wardecs are a joke

I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.

I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations.

didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.

If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?

If an alliance costs 1bill to form, shouldn't a corp cost "something" as well?

Should be relatively more painful to close a corp and start a new one than to survive through a wardec.

Meh, the entire Corp/Alliance and standings of Blues/Reds/Greys needs some loving.

Way too cheap (0 ISK) to move things around.

it costs an entire 1.6 millions of isk


sighs

I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations.

Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check

[quote=Rex Aparte]The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.

The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point.

War decs have and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says.

didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.

You've unfortunately stumbled upon the problems of corp hopping during war decs and npc corps in general.

Good luck trying to get CCP to fix them, we've been trying for years :(

The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.

The point of war decs is to let you fight someone. That's it. You can be butthurt if someone targets "weak" corps, but thats up to them - it is not, as you incorrectly imply - missing the "point" of war decs. It's absolutely on point.

War decs do not and should not have a requirement to be "fair fights", or mutually agreed upon, despite what some themeparking idiots (including the odd csm member or ccp dev) says.

Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter?

I'll say the guy whining when ccp fixes corp jumping is the real carebear.

closing a wardecced corp is a stupid way to completely evade a wardec

ccp apparently allows it because they think it's somehow difficult or inconvenient to recycle the corp

wardecs are a joke

I'm not sure we are playing the same game, eve online is supposedly taking place in a cold and harsh universe, it should be possible to wardec player run corporations.

if you are a spineless wimp that succumbs to threats by running like a scalded cat.

you have wardecs. enjoy.

The purpose of war decs is to let me fight anyone I want even in highsec. Be that because they're botters, or because they're part of the logistics for null sec operations, or because they insulted me, or because of any other reason at all.

imma having trouble understanding the intent of your post

also how does cat without spine run

EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players.

The price for Tritanium used to be as low as 3-4 ISKs not too long ago and only now with the increased player numbers beginning with December is the price for it slowly decreasing again. It is just a few weeks ago when one could sell billions of Tritanium for more than 6 ISKs per unit. The price is slowly decreasing and it is staying below the 6 ISKs mark now.

3-4 isk trit has not been seen since the end or 2011 start of 2012, that was when the trit prices started to grow, and was in the last quarter of 2012 the sell price started to stabilized around 6 to 6.3.

But the supply also seemed to stabilize, which would explain why the price did the same.

Further more I know that Bot Reports have been filed on all 4 of these 'players', but nothing has been done as of yet. But they are all now in Default NPC Corps back out Bot mining away, even as I type this, with no way to stop them.

Wow. I could have typed the same OP in relation to 2 groups of miners out here in 'nowhere Ammatar'.

CCP is condoning this idiotic behavior because they are Boxing, not Botting. But it indeed has the same ultimate destructive effect on the game. EVE is becoming crowded, and the startling lack of resources and things to do for the industrialist that has developed over the past 8 months or so, is not a great way to retain players.

New players choosing the Industrial career path will eventually unsubscribe do to boredom caused by these botters AND boxers sucking up an unbalanced amount of resources.


Edit: 2 typos. When I'm angry I typo.

For me it's meant it's often easier to just buy the minerals for my limited manufacturing than mine them myself

When you look at the volumes for Tritanium in The Forge (Jita) then you will see a small increase in the volumes, which runs pretty much in parallel with the player numbers as seen on Chribba's EVE-Offline website. One can see the increase in volume either in the market history when in The Forge or in the 180-day history on EVE-Markets.net.

Further more I know that Bot Reports have been filed on all 4 of these 'players', but nothing has been done as of yet. But they are all now in Default NPC Corps back out Bot mining away, even as I type this, with no way to stop them.

didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.

