, bringing mercenary service prices down. But at the same time it would not restrict their ability to declare personal wars, like joining an alliance does today. And if you're wondering, yes I've formally suggested this many times. No dice though !
Spacemanc	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:12:00 - [120] Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/12/2009 03:22:42 The main problem with your argument is that you mis-understand what hi-sec is. It's High Security. Not complete security, not ultimate security, it's high security. Stop trying to change the very fabric of the game because you either don't understand it or don't have the stomach for it. Neither we, nor CCP, is here to cater to your whims. No once again its you that misunderstands. I fully aware that hi-sec isn't always hi-sec, so I suggested that maybe low-sec shouldn't always mean low-sec. Judging by changes in EvEs history, CCP does cater to to people who prefer hi-sec, as its such a large proportion of the playerbase. You might not think that, because you and your friends tears fill the forum, but its true.

Laciter	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:14:00 - [121] Originally by: Konarr In reading all of the backlash on the new NPC corp tax rate, it seems the main objection is players use NPC corps because they do not enjoy PVP and/or the prospect of war. I understand protection isn't realistically free but then again neither is it realistic to assume police would allow a gang war to ensue in the middle of the city simply because some gangs formally announced their intentions to fight. The wardec rules in Empire drive people to NPC corps in the first place and are not realistic. Wardecs can be used as a bully tactic and the only real refuge players have from PVP is to stay in empire and belong to NPC corps. This tax offends me much less if the wardec in empire mechanics were also adjusted to maintain the casual player balance Dominion has upset. Well, the war dec is really a bribe to CONCORD to look the other way. It just means CONCORD is a really corrupt organization.
Korizan Red Mercury Incorporated	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:21:00 - [122] Edited by: Korizan on 09/12/2009 04:21:55 Originally by: RC Denton Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. OHHH I LIKE THIS ONE I wardec a corporation for 4 mil and they turn around and pay concord 8 mil to make it go away for a week the normal run of that wardec. Concord gives 4 mill to the corporation that created the wardec and keeps the other 4 mill for bothering them so to speak. So 50 mill for an alliance and 100 mill to make it go away.
Laciter	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:26:00 - [123] Originally by: Malcolm Cree If you think the war dec game mechanics are somehow balanced and fair, then I would argue that you've never experienced being on the "shut down your corp" end of a war dec. You have medium sized corps preying on small corps, in an attempt just to get them to disband. Do you really think that is the intended game mechanic? People go into a childish mocking tone and get all "aww did you get bwowed up while mining?", but I argue that its these morons deccing high sec corps that are the real cowards. They're to afraid to fight in REAL pvp, they go after carebares. This game mechanic is broken, plain and simple. It highly favors aggressors, and at the very least, doesn't cost enough isk. I know EVE isn't RL, but real businesses compete with each other to the point where the weak get shut down or taken over. Pretty much anything you do in EVE, you are competing with other players. Even if you are "minding your own business" by mining or missioning in hi-sec, the resources you dump onto the market affect the supply for everyone.
Laciter	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:31:00 - [124] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 08/12/2009 18:31:14 Originally by: Spacemanc Eve isn't just a PvP game. There is exactly one activity in EVE that is not subject to PvP: accepting and running missions. Hell, it's not even a whole activity û it's just part of one. So sure, it's not 100% PvP, just 99.5à Accepting missions yes, but once the deadspace is spawned, everything within is considered a competitive resource.
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:33:00 - [125] I like the current wardec system. 24h warning in which to give the wardec'ers the finger and hop to another corp. And if they persist, do it again. <Baby Plucky> 'No you dec the carebears I dec the carebears! Again and again and agaiiiiin! I dec'ed it again! I dec'ed it again!' My wardec go down da hooooooooollleeee...buh-bye wardec!
