Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 19:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.
And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.
I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?
Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
2035
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 19:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'. |
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front New Creation Collective
381
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 20:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
So your contention is that a highsec corporation whose members do not suicide gank people should be immune to wardecs? That would seem to be contrary to the general theme of EVE. When they chose to name the game "Everybody Versus Everybody," I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend for PvP only to be for those who went out of their way to engage in it. Join the Revolutionary Front and liberate New Eden from it's stuff.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2195
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 20:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.
Does that sound like a good compromise to you?
Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is likely to change pretty soon. Fixed that for ya. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
By that logic we don't need war decs at all as the vanilla game mechanics fulfill that role. But we both know that is far from true.
Haedonism Bot wrote:So your contention is that a highsec corporation whose members do not suicide gank people should be immune to wardecs? That would seem to be contrary to the general theme of EVE. When they chose to name the game "Everybody Versus Everybody," I'm pretty sure that they didn't intend for PvP only to be for those who went out of their way to engage in it.
The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.
Wars are fine. I just have issue with unprovoked "wars" being nothing but a means of circumventing high sec rules. But even then, I'm not saying those unprovoked wars should be removed. I think they should be removed, yes, but that's not what I'm saying here. All I ask is that the issuing side of an unprovoked war dec have assets that can be hunted down and destroyed in order that the war can be concluded (i.e. war goals). I ask that there be a means to actually conclude a war, for a side to lose and actually be able to hurt (i.e. wage war on) the issuer.
To your other comment, I ask, "What is the point of High sec?" The idea that conducting any hostilities in high security is absurd on its merit. I could say that if you want PvP go to low or null, but I won't. As I said before, basic concept of wars is fine.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Does that sound like a good compromise to you?
For the survival of the game. No. The game would lose the care bear population and then the game would go belly up if high sec ceased to exist. There is a reason low and null are a relatively ghost town compared to high sec. That being said, I do agree that criminals should have at least a chance to escape in 0.7 thru 0.5. The lore would dictate that to do so requires a non-empire clone and ships made outside empire space. I've never liked the fact that CONCORD can't be practically engaged. or that you'd be banned if you did manage to evade them.[/quote]
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2196
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
You're not being unreasonable here, so we can continue this discussion.
Okay, so you say that the attacking party needs to have some assets on the field for the defenders to attack. The sentiment here is fine, but if you consider ships and pods to be assets, and you should, then it's moot. The defending party can cause financial damage simply by destroying the attacking party's spaceships. The presence of POSes is irrelevant in that respect.
The real problem is that the defending parties aren't usually of the type who'd go after the attacking party's stuff, no matter what type of stuff it is. If they don't undock to get some ship kills, they sure as hell won't siege a POS.
And as far as provocation goes, you have to understand that it can take many forms, not just unlawful aggression, or insulting someone's mother. What if the aggression is in the form of a corporation moving into your area of operations and hitting your belts with mining fleets? What if it's in the form of someone moving in on your trade operations by flying in cheap goods from Jita? In EVE, violence is a perfectly acceptable counter, because this is a video game about big spaceships with huge guns. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
690
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.
EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now. R Tape Loading Error |
Daimon Kaiera
Kraken.
294
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
What about Market pvp? .... . .-.. .--. / .. / .... .- ...- . / ..-. .- .-.. .-.. . -. / .- -. -.. / .. / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / --. . - / ..- .--. / ... - --- .--. - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / -. --- - / ... - --- .-.. . -. / ... - --- .--. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6782
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?
Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?
Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8116
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation?
What are these "high sec rules?" Oh, right: attacking another player who is not at war with you will get you blown up by CONCORD. If they're at war with you, you can freely engage them.
Nothing is being circumvented. Game's working as intended. Here's a tissue. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2196
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
I don't know why people still call this game "ruthless." It hasn't been ruthless since the day the Privateers got nerfed. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
2056
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Daimon Kaiera wrote:Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
What about Market pvp?
What about it? The OP is about war decs and not market PVP.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8116
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I don't know why people still call this game "ruthless." It hasn't been ruthless since the day the Privateers got nerfed.
It's just so that carebears can feel better about themselves because they play a "ruthless" game while decrying everyone that makes it ruthless Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:You're not being unreasonable here, so we can continue this discussion.
Okay, so you say that the attacking party needs to have some assets on the field for the defenders to attack. The sentiment here is fine, but if you consider ships and pods to be assets, and you should, then it's moot. The defending party can cause financial damage simply by destroying the attacking party's spaceships. The presence of POSes is irrelevant in that respect.
No, I definitely shouldn't consider ship destruction an actual lose. That's like going to Flight of 1000 Rifters and thinking you're hurting somebody by blowing up their rifter.
You really think you're harming anyone who eagerly and voluntarily gives you the right to blow their stuff up? No. you're not. That is exactly what they want and what they came in expecting. They have more than enough income to cover it. And that income doesn't have to come from any character in that corp. On the other hand, that doesn't mean you have the income to deal with their harassment seeing as the force that is supposed to protect you just sold you out for profit, but that's another story. Take RvB. Do you think they are going home crying when they have their skirmishes and people lose ships? You think that's any kind of setback? Hell no. They love it. And they do it while respecting the community by not forcing themselves on others (not that I am aware of).
With an asset requirement it doesn't matter if they are willing to lose them or not. If I blow up there stations I win and wars over. Now I've taken something away from them that they care about: The ability to ignore high sec rules. There are other issues which arise, like mega alliances picking wars with small corps that couldn't take on a POS if they tried, but that's for another discussion.