This is incorrect, read the definition. Wars are between corp and alliance entities not players.

this post is just a reminder that every time you dodge a wardec you are forcing your style of gameplay on others without them having any sort of recourse

Does one need a permit to stalk miners or is this yet unregulated?

i surrender *completely ignores the aggressor and continues to do whatever they want*

working as intended

With the new Wardec Pricing model, CCP has explicitly stated that wardecs are about buying targets.

I do not think that if a Corp is IN, or Pending a wardeck it should be allowed to just "Close", so that ALL of the members are placed into a default NPC Corp. At least untill the War is over. Because this maks them safe and sound to continue on about thier merry way.

Now the only way I can see the War only lasting 1h is that the 'bot controler' happened to noticed the pending wardec, and closed the Corp about 1h after getting it. Then ended up with some losses due to poor time management, bad composit risk management skills, or just did not care if there were any losses. Especially if the profit margin was high enough to not be a n issue. However, I beieve that this is an exploit of the Wardec mechanics and needs to be fixed. As this has allowed this person controling these 'players' to continue to rake in loads of ISk.

this post is just a reminder that every time you dodge a wardec you are forcing your style of gameplay on others without them having any sort of recourse

I agree. War decs should prevent people from leaving the corp that was declared war on until the war is over. I see it as an exploit.

In my oppinion avatars with beards should not be allowed to post on the forums. I see it as an exploit.

dear all new players:

if i, a three year old grizzled veteran with 3 accounts and a spreadsheet screw you over by making your preferred way to play the game essentially worthless then you're going to have to take the standings hit and be forced out of highsec eventually in order to get revenge

~deal with it~

let's just ignore the whole part about where a player gets to run other players out of business and the only recourse that player has involves them being thrown out of highsec

let's just ignore the whole part about where a player gets to run other players out of business and the only recourse that player has involves them being thrown out of highsec

instead let's talk about how a three year player isn't a veteran, or how those veteran players can somehow become immune from wardecs and combat, or how it's all about good players shooting noobs

Or we could not pretend every wardec is noobs trying to force veterans out of business (or about economic competition at all) and look at the mechanics as a whole. We could also look at the fact that recovering sec status is (tediously) possible. Or that they could create or buy dedicated alts and not be concerned with the sec status of that character like many already do.

You cannot seriously think that the current system is okay, and highsec PvP should be based on suicide ganking, especially after the repeated nerfs which the fine art of suicide ganking has suffered.

Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player.

Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player.

, or you could hire people, who would suicide gank their own grandmothers for isk, to go on the rampage for a week or so, on your behalf.

Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check

Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check

Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check

I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.

If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause.

Suicide ganking is basically a gigantic artificial hoop that players have to jump through in order to get any sort of reaction out of someone who you don't like, for legitimate reasons or not. It's a huge undertaking if you want to start suicide ganking someone, especially if you are a player who doesn't want to live in lowsec or nullsec, a poor player, or a new player.

You do get a reaction out of them when you declare war and they then surrender to you.

I am coming under the impression that it is something specific you want them to do, like you want them to fail at something, because you failed at it and you now hate them for it. Perhaps you want them to hate you back. If so then know that some players will always win the "hating game", because they just never hate another player and it is only a game to them, but they will only hate the game and themselves for failing at it. You just cannot get any reaction out of anyone just because you want them to.

It's not surrender ... bla bla bla.

Is this a game about competition and player interaction, or is this a single player game with a chat box tacked on?

Yes, it is. You declare war - they disband. It is a reaction on your declaration and it is a surrender.

You are quite an annoying whiner for a Goon. What is wrong with you?

Not exactly a surrender if all they do is immediately reform soon after quite often. Does not really make for a good argument at all regardless of what side of the fence you're on :/

That is just you.

It is not different from surrendering to 5 wars simultaneously either. When you then do not like it then find someone else. Insisting to fight a specific target is just dumb and stupid, and riding on it for the sake of an argument can only have one goal - to harass specific players. When people do not want to fight then they do not want to fight. Get it into your head.