Genya Arikaido	Posted - 2009.12.09 04:38:00 - [126] The entire point of wardecs IS being able to fight in Empire between the involved parties in such a way as to be just like 0.0. The difference is that Empire is used by those of us in 0.0 differently than those who live in Empire only. We with a life in 0.0 use Empire as a place to train new recruits/newbies, trade and manufacturing...general logistics. Those who live purely in Empire want to do that to stay safe, but because they can be wardecced, they freak out and go into ubercarebear mode and drop into NPC corps. So wardeccs are just used differently and have different effects on the involved parties based on the type or organization they are. To me, it's a perfect acceptable and needed part of the game. To a little 10 man mining corp being blackmailed into paying 100m a week for "protection", it's game breaking. Not everyone is going to be like us in 0.0 and want to sling hot ammo around at each other all day. Some people want to have a different kind of fun without having to be in an NPC corp to do it. Somehow, CCP needs to recognize and fix the wardec system to address the differences. I've tried a few times in the last 6-7 years to come up with an idea...but I keep drawing a blank.
Malcolm Cree	Posted - 2009.12.09 15:21:00 - [127] Originally by: Korizan Edited by: Korizan on 09/12/2009 04:55:31 Originally by: RC Denton Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. OHHH I LIKE THIS ONE I wardec a corporation for 4 mil and they turn around and pay concord 8 mil to make it go away for a week the normal run of that wardec. So 50 mill for an alliance and 100 mill to make it go away. Dangit, I posted the same thing 2 posts before this guy, and he's the only one that got noticed! Thats it. War deccing RC Denton.
Swiftgaze	Posted - 2009.12.09 15:43:00 - [128] Originally by: Korizan Edited by: Korizan on 09/12/2009 04:55:31 Originally by: RC Denton Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. OHHH I LIKE THIS ONE I wardec a corporation for 4 mil and they turn around and pay concord 8 mil to make it go away for a week the normal run of that wardec. So 50 mill for an alliance and 100 mill to make it go away. I abso-goddam-lutely love this.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.09 15:45:00 - [129] Originally by: Spacemanc Originally by: Ranger 1 The main problem with your argument is that you mis-understand what hi-sec is. It's High Security. Not complete security, not ultimate security, it's high security. No once again its you that misunderstands. I fully aware that hi-sec isn't always hi-sec, so I suggested that maybe low-sec shouldn't always mean low-sec. Then you are misunderstanding what highsec is. Highsec is always highsec, but what that means is simply this: that aggression comes at a cost. That's all it is. As the aggressor, you choose whether you want to pay for your aggression in the form of a lost ship and lost sec status, or in the form of a wardec fee. At no point will the fact that you're in highsec keep you from violencing someone's boat. The "high" part of high-sec only refers to the ~~fact~~ hope that miserliness will keep people from shooting at each other at every opportunity, thus keeping the place somewhat more peaceful than it would otherwise be. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kayleigh Lothian Minmatar KIA Corporation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.12.10 05:02:00 - [130] You people realize that Spacemanc wants to play EVE-offline the single player game, right? Even mission running does effect other people, as the ships, modules, ammunition and drones have to be bought of the market which means player interaction. You give your isk to the player that offers you the stuff at the lowest price in the station where you buy, hence rewarding him/her for a partial victory in market pvp. The fact that you (Spacemanc) insist on the right define what is or is not pvp more or less shows that your mind is set in stone and since you "know" everything you do not need listen to what other people say. Also labling all things you do not want to do as "pvp" and all the things you find acceptable as "non-pvp" does not help your cause. There are quite a few non-fighting pvpers in this game that fights much harder, dirtier and much more intence then the average member of a mainstream 0.0-alliance. The funny thing is that those guys has most likely damaged your wallet far more then any fighting-pvper ever will. They do more damage to your wallet then the 11% tax as well ----------------------

Kadri Takala	Posted - 2009.12.10 05:57:00 - [131] Edited by: Kadri Takala on 10/12/2009 06:01:27 Okay I gave up reading halfway through but I am a carebear myself and I even realise this game is pvp. Even carebears pvp whether they think they are or not. - When you're trading on the market against other traders you're pvping. You're competing with them to buy and sell items. - When you manufacture items to ship to the market to sell it's the same thing expect you're just selling. You're still doing pvp. - When you've mined a roid that someone else won't be mining later on, you're pvping. EDIT: I also hate to break it to you, but a lot of the player base in high sec are alts of pvpers. Carebears also rely on pvp to make their isk. If there was no pvp, no ships would be blown up. No ships would be sold. Industrialists would make no money and buy no minerals. Miners would get no money for their minerals. In any case, the whole point of Eve is that you're not entirely safe. Keep in mind too that pvpers get their isk from somewhere, usually from carebearing.