If I declare war on you I am looking to nullify high sec. I am asking for the right to risk my ship. For the issuer, they get everything they want and have nothing to lose. I personally feel that is utter BS. If you want to kill me in high sec and ruin my day I should be able to ruin yours too. That seems perfectly reasonable vs. me telling someone "if you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp." Guilds are one of the most basic features of the MMO genre. And, no, NPC corps are NOT real corps. It's just a forced grouping of people without rank, structure, goals, etc. meant to - get his - push you towards a player corp by instituting a 10% tax. In the guild search function what is the point in setting criteria concerning PvP if merely being in a corp automatically means any other corp can force PvP on you without repercussions? You're a high sec mining guild you say? Nope, I just declared war on you. Now you're a nullish sec PvP/mining guild.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The real problem is that the defending parties aren't usually of the type who'd go after the attacking party's stuff, no matter what type of stuff it is. If they don't undock to get some ship kills, they sure as hell won't siege a POS.
That's a gross generalization. There are many corps that aren't interested in PvPing everywhere they go, but will defend themselves. If you war dec me I'm going to break your ****. Period. If I can't then you have all the power and I'm just forced to play your game by your rules. That does strike my as very sandbox at all. It sounds like a knee jerk reaction to PvPers tired of slim picking in low/null who whined loud enough.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And as far as provocation goes, you have to understand that it can take many forms, not just unlawful aggression, or insulting someone's mother. What if the aggression is in the form of a corporation moving into your area of operations and hitting your belts with mining fleets? What if it's in the form of someone moving in on your trade operations by flying in cheap goods from Jita? In EVE, violence is a perfectly acceptable counter, because this is a video game about big spaceships with huge guns.
That's called capitalism. It's business.
What if you fly into the radar site I arrived at 10 seconds earlier and take something from a hub? What if I arrive at a Gurista Refuge and see you already popping "my" rats. Can I give CONCORD a few ISK to kill you and remove the competition? Since when does anyone hold legitimate claim to asteroids in Empire space anyway? It's empire space, belonging to the empires. You mine, sell, trade and conduct business at their pleasure. You don't have the right to violently wipe out competing businesses. You can stake sovereignty claims in null, but it's null. No need to CONCORD war. And if your sovereignty was challenged and you did declare war I have no issue with it spilling into high sec as it originates with a sovereignty dispute.
But just up and deciding out of the blue you want to kill some random people in high sec "just because" is ridiculous. It defeats the whole point of high sec. And rather people want to accept it or not EVE is NOT a PvP-centric game and it is not a true sandbox. Full time PvPers are a minority. I like PvP (mainly large scale), but I acknowledge that most want nothing to do with it or, at the least, don't want to deal with it everywhere they go.
|
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.
EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now.
There is nothing sandbox about war decs, which came out a few years ago I've heard. Is high sec a sandbox under CONCORD jurisdiction? Nope. Capital ship restrictions? Nope. Interdiction limitations? Nope.
Eve has a player run economy, but that alone doesn't make it a sandbox. Empire space is not a true sandbox and never has been as far as I can tell.
baltec1 wrote:Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?
Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?
Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks
How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.
You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.
I'm confused at your statements. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:EvE has being doing just fine for the last 10 years. This game is a ruthless old school sandbox mmo-rpg game, the last of its kind, that's the secret of its longevity.
EVE Online thrives, and will still be played years from now. There is nothing sandbox about war decs, which came out a few years ago I've heard. Is high sec a sandbox under CONCORD jurisdiction? Nope. Capital ship restrictions? Nope. Interdiction limitations? Nope. Eve has a player run economy, but that alone doesn't make it a sandbox. Empire space is not a true sandbox and never has been as far as I can tell. baltec1 wrote:Why can a corp avoid a wardec at no cost or drawback?
Why can players drop corp and enter another the second a wardec lands at no cost or hassle?
Wardecs are indeed broken but not in the way the OP thinks How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know. You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe. I'm confused at your statements. Been playing EvE since 2003 and war decs were in then, they were cheaper too.
As to how you avoid war decs. You create a corp or alliance with a navy wing of decent PvPrs. You provide them ships, modules, clones. When you get decced which will be rarely they take care of business. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6786
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:
How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.
You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.
I'm confused at your statements.
From tomorrow, you can drop corp the second the wardec lands. |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
Andski wrote:Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? What are these "high sec rules?" Oh, right: attacking another player who is not at war with you will get you blown up by CONCORD. If they're at war with you, you can freely engage them. Nothing is being circumvented. Game's working as intended. Here's a tissue.
Of course it's being circumvented. It's high sec and it effectively takes a high sec status arbitrarily at the whim of any corp with enough ISK to buy off CONCORD. "Working as intended" doesn't mean it's a good thing or makes sense. I'd have thought "real PvPer" would love the ability to actually beat another side. But here you come crying at the thought that you might actually have to put something valuable on the line to wage a supposed war or that you could actually lose. It's PvP care bearing at it's best. OMG, the poor schmucks I declared war on can actually hurt me back?!?!? Oh noes!!
Here's your tissue. You need it more than I do. |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Prototype SV-17 wrote:
How do you avoid a war dec? This is not possible as far as I know.
You cannot do this as far as I know. There is a certain amount of time you must remain in the corp before you can leave once the corp has been war dec'd. Or so I have been lead to believe.