Should the game ever change and the targets then decide to fight you back and then suddenly kick your arse will you be again crying on the forum. This time then about how you cannot get out of war or how this is now all unfair. It is not them who cry about some mechanics, you know?

Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.

The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here.

No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.

And you'd be losing it due to your own doing. Your comparison would be like saying losing 30-40m gambling is the same as it using it to buy something, but instead of being given what you paid for, the seller runs away with the dough.

Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.

Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?

Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?

It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.

personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds.

Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market.

Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink.

It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.

Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ...

And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.

No. Not when you can now enter into existing wars by offering your assistance and even ask to be paid a price for it. You are just stuck in the old war mechanics. The new mechanics allow you to avoid the war-dec cost, to enter into existing wars and to make a profit while you can just stay docked and not help in the war at all.

Market broker fees - similar to stock market. You pay a broker to help you buy some stock, and to make a profit you have to also take into account your broker fees. Or it could be taxes, or whatever.

War decs don't sound like anything remotely close to that. They're not comparable just because they cost money. The fact you're even trying to is frankly just as absurd as the arguments for individual war decs.



Noooot even close. Especially if say its 1-man noob vs 1-man noob and the defender still bails out. Skill had nothing to do with the bailout.

someone has to pay to start the war though, regardless of how other players can join it.

This guy thinks wardecs have anything to do with anything other then one corp going to war with another.

You're not exempt because you're a miner.

It's not surrender when you disband your corp due to a wardec. It's exploitation of the NPC corps.

If disbanding the corp to get out of war was the intended method of surrender, there wouldn't be an actual option to surrender and high sec wouldn't be the only place this happens on a regular basis.

This seems to be the point some of you are neglecting, and I would guess because most of you understand this and won't admit to it because your afraid CCP would actually do something about it.

Every person the leaves a player run corp should be losing something significant. If those miners actually lost something, like the ability to mine just as well as before, they wouldn't disband corps as often.

cry, cry, cry

Do you have any idea how stupid it makes you sounds when you repeat the same word over and over?, and no add in the occasional 'whine' is not helping.

I'll say the guy whining when ccp fixes corp jumping is the real carebear.

It's nothing more then a corporation dueling option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation.

So apparently, when people "pvp" with noobs and carebears through wardecs, there are exploits that need to be fixed. But when real pvpers want to pvp with fake pvpers it's just "an option, where you are allowed to refuse the invitation". Tell me why I should take anything you say seriously?

Do you know what non-consensual pvp means?, it's kind of one of the core elements of eve. I guess you are one of players who need special treatment because eve is to hard, so please don't talk about being taken serious.

didn't ccp mention something about their vision of wardecs and hi-sec corporations, was that the war should be mutual.

Ah, non consensual pvp. To me that means forcing pvp onto someone regardless of consequences, like ganking - which is a great element of eve. Just say what you really want, non consequential pvp. Why gank, when if I got my way I could trap all those people I would have had to gank into a never ending "war" that has no downside for me. There will always be a counter.

[quote=Rex Aparte]When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players.

Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system.

Ganking will always be an option, but in hi-sec concord will defend you if attacked, that system is working pretty well.

When you decide to leave the NPC corporations and start or join a player run corporation, you abandon the wardec protection that the NPC corporations provide, this is to some degree comparable with leaving hi-sec. You don't need to pay the npc tax, you can set up pos, form and alliance etc., but it comes at the cost of being legit war target of other players.

Currently the system is not working, and it is just as broken as the old bounty system.

Ok, that was very respectable so I shall be too. In my opinion, it should not be called wardec, it should be called "bribe". I haven't seen one person in this thread that didn't at least allude that what it is, is a bribe to look the other way. So lets just cut out all the bs and call it "Bribe Concord". You want to force pvp onto someone without losing your ship, bribe Concord. The counter for this will be the same button. The corp that is under attack can also "Bribe Concord" to once again protect them. Why would this option not work?