Psiri	Posted - 2009.12.10 12:47:00 - [132] IMO - Greatly reduce the profits of empire lvl IV mission running. - Improve the rewards of lvl 1-3 mission running by a small ammount and let these missions frequently reward attribute implants (lvl 3 missions giving +3's and so fourth). - Make lowsec ore and pirate bounties in line of those in 0.0 space. - Remove non-mutual wars in highsec. This would make highsec a better platform for beginners and highsec would primarily just be a place for manufacturing, RnD, trade and logistics. Non-mutual wars are no different than piracy, I fail to see why it should be allowed in highsec. It's only justified by highsec currently being so damn profitable. Force people into low and null-sec, EVE will be a so much better game for it. The carebears that refuse to take the leap into harm's way can do so but will have to pay for it.
Mrs Thaiberian	Posted - 2009.12.10 13:21:00 - [133] The problem with the high-sec wardecs mechanic is the abuse some do with it. 1 A bunch of friends start a small mining corp 2 A bunch of pvp lovers bored to roam in 0.0 wasteland come to empire, choose and "easy prey" and wardec them just for fun. 3 the miners corp disband and join a NPC corp. Frankly 11% tax to get rid of griefers is nothing.
Ealiom Allied Tactical Squadron	Posted - 2009.12.10 14:00:00 - [134] The current War dec system does need an overhaul I would agree to that but I think NPC corps are a bad idea in general. There tax should be higher than 11%. CCP did the numbers on average tax rates within corporations and the current NPC corp tax determined fair as in relation to an average tax rate of corporations. So the NPC pilots get an average tax rate and immunity to war decs and still complain. Pump it up to at least 25% and grin as they hemorrhage isk. Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies. Much better you than I. Blackbird Executioner
Jinayne	Posted - 2009.12.10 14:33:00 - [135] I dont mind the tax as it currently stands, mainly as I dont earn near enough isk on my new (and only) character but I was most curious in the reaction of the hardcore PvP players, this tax has no real effect on them. What I am mostly amused and bemused at : Lots of PvP combat ready veterens all frothing at the mouth ready to fight... fight miners, industrialists, traders ,noobs ... why not each other ? In 0.4 or below its FFA, see a target you can elect to engage or not yet all the Hardcore uberskilled PvP combat veterens are all in hi sec, camping noob schools or bumping miners around... flying belt to belt looking for a jetcan to flip, teasing miners to fight. Honestly , its not rocket science to figure that a miner will most likely lack the skills and / or equipment to fight a specialist PvP combatant, hell even a PvP specialist would be at a extreme disadvantage should he equip a mining laser or a rack of mining drones... yet all these PvP equiped combat ships are looking to fight these target, makes me suspect that a lot of the hi sec PvP'ers dont want to fight PvP fighters.