I'm confused at your statements.
From tomorrow, you can drop corp the second the wardec lands.
That's an odd change. I kind of understand where CCP is coming from on that, but it would be a knee jerk "fix" (if you can even call it that) to a bigger problem.
So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2196
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 22:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ouch, you wrote a lot of stuff. I can't start quoting specific things at this point so I'll just loosely address what you said, in order, in a numbered list.
1. Money is money, and ships cost money, just like POS modules. Requiring aggressors to own POSes wouldn't change anything since they'd be prepared to lose them, just like they're prepared to lose ships.
2. The existence of victory conditions might be a good addition, but once again, if most people are unwilling to fight spaceships, they will also be unwilling to siege POSes.
3. Large alliances rarely go after much smaller entities. In fact the opposite is true, to the extent that CCP had to turn war fees into a pay-per-target ordeal.
4. Entities who declare wars do have something to lose; their ships, pods, implants, property, et cetera. Just because the defenders are unwilling to cause those losses doesn't mean the attackers aren't putting themselves at risk. So yes, you can ruin the attackers' day just fine, on your own initiative.
5. "If you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp" is a rather accurate sentiment, although it's more along the lines of "if you can't defend your property, don't expose said property to the additional risk inherent in the player corporation system." Player corporations aren't an entitlement; they're a privilege. If you can't hold your own in-game, then stick to the NPC corporations, or get into a well-run player corporation that can hold its own to learn the ropes before you go out to make your own.
6. From my own experience as someone who has conducted over a thousand wars during the past half decade alone, I can tell you that the grand majority of corporations that aren't interested in pvp will not defend themselves if exposed to it.
7. Sure, I'd wardec you. Who's your main? And no, you won't break my ****, lol. I've caused more people to quit this game than the amount of terrorists the US has killed in Afghanistan. Yes, I keep count.
8. This game isn't a direct representation of real life. We fly spaceships, and shoot big guns. When there's a conflict of interest in regard to natural resources or the market, we don't sue opposing parties in the court of CCP. In fact, such avenues aren't even available to us, because they don't exist. But guns exist, and the ability to use them on other players exists too. That's pretty much the point of EVE Online.
9. Yeah, in EVE, you pretty much have the right to wipe out competing businesses. Once again, this is a game based on unrealistic principles. You'll have to deal with this, or find another game.
10. High-sec is merely "safer." It doesn't mean that the safety is absolute.
11. Wars have actually been in the game since the beginning, pretty much. They certainly didn't come out a "few years ago."
12. You can avoid wars pretty easily. Also, if you don't have roles, you can leave a corporation whenever you want. Corp-hopping has been a pretty big issue for the past few years.
13. "So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified?" Yes. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
|
Lexar Mundi
DYNAMIC INTERVENTION ORPHANS OF EVE
55
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 23:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.
And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.
I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?
Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason. So you are saying I should not be able to war dec ice miners just because i want an ice belt all to myself? I think that is part of war. You fight over resources no matter where they are.
Quote:Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes? lol sounds like the real world doesn't it. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8117
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 23:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Of course it's being circumvented. It's high sec and it effectively takes away a high sec status arbitrarily at the whim of any corp with enough ISK to buy off CONCORD. "Working as intended" doesn't mean it's a good thing or makes sense. I'd have thought "real PvPer" would love the ability to actually beat another side. But here you come crying at the thought that you might actually have to put something valuable on the line to wage a supposed war or that you could actually lose. It's PvP care bearing at it's best. OMG, the poor schmucks I declared war on can actually hurt me back?!?!? Oh noes!!
Here's your tissue. You need it more than I do.
You understand that a POS + the cost of keeping it up for a month doesn't even come close to the cost of even one of the ships they tend to use to wreck you, right? Putting up a small tower somewhere and keeping it fueled isn't really an obstacle to any wardec corp. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Arronicus
Chromeria WHY so Seri0Us
655
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 00:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote: Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s).
Just going to point out this is essentially being put into effect with the new tags-for-security system. Since a) Concord will pay isk for the specific tags b) Concord will increase your security rating (standing) for the tags and c) Players can sell you the tags for isk;
You can essentially pay concord isk, indirectly, to repair your sec status after ganking. Essentially, you pay them the ship you want to use, + the portion of the cost of the tag, for the chance at suicide ganking. It's basically a cost proportionate to what you want to gank with, bribe system =) |
Paul Panala
Beyond the Shadows
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 00:15:00 -
[24] - Quote
The war system is broken. A corp should be able to declare war on another. I am not saying high-sec should be 100% safe, but the current system is super broken. I have long said there should be a way to "WIN" a war and end it. I was in a pretty large corp with a lot of PvP pilots, we just lived in high sec as a staging area and to support some of our newer players. We would get war deced all the time. We would flat-out win every engagement, so they just avoided us. However, as long as the war went on they would use cloaked T3s to pop in our systems and try to smash noobs, sad really. |
BoSau Hotim
Whale Whatchers
5363
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 01:20:00 -
[25] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.
And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.
I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?
Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.
?? Wardecs circumvent hisec rules? no, they don't. They adhere to high-sec rules.
But once again OP proves my point that SOME players think that THEIR set of "unpoken rules" that THEY believe EVERY players should live by is the ONLY way EvE should be played. EvE is not set up your way OP for a reason, because it is not your creation.