Is butthurt that the weak people he wardecs, can get out of said wardecs. - check

You're missing my point entirely. Wardec whoever the hell you want. Just don't cry about it when the mining corp you wardecced surprisingly doesn't want to fight you! Wardeccing those corps is an option, but not the point. If you wardec someone who doesn't want to fight you, expect to be disappointed.

Who's the real carebear? The guy who uses game mechanics to his advantage, or the guy who cries on the forums about not being able to do whatever he wants, without a counter?

say a player cant run from a wardec, when is the war over? is it when he cant undock anymore? and if so, hows that any different from griefing?

eve is a cold harsh place, but griefing will get you banned.

Also, to address this and what some may think from my posts - I'm not saying someone who is wardecced shouldn't be able to get out of it, there obviously has to be a way to get of it or it could devolve into griefing. I think it needs balancing is all, it's too quick and easy and there's virtually no downsides to it right now. A few little things, like allowing a period - say 24 hours - after dropping corp where you're still a valid target, making the cost of trashing a corp and recreating it something that's more significant, etc.

Yup yup yup, Corp-hopping is a lame joke of a mechanic and just another inch of ground claimed by the carebear creep.

It is pointless.

If they are sitting docked at a station while waiting for roles to drop or for some other cool-down makes no difference to the outcome when they could get out instantly. It only turns into a "kick in the back on their way out" and this is not necessary.

Somehow the obduracy displayed here by some when they insist on their little war reminds me of this and it might it be a good idea to give you a pop-up note saying "No, you cannot do this."

Because this maks them safe and sound to continue on about their merry way.

James 315 does it all the time, just so you know.

Do you know what non-consensual pvp means?, it's kind of one of the core elements of eve. I guess you are one of players who need special treatment because eve is to hard, so please don't talk about being taken serious.

Thinks the point of wardecs are for mining or indy or noob corps - check

Whines when said corp uses game mechanics to get out of a wardec they don't want to be in - check

Even calls it an exploit and wants game changed so corps that don't want to be at war get "trapped" for at least a week. - check

I find it so funny that people are a. proud of their "wardecs" and b. surprised when their foe doesn't want to fight, and cry about it all day long on the forums. As someone smarter than me said, go ahead and wardec the best hisec merc alliance. I guarantee you they won't try and get out of it. But then again, that won't give you the easymode free kills you're looking for. Then it would you docking up and dissolving your corp instantly. Cry. Moar.

If they are indeed botters, petition them, wardeccing them does nothing to help your cause.

Even if we just go with a grace period of 24 hours - you claim that is "no different" from them being able to instantly drop corp? How on earth do you think that? It means they've got to sit docked for a full day - no missioning, mining, whatever. There's an actual downside, albeit a fairly brief, trivial one. But there is at least one, rather than none.

Being able to instantly drop corp at no cost what so ever is stupid. This isn't me acting entitled, it's simply the truth.

look I'm still here.

Not for long, I would imagine.

Pfff I'm not advocating botting, I'm just stating facts.

CCP and facts and figures don't go well with each other tis true.

Check his corp history. James 315 opens and closes his little corp with every war-dec it seems. It is quite amusing to see one of his followers being against it. I actually think James 315 is right in doing it, because he is not the one who ganks miners. He only developed the idea of it. It is others who do the ganking.

[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]

Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts getting permabanned. Take all the rocks for Yourself. Profit.

100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp

I've given up on the "report bot" tool. It simply does not work.

Even then, there is NO reward when you turn in hundreds of them b/c CCP can't figure out how they are operating...yet in a couple hours i can find dozens. So i kinda stopped caring, b/c if CCP won't give me any compensation for doing their job better, then i will no longer do their job, and just wait for opportunities to gank the insanely faction fitted bot ships.

Thats my two cents.

Back On Topic.