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.10 14:57:00 - [136] Originally by: Jinayne Honestly , its not rocket science to figure that a miner will most likely lack the skills and / or equipment to fight a specialist PvP combatant, hell even a PvP specialist would be at a extreme disadvantage should he equip a mining laser or a rack of mining drones... yet all these PvP equiped combat ships are looking to fight these target, makes me suspect that a lot of the hi sec PvP'ers dont want to fight PvP fighters. Yeah, a lot of pirates and can flippers are using expensive tech 2 ships. Either they have way too much isks to blow, or they expect to mop the floor with whoever they fight with. What is gamebreaker with wardec is that it's rarely tied to economic/strategic concerns, it's just for the heck of it (ie it's done because someone has lots of isks to blow, rather than need to make more). That reduce the options when it comes to defending because the attacker often have deep pockets and a large stockpile of gears (ships/weapons/ammos) to do it. It would be much more balanced if war was fought over ressources (market, mining spot, mission agents and such), that way wars would occur only if there is something to gain from it...
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.12.10 15:28:00 - [137] I hate these threads, because everything done in eve, is vs. other players. End of story. We are all PVPers. Some are just more aggressive about it, and want to blow up other peoples ships directly, others are more subtle but far more damaging... They like to sell crap they get as a collective for far less than what its worth and an entire side of the game (tech 1 manufacturing) is griefed to death because of it. What is worse? I wish my noob friends who like to craft who come here could specialize in tech 1 market, but they can't, its been griefed by mission runners. They've effected my friends ideal playstyle and I can do very little about it. Does it bother me all that much? Not really because they've been forced to deal with it and find other nuanced ways to do it, or be effective at very few tech 1 items. I expect those who don't like direct conflict to do the same, either adapt and pay the 11% tax in an npc corp or move on to a bigger corp that provides some protection, or be creative enough to make a solo corp that has options for when they do get decked etc. etc. Or try being social and diplomatic, stop looking at them as bullies and try and work something out. Like I said, you have options, CCP doesn't need to step in here if you ask me. This is emergent gameplay in practice, deal with it.
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.10 15:35:00 - [138] EvE protects the cowardly aggresors and wardcecs abuse is just another part of it. The resoning being that unless you give aggressor an edge otherwise people would not engage. The very basic of PvP games is artificial, yet undestandable as there would not be random PvP otherwise and is no different in EvE or WoW. The issue appears when you put D&D mechanics into PvP, with no headshots and no lasting injuries, which normally present risks no matter how superior the force is. This, together with lack of AOE weapons, leads to "blobbing" - in broder meaning - on every scale. And then you put into this mess EVE with its metagaming, alting, corp hopping, docking, invulnerable wallet, aggro rules, PLEX ISK etc. So for some, PvP or PvE is not about being victim or coward but about staying clear from a tangled mess of crappy design in sandbox game (and admit it, EvE was and still is full of total crap, the ability to avoid it is what makes the game good). BTW, market PvP needs all sides to flag themselves for it by entering the "PvP arena", I cannot force you to sell me stuff if you do not want to participate in trade. If you want to force me into empire war, I demand right to force you into market war, pulling your goods out of your hangar whenever you dock (you can always undock and be safe from this). ...and this all still did not touch the whole large part of people who are cooperative over competitive in nature.
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.12.10 16:05:00 - [139] Originally by: Forge Lag BTW, market PvP needs all sides to flag themselves for it by entering the "PvP arena", I cannot force you to sell me stuff if you do not want to participate in trade. If you want to force me into empire war, I demand right to force you into market war, pulling your goods out of your hangar whenever you dock (you can always undock and be safe from this). ...and this all still did not touch the whole large part of people who are cooperative over competitive in nature. Edit: Also, market is not all about competition, it is also about finding ballance where both sides benefit from the exchange. Then explain to me what you think about this entirely plausible scenario... Imagine then for a moment, that the minerals you mined one day (or scrapped), or the loot you sold months or weeks ago, finds its way to a corporation that in turn for some grandiose purpose war decs you! The very guns that a single particular ship mounts and turns on you is made from your spoils directly, how is this not in the least ironic? And at the grandest righteous? He kills you with stuff you helped to create and bring into this world. This game is GREAT because of it, and you my friend are not innocent! Unless you sell your wares ONLY to those who agree to shoot NPC pirates exclusive, you deserve what comes to you because you took that isk non-discriminatly, and cared not what the end results where beyond it. You are a war profiteer, and if not like i said before, if you sell only to the PVE "good" guys, then you should have plenty of allies who will come to your defense because of your good natured, and very very bizarre sort of contract.