If I want to wardec a corporation who are you to tell me why or why I can't? Does any country that invades another country always go through a council and find out if their war is ok with the world? NO. Who are you to say when there is or isn't provocation? Maybe I dec because a mining corp is mining out noob starter systems, or maybe they bumped my ship, or were rude to me in local, or killed a m8 of mine.... which reason do YOU accept or not accept?
Maybe if you come to the realization that EvE is (IMO) first and foremost a PVP game with lots of alternative paths to take, but the making and blowing up of ships drives the markets and the game.
... and next? are you going to cry out for justice and saying that suicide ganking is not fair too in hisec?
You don't understand EvE yet my friend.
*GLOMP* with your AltGäó-á |
Haulie Berry
861
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 01:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
Military experts are calling this a "shitpost". |
BoSau Hotim
Whale Whatchers
5364
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 01:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote: The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.
There is a goal in war that is already accomplished... the destruction of ships, sometimes the destruction of corporations. It is easy to see who the winner is (if there are actual battles) when you look at the war report. It's your opinion that it's pointless fighting for the sake of fighting, because there are MANY of us out there that dec for the PVP action.
So since you believe it's pointless fighting for the sake of fighting, but a huge amount of us don't agree with you where does that leave this discussion? Don't fight then. Stay in an NPC corp - or jump out of your corp if there is a dec and play your happy little game the way you want. But don't try to speak for the rest of us.
I like to fight for the pure pleasure of fighting and blowing things up.
Boom
The only things I would change would be allowing a corporation to dec another coporation alone even if it is in an alliance, and I would change the wardec payment depending on the size of the corp that is dec'ing, smaller cost for a smaller corp. *GLOMP* with your AltGäó-á |
Nariya Kentaya
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
607
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 02:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
judging by the way the expansions and whatnot seem to want to make everything easier and quicker with less effort from the player, were likely to se "pvp-free regions" and "pvp-immunity" here in about a year or two. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2197
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 02:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
judging by the way the expansions and whatnot seem to want to make everything easier and quicker with less effort from the player, were likely to se "pvp-free regions" and "pvp-immunity" here in about a year or two. A few years ago I estimated that they'll remove suicide-ganking sometimes within 2014, possibly by doing something that interferes with player weaponry, most likely around celestial objects (stations, gates, belts). They'll pass it off as another CONCORD balancing buff, just like the warp scramble ray, front-loaded penalties, et cetera, while saying "no no, EVE is a harsh and dangerous place, we will never remove your ability to shoot other players anywhere you want, you can still do it in deadspace, see!?" So far, I'm standing by this prediction. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front New Creation Collective
383
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 09:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:The only stipulation I would add is that any corp or alliance wanting to declare unprovoked war needs to have assets that the other side can attack. There should be a goal in a war. Currently it is nothing more than a means to circumvent high sec rules. It is just pointless fighting for the sake of fighting with no end until the issuer decides it doesn't want to play anymore. That is not a war by any means. If I was to guess - and it's only a guess - the PvP crowd are the loudest at the table and weren't satisfied with the slim pickings in low/null so CCP caved in.
Your sense of history is pretty much opposite of the way it actually went down. The fundamental principle of this game is expressed in its name - Everybody Versus Everybody. In the early days EVE was intended to be pretty much a PvP free for all. High security meant more security than low or null, but still fundamentally a PvP free for all. Over the years, lots of whiney care bear threads (much like this one) appeared on the forums crying for more security in high sec, and little by little CCP caved under the pressure. Nerf after nerf has made highsec the almost-safe-almost-themepark that we have today. And yet still the care bears cry for more nerfs to high sec PvP, as you have shown us.
War decs are not a means of "circumventing highsec rules", they are a fundamental and indispensible part of highsec rules, which has existed almost since the beginning of EVE. If you want an example of a mechanic that truly amounts to a circumvention of highsec rules, look at the way and defending corp in a wardec can simply disband and reform, nullifying the wardec and hitting the aggressors for the fee.
I do, however, agree with you that the wardec system could use another look by the devs. The main issues with it are wardec evasion on the part of the defenders, and cost of wardec fees. Your idea of forcing the aggressors to slap up a small tower somewhere just amounts to an additional fee, which would be negligible for the major wardec corps and would pose an obstacle for smaller corps looking to get into the game.
It would be nice if the system had more consequences for aggressors losing a war, and rewards for winning it, but I'm not sure what that could realistically look like. The idea should be to encourage more conflict, not to discourage it, and to provide incentive even for industrial and PVE corps to fight wars. I would love to see a situation where industrial corps were fighting each other over control of the highsec ice belts, for example. Join the Revolutionary Front and liberate New Eden from it's stuff.