I hate the fact that they are 100% SAFE instantly by quiting to an NPC corp, then remaking their exact same corp as soon as the last of their characters is out of corp and it is 'closed'

simply not true, you can still shoot them. there's NOTHING stopping you shooting them, not a single thing.

You are then misled in your beliefs when you think you need to punish others for not fighting you, but rather do you need to get away from it and to find a target who wants to fight and who you can fight. The sooner you learn who you can and cannot fight the better for you and all of us.

it doesn't stop EVERYBODY.

so. they aren't 100% safe, is what you're saying.

Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever.

No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.

A good fix might make it so every time you wardec a indy corp you also wardec the top merc corp

Technically the defender is the one the won as they did more ISK damage and lost nothing beyond what it cost to make a new corp. So its more an instant loss.

No. You are in high-sec and have to pay CONCORD to look away. This is your very own bill you need to pay if you want to fight wars in high-sec. You can always move out into low- and null-sec, but high-sec is high-sec and there is a good reason for it.

It's not losing anything when you do that I have an issue with.

And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement.

I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset.

I believe you've missed the part where I was against expanding wardecs. But hey, whatever floats your boat. You want to resort to personal attacks, that's your problem. There's plenty of ways to provide protection without being a total **** to one side.

HTFU.

Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight.

Get out of high-sec. It just is not the fault of high-sec players when they do not want to fight, but it is your own when you can always go into low- or null-sec and fight your wars there, free from all CONCORD fees, and where players want you to come and to fight.

Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, ....

Now you're just not listening. Nor paying attention to my corp in a subject where you probably should, ironically one of the few times corp would matter. I don't imagine I'm paying for any wardecs from E-UNI.

Oh, I am listening, but I am also waiting for the truth to sink into your head.

Obviously not because you keep insisting that I want to be able to wardec anyone freely when I at no point suggested that.

[quote=Natsett Amuinn]Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, ....

There just need to be a reason.

Am I? Or am I telling you that you are wrong in your belief of a fair war-dec?

Tell me, when was EVE ever about fairness? At best does one get a fair chance on something. However, there has never been a guarantee on fair fights, fair costs, fair losses, or on anything else.

Please, if you think I am wrong then show me where.

If you stop looking at fairness to some degree, it throws out any argument out the window.

Wrong. The more likely answer is that there have to be other reasons, only fairness is not one of them.

Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, YOU.

I lose something if I drop corp, pretty much everyone not in high sec does.

You on the other hand are a member of a one man corp, in a one corp alliance.

You're in no position to tell other to HTFU.

How about you learn to ******* play.

When you're talking about balance for example, fairness is pretty much the only reason for it. Balance happens because its unfair to pilots of other ships, or other classes if you go in reference to other games. Anyone could fly the unbalanced ships, but it forces you into a play style, which violates a sense of fairness. You can't ignore it when making a game if you want it to be any good. Otherwise you could use the excuse that "oh, its just superior technology." which would be the real world explanation for such a thing.

Don't let it get to you man. He's found a broken game mechanic (highsec) and exploits it to enrich himself, as is the way of New Eden - from cloaky/stabbed faction war to convo spam gatecamps to gsc smartbomb shield. In a game of "he who abuses broken mechanics first and hardest wins", that just makes him a good player.

Well played, Whitehound - thanks for pointing out yet another reason for supporting James 315 for CSM.

No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.

Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.

How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables.

Better question is where did you get the idea that its about how many of a ship is being used and not about why the ship is being used so much?

In case you have not read it, James 315 uses it himself. Check his corp history. You will love supporting him!

explicit or implicit? but of an odd use of language there.

it's still the corp that you're paying to declare war upon, not the players. just because you pay extra because it's a larger corp with more members doesn't mean those members are going to stick around or that you have any rights on them, which you don't.

Firstly, because CCP has always made it about the numbers and secondly, because the ships have different roles.

Say, do you expect a fight between a logistic cruiser and a combat/attack cruiser to be fair? Is a fight between an assault frigate and an interceptor fair? ...

Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic?

You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint.

No. You have the wrong standpoint. I only used it to show you that there is no fairness in balancing. QED.

No they won't change that.

They'll make it more worthwhile to be in a player corp.

And you'd be full of it because I'm looking at it from the standpoint actually used. Popularity of a ship has nothing to do with why balance changes are made. Its the reason why the ship is popular that gets looked at.

An assault frigate attacks an interceptor and fires shots at it. The interceptor then flies away, because it can. Should the interceptor pilot now pay the ammo of the assault frigate pilot? Afterall, you want the fight to be fair and the interceptor pilot bailed out while the assault frigate pilot has lost ammo in this.

Ignoring the whole reason the Hulk and Hurricanes were popular in the first place. I'm not going to argue with someone using non sequitur. The Hulk was popular because it was by far the best mining ship, hands down, no question, it was the best. The others were brought up to par because they felt the Hulk was where they wanted mining ships in terms of overall ability. Hurricane was fairly similar. These are things CCP has in fact openly stated. And in fact has openly stated that there are balance issues in other ship types and tiers that they intend to address. In no part of their statements do they say "this ship is too popular, so we gotta change it." I mean, dear god.. REALLY? That's really how you think balancing works? I've never seen a more out of touch statement. Also your example has nothing to do with my belief of fairness, so doesn't require answering. I already stated my viewpoint about differing roles and how they apply to fairness.

...Finally we were thankfully able to resolve some of the outstanding balance issues with the two most problematic Battlecruisers (Drake and Hurricane)...

Let's modify that scenario a little, ...

[quote=William Cane]found some botsquote]

Report them, have fun seeing the bot accounts for the rest of your eve life. .

Have you ever considered that this is, perhaps, for comedic value, and to point out the irony of an utterly broken and pointless mechanic?

Please, do go read the devblog by CCP Fozzie. He writes:

And he further shows a picture of their popularity.

Why do you think he does this? Is it pure coincidence when he says that there are "outstanding balance issues" and then shows a graph of their popularity where these two ships stand out?

ssh don't tell him that

Because generally its a sign ...

You mean it is the evidence of the problem and without it would you not have a problem.

Not how it works at all.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

He means that if you, as a game designer, think that something is overpowered, but none of the players are using it, there's probably some good reason that they're not using it that you haven't thought of, and that lack of use is actually evidence of it not being overpowered.

The aggregate of the players is usually smarter at finding the best uses for things than the game developers. (Canonical example, Jetcan mining.)

Not how it works at all.

...It wasn't one of the most popular classes. In fact, far from it. However it had an ability that was so powerful, so ridiculous, despite not seeming as such at a glance, that when people started discovering it, it was rapidly changed before there was any significant population shift...

You called it is a sign. I call it evidence. Is your sign suddenly gone or why are you giving me nonsense?

Its not absolute evidence though. For example. Say a corp of 1000 joined and all on a whim decided, "hey, we're going to be a Gallente only corporation" and they start off ONLY flying Gallente ships. That's a population shift that wouldn't be able to applied to such statistics. Its not an unrealistic one either. Well, maybe not so much now, but still. There are lots of potential causes to population shifts. You're trying to use it as the sole factor to look at. You don't only look at one thing like that if you're using any kind of logical thinking.

What... in the holy ****... ok... you're just trolling, blocked.

It used to be popular to believe the world was flat. They were wrong.

It used to be popular to believe the world was flat. They were wrong.

Regardless, popularity is one of the major metrics that CCP uses to detect imbalances, and rightly so, because nobody can perfectly weight every combination of incomparable stats, so the best you can do is find empirical evidence (i.e. usage statistics).

It is no coincidence that the Prophecy is the least used Battlecruiser in the current meta. The combination of anemic damage and slow speed left the ship relegated to the role of obvious bait with the occasional creative fit that relied on the element of surprise rather than competitive performance.