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.10 17:20:00 - [140] Originally by: Foraven What is gamebreaker with wardec is that it's rarely tied to economic/strategic concerns, it's just for the heck of it (ie it's done because someone has lots of isks to blow, rather than need to make more). The corp I belong to does it for economic reasons. We find targets that fly expensive ships or that have a pos that is not set up correctly (one that is easily taken by a handful of battleships over a span of 6 to 8 hours). Sometimes we get lucky and decimate a corp (or an alliance) and their pos over a weeks time. Sometimes we don't and get our asses kicked (which is not that often). We do it because some of us find mission running, mining, and trading boring. And killing the so-called carebears in highsec is just another way to make isk. And it breaks the monotony for the ones that do mission run, mine, or trade. And sometimes we get our best recruits from carebear corps/alliances we wardec. It's also kind of funny when an alliance thinks we are nuts for wardeccing them when we only have 20 people in corp and maybe (on a really good night) 10 online at any one time. We also see ourselves has a teaching unit. If we wardec an alliance or a corp who is about to go out to low sec or 0.0 and that alliance or corp fails miserably then we have shown them that they are not ready for the big move from High Sec. If they can't handle us then they are not ready for low sec/null sec. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.

Jinayne	Posted - 2009.12.10 17:30:00 - [141] The problem is not that players blow up other player ships, its more to do with the why. I wouldnt mind so much getting my Retriever trashed if I was intruding in a belt claimed by a aggressive corps for thier mining, I would ask some of the guys in the NPC corp chat if they fancies some battle over the belt. The real issue with PvP in Hi Sec is that its just some players who want to pop ships for the 'lulz' , they want to fight in unfair combat for no more reason than to aquire killmails and e-peen. I think it would be a reasonable start to basically declare 0.9-0.8 space as new player protection zones with no PvP allowed, however limit the type of ship classes allowed in that zone (say no greater than a mining frig or a entry level industrial, dissallow jetcanning). Say then 0.7 - 0.4 are tech limited PvP FFA zones (limit the tech to something a player with 3 - 6 months training can at least compete if they focus thier training). 0.4 and lower of course are as it...PvP FFA.
Zey Nadar Gallente Industrial Virtue	Posted - 2009.12.10 17:39:00 - [142] Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian The problem with the high-sec wardecs mechanic is the abuse some do with it. Not 'some', pretty much 85%.
j1T4tR4d3AlT	Posted - 2009.12.10 17:53:00 - [143] Originally by: Zey Nadar Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian The problem with the high-sec wardecs mechanic is the abuse some do with it. Not 'some', pretty much 85%. [citation needed]
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.10 18:23:00 - [144] Indeed. I'd love to see something to back that statistic up. I think a lot of the people complaining that the war dec system is broken and abused seem to forget that the people arguing against them have dealt with that self same war dec system and are doing just fine. Whether they wanted to build a 0.0 empire, or a small but successful mining corp, or an empire based industrial powerhouse, or a Reaver style mob that preys on whomever they can catch... most started out in EXACTLY the same position you are in now, operating under the same mechanics. The only difference between you, and them, is attitude. It's harsh, but true. If you think like a sheep, you will be a sheep. If you think like a wolf (or the cunning and evasive fox) you tend to succeed and subsequently start to feel either pity (or contempt) for the sheep. The mechanics are the same for everyone. It's up to you as to whether you make yourself a fit survivor of those mechanics, or a victim of them. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.12.10 19:13:00 - [145] Originally by: Jinayne The problem is not that players blow up other player ships, its more to do with the why. I wouldnt mind so much getting my Retriever trashed if I was intruding in a belt claimed by a aggressive corps for thier mining, I would ask some of the guys in the NPC corp chat if they fancies some battle over the belt. The real issue with PvP in Hi Sec is that its just some players who want to pop ships for the 'lulz' , they want to fight in unfair combat for no more reason than to aquire killmails and e-peen. But then see that's just semantics, that has nothing to really do with the game as its designed, and the one we all play, its just the natural state of people as a community. And Its your perception of the said community in question on top of that (not everyone agrees with you, and i've made friends with people that have killed me plenty of times). You could argue that everything anybody ever does in this game is "for the lulz". Its a game, we all come here to play. Does it make a difference how anybody justifies their actions in the end, and if you are on the receiving end of a grief, could their ever be anything you've ever done that might make you say "i probably deserved it" (please read my other post before you answer this question, and consider if your minerals/fruits ever went into the creation of a gun that actually shot you and think of the lulz)?