|
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1465
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 09:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
Nothing important happens in highsec. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Miss Altiana
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 09:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
OP do have a point, you all know that EVE advertice several careers, Miner, Industrialist, these two as a example, means if i choose to play these two careers in EVE, i should be able to fight back with options available as a Miner and Industrialist, i shouldent have to need to use space ships, there should be viable economic ways to fight back with. These tools dont exist at moment
PvP is not equal to SvS(ship vs ship), PvP stands for a player versus player, but i as a fairly noob to this genere realice that the majoirity in this thread advocate SvS and not PvP, ie there need to be more ways to fight back with, or are you saying the game designers are wrong and that the game careers Miner and Industrialist is a lie ;P
Is abit funny, thinking that force is the predominate way to hurt each other, and only way, in a era as advanced as this, but then again most males when placed before a wall, will take a sledge and try to knock it down, while any sane woman will open the door and walk through ! ;P |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
342
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 09:56:00 -
[33] - Quote
Of course they do, it's called hiring mercs to handle the dirty work. You can be strong in terms of firepower, strong financially or you can try outsmarting your opponents and leaving them nothing to shoot at. You don't have to play their game in order to fight back. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2202
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 10:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
As someone who's run a mercenary corporation for a while, I can assuredly tell you that while "miners" and "industrialists" will explore the possibility of mercenaries during hostilities, most will quickly let go of the idea once they are informed that the mercenaries would have to receive some form of compensation for their work. And therein lies the problem with this game, two problems actually:
1. This game, like all other games, is played by children, or adults with the minds of children, who are too young/uneducated/nonerudite to understand the concept of opportunity cost beyond the rudimentary my-first-poker-game "the more I bet the more I can win" level, which causes them to forgo the opportunity to solve a problem at its very roots in favor of putting as many mining laser upgrades on their Hulks to be able to mine as much as possible before the war goes live, forcing them to stay offline for a week. 2. It is so easy to avoid hostilities if you spend ten minutes reading about how the mechanics actually work, that hiring mercenaries isn't just cost-inefficient, but downright stupid.
Miss Altiana wrote:Is abit funny, thinking that force is the predominate way to hurt each other, and only way, in a era as advanced as this, but then again most males when placed before a wall, will take a sledge and try to knock it down, while any sane woman will open the door and walk through ! ;P Is that before or after the door is built by the males who made a hole with the hammers? I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 10:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
Kinda agree with Destiny too, although there's always a point where hiring mercs will become viable, such as if you've already **** the bed and are looking at the reinforcement timer of your industry pos with no way to protect the assets foolishly stored within. In this case too though, being smart in the first place would've prevented the issue entirely and allowed you to take down the tower in the 24 hour time you have before a war declaration goes live. Or even just doing the investigation and finding out that it's more than possible to remotely do your research jobs without ever endangering your blueprints which would be safely tucked away in the corp hangar in a station you rent office from.
Long story short; one way or another you have to either be smarter or stronger than them. And absolutely everyone has that option from the lowliest miner to the so called elite pvp'rs, what that way is varies from time to time and there's always going to be people who have the means to beat you in that way, resulting in you having to rethink how to best protect yourself. Just the way it goes. |
Amyclas Amatin
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC The Kadeshi
106
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
I'd say wardeccing you because I want you rebels to disband is a pretty good reason.
Also, with so much wealth in high-sec, it's a pretty juicy target for aggression. Profit is also a good reason. Please help me with my survey on high-sec aggression: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1dLcM27c_qDyOIxFgE4Zan_T8j_eZDDeCUAEL4lwXGC8/viewform |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war? |
Haramir Haleths
Nutella Bande
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
Hi,
the good thing about Eve is you have always a choice ...
1. Go to a non player corp. They cannot wardec you in non player corps. 2. Go to 00. They dont wardec you in 00 3. Be clever .... use game mechanics to avoid being ganked
So many choices.
With best regards |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:54:00 -
[39] - Quote
None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. |
Kathy Stewart
Blackwater Swat. Against ALL Authorities
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
stay in your npc then |
|
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 11:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war.
If you want to force them to retract the war, make them regret declaring it in the first place. Means to do that are completely up to you. Can't think of any? You lost. |
Kathy Stewart
Blackwater Swat. Against ALL Authorities
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:01:00 -
[42] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war? own them |
Cannibal Kane
Somali Coast Guard Authority
1828
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war.
ISK makes me retract a war. "I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. If you want to force them to retract the war, make them regret declaring it in the first place.
That is not forcing them, that's persuading them. |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:03:00 -
[45] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. ISK makes me retract a war.
No it doesn't. It might make you CHOOSE to retract one, but you are not obligated to do so whether you want to or not. |
Cannibal Kane
Somali Coast Guard Authority
1829
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. ISK makes me retract a war. No it doesn't. It might make you CHOOSE to retract one, but you are not obligated to do so whether you want to or not.
Since you seem to think you know me. Let's test it.
I am going to wardec you, then lets test and see if I choose not to drop the war if ISK is offered. "I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Seetesh
RTS - POS Deployments
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:10:00 -
[47] - Quote
If this is causing you to cry I am more that happy to hold your hand for you and point you in the direction of a "easy" mmo with no real loss factors. If that's too much grow a pair and understand this is eve and its what makes eve so great. Ten years on and I still love this game. |
Xaveus Young
Ashrum Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:12:00 -
[48] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape. Does that sound like a good compromise to you? Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is likely to change pretty soon. Fixed that for ya.
Concord police are just like real police, they show up long after you are dead... "All Men Shall Pay In Full" |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:12:00 -
[49] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. ISK makes me retract a war. No it doesn't. It might make you CHOOSE to retract one, but you are not obligated to do so whether you want to or not. Since you seem to think you know me.
Since you seem to be unable to read, let me try words of one syllable.
Me give you money not MAKE you stop war. You CHOOSE to stop war if I give you money. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2203
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war? OK, so someone undercuts my market sell order - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract their order?
OK, so someone logs in a mining fleet after downtime and mines out the ore in my system while I'm at work - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract their industrial operations?
OK, so someone warps their Ishtar into the 4/10 DED I'm running - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract their drones and leave the complex? I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
|
Uzbeg Khan
Phantom Squad Insidious Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Stuff
Leave hisec and wardecs stop mattering entirely.