The Prophecy was in dire need of a completely new role, and it has now found that role as the next step in the Amarr EmpireGÇÖs expanding drone carrier program. The energy weapon capacitor bonus is being replaced with a 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level, and the drone bandwidth is being increased to 75mbit (equal to the current Myrm) with a giant 225m3 bay to hold a wide variety of drones in the tradition of Amarrian drone doctrine.

The Prophecy is also seeing two highslots removed to make room for an extra midslot and lowslot, and the addition of missile launcher hardpoints alongside the turrets to give plenty of fitting options for the creative pilot.

And yet Fozzie was able to pinpoint some of the reasons. Players are able to pinpoint why these things are better than others. The balance isn't off because the popularity. They become popular because the balance is off.

I'm not saying otherwise. Popularity is how you detect imbalances. Figuring out why they're popular is the first step in Fixing the problem.

Popularity is the primary evidence that you have a problem. And a theoretical problem that has no evidence suggesting a problem in practice is evidence that your theory is wrong (look at all the EFT warrior fits that crash and burn in actual testing).

Its not really foolproof evidence though is the thing.

No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.

Except the corp instantly dropping and reforming isn't a "win" for the aggressor. There are no goals I can think of that an aggressor may have in which that would be considered a "win". If they want gudfites? Not a win, as the other people skirted out of the war immediately. They want easy prey? Not a win. They want to disrupt a corporations activities for some reason (null logistics, general competition, grudges, etc)? Not a win, because you can't accomplish that if they can instantly drop and reform corp.

etc.

This is my entire bloody point, the ability to so quickly and easily drop and reform corps under a war means that goals of war deccing, the point of the system existing, can be completely undermined.

Couldn't really tell you if there's an EVE example, haven't seen enough, but the point still stands. Anyways, you may not have said its full proof evidence, but this whole conversation started because someone else did, which ultimately was the whole issue of why this is even a thing.

1- check the warp ins, once you find the warp in, stand on it and sort belts type and distance to see what he will mine next

2- exhaust one of the next roids to the point one cycle is left in it.

3- watch the bot mine it in one cycle,

Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.

Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists.

As if one could not fight wars in high-sec any more. Cry more. Cry until you can cry no more. Please, start now and never stop.

The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.

Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can!

So you're just a troll?

You know goddmaned well that as an industrialist every other person that builds the same items you build is a competitor and reducing your profits.



Edit: I'm beginning to seee what you're doing.
Troll enough, bait enough, and eventually the thread just gets locked.

You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out.

The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.

That's fine. In that event, it costs something to deny your attacker their goals. Right now, it doesn't.




Oh God, how am I ever going to afford 1.6 Million ISK to reopen my corp? I'm going to have to send out the collection plate.

It does not have to cost anything. When I shoot at another ship and it flies off does then anybody refund my ammo? No. One gets chances in EVE, not guarantees.

And 1.6m ISK may be less than 50m ISKs, but 50m ISKs is less than 1b ISKs, which is the price for an alliance creation. Shall we make war-decs cost 1b ISK now because of a stupid logic? Do you want this? ... Again, EVE is not fair.

Get over it. This is not a shop and not even EVE's markets give a refund. Not much then has changed and if players do not get the new mechanics then we will get only more stricter rules until every last idiot gets it. And maybe we need stricter rules...

Sure, but you've denied that ship access to that location in space, and there are ways to keep the ship there.

What have you denied a corp who drops out of a wardec? They can keep the same name, corp ticker, and continue doing exactly the same thing they were doing.
...
Disbanding an alliance doesn't free anyone from a wardec, since the member corps continue to be under wardec for the duration. If you're asking for corps to be treated similarly to alliances, you're asking for players to continue being under the effect of a wardec after their corp disbands.
...
EVE's markets always give you what you pay for. CCP has said that wardecs represent paying for targets.
Nobody's asking for a refund. We're asking for the targets we paid for.