Riedle Minmatar Raptus Regalitor Black Legion.	Posted - 2009.12.10 19:41:00 - [146] WAR - What is it good for?
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.10 20:44:00 - [147] Originally by: Jinayne I think it would be a reasonable start to basically declare 0.9-0.8 space as new player protection zones with no PvP allowed, however limit the type of ship classes allowed in that zone (say no greater than a mining frig or a entry level industrial, dissallow jetcanning). Say then 0.7 - 0.4 are tech limited PvP FFA zones (limit the tech to something a player with 3 - 6 months training can at least compete if they focus thier training). 0.4 and lower of course are as it...PvP FFA. I think you should post this great idea of yours on the Features and Ideas Discussion forum. Lets see how this flies. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2009.12.11 00:44:00 - [148] Originally by: Traidor Disloyal Originally by: Jinayne I think it would be a reasonable start to basically declare 0.9-0.8 space as new player protection zones with no PvP allowed, however limit the type of ship classes allowed in that zone (say no greater than a mining frig or a entry level industrial, dissallow jetcanning). Say then 0.7 - 0.4 are tech limited PvP FFA zones (limit the tech to something a player with 3 - 6 months training can at least compete if they focus thier training). 0.4 and lower of course are as it...PvP FFA. I think you should post this great idea of yours on the Features and Ideas Discussion forum. Lets see how this flies. Limiting ship types by sec status is a horrible idea.
RC Denton	Posted - 2009.12.11 00:55:00 - [149] Originally by: Korizan Edited by: Korizan on 09/12/2009 04:55:31 Originally by: RC Denton Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. OHHH I LIKE THIS ONE I wardec a corporation for 4 mil and they turn around and pay concord 8 mil to make it go away for a week the normal run of that wardec. So 50 mill for an alliance and 100 mill to make it go away. Actually I was thinking that a bidding war could ensure where the wardec happens, the target pays money to Concord to invalidate it and the agressing corp can spend more to re-instate it. Back and forth until someone runs out of money. This way corps that are financially strong but militarily weak can compete on equal terms. Mercs are hit and miss and many merc corps suck.
Lithalnas Amarr Headcrabs	Posted - 2009.12.11 01:23:00 - [150] If we want wardec reform, lets do something to help those evil pirate, how about '1 click' wardecing. By that I mean let us shave the 24 hour vote off, if a corp is a dictatorship let the dictator declare war immediately(with 24 hour wait time). Second lets give the prey some options, how about the surrender cost be defined by the attacker, If the attacker wants 100 mil isk, then he types that in, when the defender rightclick -> surrender. It directly transfers from defender corp wallet to attacker corp wallet. If you want to destroy a corp on principle, make that value 100 billion or some astronomical number. -------------

Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.11 01:54:00 - [151] Ah, it pains me to say so, but the way to get from this mess, both mechanics and attitude wise, is to move out of high. Maybe that was the design intention, to create silly abuseable mechanics as to annoy highsec players some. Would not surprise me really, with the 11% tax and stuff. Spending resources to make game crap on purpose, sounds like CCP.