You'll also have alot more fun playing the game.
Things I hate: - Signatures - Irony - Lists |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Seetesh wrote:If this is causing you to cry I am more that happy to hold your hand for you and point you in the direction of a "easy" mmo with no real loss factors. If that's too much grow a pair and understand this is eve and its what makes eve so great. Ten years on and I still love this game.
I don't think the OP is too much concerned that he might lose. He just wants to know how he can win. A corp that wants to fight can force another corp into a war; how can the latter corp, force them out of it?
Sure, they can fight, but that's giving the enemy what they want. They can pay someone else to fight, but that's still giving the enemy what they want. They can stay docked for a week but that's just refusing to play until the enemy gets bored.
Since corps can deliver a CONCORD message to other corps that says "you are going to be at war in 24 hours, like it or not" then, for the principle to be equal in both directions, it should be possible to deliver a CONCORD message that says "the war you declared will be over in 24 hours, like it or not."
The OP's idea of making them have a POS somewhere is - I think, but I could be very wrong! - not about forcing the enemy to lose ISK, but about giving you a chance to END the war, in your favour, at a time of YOUR choosing. Take a corp's POS away and the war ends immediately, they lose. At the moment, a war only ends when the corporation who declared it decides that it will end - or forgets to pay the weekly fee. (There used to be a mechanic whereby a CEO could pay another CEO in exchange for an end to the war - I don't think anyone ever used it, because the other CEO could agree the ceasefire then declare another war immediately afterwards, so it was completely pointless. I don't even know if it still exists.) |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:23:00 -
[53] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Baldour Ngarr wrote:None of the those three choices will force them to retract the war. ISK makes me retract a war. No it doesn't. It might make you CHOOSE to retract one, but you are not obligated to do so whether you want to or not. Since you seem to think you know me. Since you seem to be unable to read, let me try words of one syllable. Me give you money not MAKE you stop war. You CHOOSE to stop war if I give you money.
The current wardeclarations and surrend offers are made in such way that infact you CAN offer money which if accepted WILL end the war declaration. It is up the them to choose whether to take that offer or not, and you to keep rising the stakes until they do. Just because you can't think of any other reasons to make the war go away, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Playing with semantics doesn't change it one bit, on the contrary. It'll just get people annoyed which in return is as good reason as any to do just that and declare a war on you. Hell, even boredom is just as good reason as any. |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:23:00 -
[54] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:It defeats the whole point of high sec. And rather people want to accept it or not EVE is NOT a PvP-centric game and it is not a true sandbox. Full time PvPers are a minority. I like PvP (mainly large scale), but I acknowledge that most want nothing to do with it or, at the least, don't want to deal with it everywhere they go.
It is PvP-centric as the game revolves around PvP. It has PvE elements as crafting and trading, but you understand quickly what it's true aim is.
The war decs are a mixed bag. It's something PvErs like, since they can just hire a merc corp to beat up some butthole (which in PvE games isn't an option). So it serves a purpose in high sec. Does it have problems? Yes, especially if used as a means to simply harass. But it works in the framework of a PvP game. It gives an otherwise dead aspect of the game something to do; let's mouthbreathers find shiny targets to drool over to kill; and that PvE Jita trader never had to get his hands dirty in PvP. Merc is paid, contractor got the problem settled, and the jerk maybe learned a lesson.
True, a war is about mass destruction and conquering (and more than it's pawns in a war), and the assets folks are willing to depart with are nominal. So "war dec" is stretching the definition of conducting a real war, as folks aren't really losing unrecoverable assets (they can just hop to Jita for replacements). It's more like a "police action" by players.
In the end EvE is about PvP to an extent, as much as it's a sandbox to an extent. Other factors are mixed in to make it not truly a PvP game nor a sandbox (a true sandbox game is god mode, and that won't work well in a MMO). It's just the way it is.
Personally, high sec should be PvP free, but limited to players who haven't skilled to a certain level (e.g., not standard in core skills to survive in a ship). After they do, CONCORD kicks them out into low or null station to play the game as intended. High sec should be a newbie zone, not where low/null sec mains park their alts to craft and trade. When the game is played more like PvP, with hard to recover from assets destroyed, then folks will police themselves better...and the landscape can truly change (e.g., Goons will have to do more than blob). "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:[ The current wardeclarations and surrend offers are made in such way that infact you CAN offer money which if accepted WILL end the war declaration. It is up the them to choose whether to take that offer or not, and you to keep rising the stakes until they do. Just because you can't think of any other reasons to make the war go away, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Again you miss the point. The OP is not asking how he can arrange an end to the war; he's asking how he can actually make the declaring corporation LOSE, by them being told the war is over whether they like it or not. |
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops
1502
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:27:00 -
[56] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum.
I like this. This is a good idea. New POS module incoming! No more one man afk cloaky stealth bomber miner killers with no PvP skill. I personally think we need more anchorable assets in general. It would make warfare feel much more meaningful. I want to see player owned customs offices in highsec.
The POS module could allow people to pay off CONCORD within so many light years of the module. So that people couldn't put up a POS in the ass end of amarr highsec and go kill people in Jita with no risk of the POS ever being found.
PS: Ninja edited. "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Cannibal Kane
Somali Coast Guard Authority
1829
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:29:00 -
[57] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Prototype SV-17 wrote:If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum. I like this. This is a good idea. New POS module incoming! I didn't even read the rest of the OP.
That would be alright.
And it must be an active pos with a forcefield. All I shall say is. Good luck to a corp finding that pos I am at war with. "I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
343
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:[ The current wardeclarations and surrend offers are made in such way that infact you CAN offer money which if accepted WILL end the war declaration. It is up the them to choose whether to take that offer or not, and you to keep rising the stakes until they do. Just because you can't think of any other reasons to make the war go away, doesn't mean there isn't one. Again you miss the point. The OP is not asking how he can arrange an end to the war; he's asking how he can actually make the declaring corporation LOSE, by them being told the war is over whether they like it or not.
A mechanic like that is impossible to create simply because for some wardeclaring corp a simple thing like a POS is completely meaningless, while for others it would be practically irreplaceable. Make their life in the game a living hell by any means you can come up with, once they realize they have no other choice but to end the war, then you can consider them the losers and yourself as the winner.
It's as simple as that. |
Baldour Ngarr
British Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:[quote=Baldour Ngarr][quote=Borlag Crendraven][ The current wardeclarations and surrend offers are made
Bullcrap. It could be an item bought off the market for 1 ISK, for all the difference it would make; just have it be deployed in space somewhere, and findable by the opposition. If your doodahwhatsit is destroyed by the enemy, war over you lose. Can't declare war on the same corporation again for four weeks. (It doesn't stop you fighting other people, it just means those guys beat you.)
There's already a way to make someone fight; this would be a way make them stop. |
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops
1502
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
Actually, the more I think about the idea of a POS module that allows war decs within a light year range of the module the more I want it. It would solve so many problems it's unreal. It would actually introduce tactics into highsec warfare. I might have to write up a features and ideas discussion for this later today... "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
|
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ouch, you wrote a lot of stuff. I can't start quoting specific things at this point so I'll just loosely address what you said, in order, in a numbered list.
1. Money is money, and ships cost money, just like POS modules. Requiring aggressors to own POSes wouldn't change anything since they'd be prepared to lose them, just like they're prepared to lose ships.
2. The existence of victory conditions might be a good addition, but once again, if most people are unwilling to fight spaceships, they will also be unwilling to siege POSes.
3. Large alliances rarely go after much smaller entities. In fact the opposite is true, to the extent that CCP had to turn war fees into a pay-per-target ordeal.
4. Entities who declare wars do have something to lose; their ships, pods, implants, property, et cetera. Just because the defenders are unwilling to cause those losses doesn't mean the attackers aren't putting themselves at risk. So yes, you can ruin the attackers' day just fine, on your own initiative.
5. "If you don't want war decs don't make or join a corp" is a rather accurate sentiment, although it's more along the lines of "if you can't defend your property, don't expose said property to the additional risk inherent in the player corporation system." Player corporations aren't an entitlement; they're a privilege. If you can't hold your own in-game, then stick to the NPC corporations, or get into a well-run player corporation that can hold its own to learn the ropes before you go out to make your own.
6. From my own experience as someone who has conducted over a thousand wars during the past half decade alone, I can tell you that the grand majority of corporations that aren't interested in pvp will not defend themselves if exposed to it.
7. Sure, I'd wardec you. Who's your main? And no, you won't break my ****, lol. I've caused more people to quit this game than the amount of terrorists the US has killed in Afghanistan. Yes, I keep count.
8. This game isn't a direct representation of real life. We fly spaceships, and shoot big guns. When there's a conflict of interest in regard to natural resources or the market, we don't sue opposing parties in the court of CCP. In fact, such avenues aren't even available to us, because they don't exist. But guns exist, and the ability to use them on other players exists too. That's pretty much the point of EVE Online.
9. Yeah, in EVE, you pretty much have the right to wipe out competing businesses. Once again, this is a game based on unrealistic principles. You'll have to deal with this, or find another game.
10. High-sec is merely "safer." It doesn't mean that the safety is absolute.
11. Wars have actually been in the game since the beginning, pretty much. They certainly didn't come out a "few years ago."
12. You can avoid wars pretty easily. Also, if you don't have roles, you can leave a corporation whenever you want. Corp-hopping has been a pretty big issue for the past few years.
13. "So what if the corp just disbands and then is recreated? War dec nullified?" Yes.
Yes, this is getting a bit longer than I'm willing to invest time :)
I really don't feel like addressing this point by point seeing as a lot of your responses aren't exactly completely relevant to the subject. Remember that what I am calling for is a means to retaliate meaningfully; a means to fight a war to its completion. No more. No less. I never said high sec 100% safe, I never said everyone would engage in my proposed war mechanics and I said war decs should be outright removed. None of the what if's or anecdotal accounts are relevant.
So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why?
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2204
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 12:59:00 -
[62] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:Again you miss the point. The OP is not asking how he can arrange an end to the war; he's asking how he can actually make the declaring corporation LOSE, by them being told the war is over whether they like it or not. You want a victory condition for the defending side in a war, but no victory conditions exist for the attacking side either. What, do you propose that the same conditions be applied to the defenders in a mirrored fashion? You think that the attackers would want to superfluously end their war in this manner? No, they wage war for a cause, and no matter what it is, it's virtually impossible to set up a workable system of victory conditions for the attackers that is both meaningful and can't be exploited by the defenders.
What if the goal of the attackers is to prevent the defenders from going to mine certain belts, or from trading in certain stations? Do you even know how impossible it would be for the developers to create winning conditions for the attackers in such an open-ended environment?