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.12.11 02:10:00 - [152] Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: Traidor Disloyal Originally by: Jinayne I think it would be a reasonable start to basically declare 0.9-0.8 space as new player protection zones with no PvP allowed, however limit the type of ship classes allowed in that zone (say no greater than a mining frig or a entry level industrial, dissallow jetcanning). Say then 0.7 - 0.4 are tech limited PvP FFA zones (limit the tech to something a player with 3 - 6 months training can at least compete if they focus thier training). 0.4 and lower of course are as it...PvP FFA. I think you should post this great idea of yours on the Features and Ideas Discussion forum. Lets see how this flies. Limiting ship types by sec status is a horrible idea. I knew I should have placed a when I posted that. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
I SoStoned Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.11 03:00:00 - [153] Edited by: I SoStoned on 11/12/2009 03:03:26 Edited by: I SoStoned on 11/12/2009 03:00:56 Originally by: Korizan Edited by: Korizan on 09/12/2009 04:55:31 Originally by: RC Denton Since a wardec is basically a bribe to Concord to look the other way the target of the wardec should be able to bribe Concord back to their side. OHHH I LIKE THIS ONE I wardec a corporation for 4 mil and they turn around and pay concord 8 mil to make it go away for a week the normal run of that wardec. So 50 mill for an alliance and 100 mill to make it go away. Quoted from an OLD suggestion: The way of War should use an existing robust system. Originally by: Some Dumb Guy Wardecs: We currently have a mechanic in place that should be expanded to be used for the declaration for war... CONTRACTS. Corp A wants to dec B. They set up a Declaration of War (the costs being the same as they are currently) with Requirements of Surrender detailed (as we can currently do with an Item Exchange contract). The duration of the contract is 1 week. Once corp B fulfills the terms of the contract (be it ISK or items) the war comes to an end in 1 hour. If B does not fulfill the terms of the contract in the 7 day contract period A can simply extend the contract, or change it (altering a war declaration contract can only be made during the 24 hour termination period at the end of the contract duration) with a mouseclick and payment. Corp A can allow the contract to end and the war terminates 24 hours later. Corp A can retract the contract at any time, ending the war in 1 hour. If the contract is made mutual by the declared corporation (an option available within the first 24 hour period of the contract before the war goes live) the contract timer halts *until the mutual agreement is terminated by the declared entity. Once the mutual status is terminated the timer resumes until the end of its natural duration. Only the declared party can establish or rescind mutual war status. If a tower is put into reinforced during the war and would come out of reinforced only after the war ends it's 'active state' is retained. I.E. if it's at war with A when it goes into reinforced then it retains war status for 4 hours once it comes out of reinforced mode... irregardless of war status. If it is engaged the target corp has full license to return fire per aggression rules. Alliance Wars: Corporations exiting an alliance during a war retains the flag of war that was placed on the alliance, likewise the terms of surrender, creating an immediate sub-contract which the declaring party can amend or extend as desired. Once the current contract period lapses the declaring party has to pay the full contract fee to extend this sub-contract. Characters exiting a corporation during a war retain their war declaration flag until the end of the contract duration (or 7 days if the initial war is mutual)*. If the character joins a new corporation they alone retain that flag of war. Their new corporation can assist them if they are engaged by legitimate war targets but must suffer standard aggression response (no CONCORD intervention).
Good Advice	Posted - 2009.12.11 03:36:00 - [154] I like digital's idea of changing the alliance mechanic to remove corp-alliance wars, and keep wars at a corp vs corp basis. I'd un-nerf some of the escalating costs associated with multiple wardecs as well. I'd also like to see a true Mercenary arrangement, where the decced corp can set up a contract with a merc corp where concord is bribed to transfer the war-dec to the Merc corp instead (both target corp and merc corp must accept contract for it to work.) The only restriction is that the merc corp must be >10 pilots in it (to prevent quite as much alt abuse). Third, additional economic conditions need to be instituted. Examples could include 1-A mechanism where you can bribe NPC corps to deny your war target docking rights (HQs are exempt). A mechanism where you can bribe concord to deny your WT contract or player trade rights (prevents alt logistics), etc.. Costs would be based upon a corporation's size, and the corporation would have the opportunity to counter-bribe for escalating costs. Now, people wanting a high-sec fight can pick on the miners, but find the miner corp leveraging its economic might to institute a true merc campaign. As it is now, war-decs are chiefly a pay-to-grief system, and are also too easy to avoid without consequences. Both sides need to be changed, and other components added as well (political/economic conditions).
ChickenOfDoom	Posted - 2009.12.11 03:37:00 - [155] Originally by: Gun Gal or , how bout this...... SUCK IT UP BABY seriously, this has been in the3 works for the better part of a year, and we have all heard the whines, the moans, the ideas. npc corps get taxed. DEAL WITH IT OR GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE I've had just about enough of whining about whining. CCP has made their intentions clear; forum whines are here to stay. DEAL WITH IT OR POST SOMEWHERE ELSE
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.11 05:12:00 - [156] Originally by: Good Advice I like digital's idea of changing the alliance mechanic to remove corp-alliance wars, and keep wars at a corp vs corp basis. I'd un-nerf some of the escalating costs associated with multiple wardecs as well. Not sure how it is currently working, but i think the whole point of having an alliance is to fight other alliances. Now, alliances should only wardecs other alliances, or corps that have comparable size in member count. Quote: I'd also like to see a true Mercenary arrangement, where the decced corp can set up a contract with a merc corp where concord is bribed to transfer the war-dec to the Merc corp instead (both target corp and merc corp must accept contract for it to work.) The only restriction is that the merc corp must be >10 pilots in it (to prevent quite as much alt abuse). Third, additional economic conditions need to be instituted. Examples could include 1-A mechanism where you can bribe NPC corps to deny your war target docking rights (HQs are exempt). A mechanism where you can bribe concord to deny your WT contract or player trade rights (prevents alt logistics), etc.. Costs would be based upon a corporation's size, and the corporation would have the opportunity to counter-bribe for escalating costs. Now, people wanting a high-sec fight can pick on the miners, but find the miner corp leveraging its economic might to institute a true merc campaign. As it is now, war-decs are chiefly a pay-to-grief system, and are also too easy to avoid without consequences. Both sides need to be changed, and other components added as well (political/economic conditions). I would be all for smaller scale warfare combined with economic backstabbing . Of course, working out the rules of the system so it doesn't become and overly abused feature (ie something impossible to counter)...
Lady Aja Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.11 06:41:00 - [157] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Spurty Originally by: Tippia Here's a wardec reform suggestion for you: * An active wardec disables corp membership changes for the first week. * Wardecs can be made on a person-to-person basis, in part replacing the bounty system. * Killrights are made tradeable. this guy has a working brain, please do at least two of these CCP exception on the membership changes though. CEO should be able to boot spies Weeeellà I like the idea that it locks up both parties in a way û if you're the aggressor and find yourself in over your head, the same rule would mean you can't quickly mass-recruit a bunch of additional cannon fodder. But sure, a CEO decision maybe, branding the guy as a spy in his corp history so people won't ask for it all that willingly just to get out of thereà I like the idea of a person to personbasis idea. this would allow me to kill isk farmers and ruin thier day. i would happily have 3-5 P2P ( see what i did ? ) war going on all the time. oh yeah and maybe a non isk farmer, as i have a personal grudge or two to fix lmao. Note UI built my Bridge and got over it years ago. but payback and backstabbign is a *****.. mind you this would also allow hunting or corp thieves now i think of it.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.