But go ahead, press your POS idea; it won't work the way you think it will. Do you really think that a bunch of miner bears will muster the troops to siege a death star in high sec? It's painful even when you have a good fleet of pvpers who can fly ships beyond haulers and mining barges. Good luck.
Prototype SV-17 wrote:So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why? I have nothing against the idea if it's properly implemented, but like I just said, it's impossible to implement victory conditions in such an open-ended environment, without transforming EVE pvp into a WoW-style battlegrounds experience.
The only thing that can remotely work is a simple tally of monetary damage caused, with a tie ruling in favor of the attackers (otherwise staying logged off for a week would make the defenders win by default). Anything else would require an infinite number of programming hours, because you can't create a system that uniformly enforces free-form contracts. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front New Creation Collective
383
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:16:00 -
[63] - Quote
Baldour Ngarr wrote:OK, so someone declares war on my corp - what move do I have that will FORCE them to retract the war?
You clearly have no idea how wardecs work. There is such a mechanic. Read this thread carefully and you will find it. Or spend 5 minutes googling. I was about to tell you all about it, but then I thought, "no... Cannibal Kane can teach him better than I can..."
Join the Revolutionary Front and liberate New Eden from it's stuff.
|
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:33:00 -
[64] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Prototype SV-17 wrote:So the question is: What do you have against the concept of being able to actually win and lose wars to bring them to conclusions? And why? I have nothing against the idea if it's properly implemented, but like I just said, it's impossible to implement victory conditions in such an open-ended environment, without transforming EVE pvp into a WoW-style battlegrounds experience. The only thing that can remotely work is a simple tally of monetary damage caused, with a tie ruling in favor of the attackers (otherwise staying logged off for a week would make the defenders win by default). Anything else would require an infinite number of programming hours, because you can't create a system that uniformly enforces free-form contracts.
If there are no victory conditions you have no war. And it's just a means to circumvent high sec and force non-consensual PvP on people without any repercussions. Nothing more. Nothing less. As there is no goal or reason other than pew-pew (typically against noobs who can't defend themselves) it has no legitimacy. In a game where time spent in-game reflects total skill points and hence total skill, high sec needs to serve as a new player nursery and relative safety net. If some guy who's been playing for 10 years wants to PvP he should look in low/null where there is an expectation of aggression. Not in high sec looking for 1 week old players who may very well NEVER catch up to him due to Eve's progression mechanics. It doesn't matter if you log in once a day for 1 minute or play 18 hours a day/7 days a week you take the same time to skill up.
If the POS costs lots of ISK and requires lots of time to construct (not some little tower that can be set in a day) I don't see why such structures can't be used as determining factors in war.
|
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote:[quote=Prototype SV-17] So you are saying I should not be able to war dec ice miners just because i want an ice belt all to myself? I think that is part of war. You fight over resources no matter where they are.
I'm imagining Nike repeatedly killing immortal Adidas employees - pointlessly and to no end, might I add - and calling it a "war". Or Walmart literally killing the competition.
No, at no point do I ever request that war decs be taken out. And it's not a part of war. The war dec system does not facilitate war. It facilitates unprovoked, unsolicited PvP in high sec, thus defeating the point in high sec. It's like saying low sec is a warzone. It's not. I can be, but the ability to attack another player is not the definition of war.
I'm seeing a consistent use of strawmen arguments being used in this thread to avoid the actual subject. The only request being made is that corp making unprovoked war decs most have costly destructible assets, which upon destruction remove their ability to war and thus signify terms of defeat. (i.e. wars can be won and lost and aren't just a cheap means to force PvP on people and circumvent high sec rules.)
The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills. The not-so-elusive "PvP carebears" who are quick to mock those so-called "carebears" who they terrorize (noobs with shallow pockets), but the mere thought that someone could terrorize them back in a meaningful way and dictate their gaming experience sends them into panic mode. It's utter hypocrisy.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2204
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 13:47:00 -
[66] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:If there are no victory conditions you have no war. And it's just a means to circumvent high sec and force non-consensual PvP on people without any repercussions. Nothing more. Nothing less. As there is no goal or reason other than pew-pew (typically against noobs who can't defend themselves) it has no legitimacy. In a game where time spent in-game reflects total skill points and hence total skill, high sec needs to serve as a new player nursery and relative safety net. If some guy who's been playing for 10 years wants to PvP he should look in low/null where there is an expectation of aggression. Not in high sec looking for 1 week old players who may very well NEVER catch up to him due to Eve's progression mechanics. It doesn't matter if you log in once a day for 1 minute or play 18 hours a day/7 days a week you take the same time to skill up. Okay, you hit like every troll point in that response, so I'm not sure I want to play with that. Someone else might, though.
Prototype SV-17 wrote:If the POS costs lots of ISK and requires lots of time to construct (not some little tower that can be set in a day) I don't see why such structures can't be used as determining factors in war. Because the defenders set up their POSes for industry, and the attackers will set them up purely for combat survival. The same relationship will exist between the attackers' POSes and the defenders that already exists between the attackers' ships and the members. If the defenders are unwilling to undock and fight a five-man aggressor corporation today, they sure as hell won't be willing to undock and fight a large tower with eleven hardeners, sixty ECM batteries, and medium artillery.
Also, all POSes pretty much take the same amount of time to set up. It's not really a job that takes over three hours, even with lots of modules. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2204
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 14:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills. You talk about strawmen and then give us a little gem like that and that just kills off whatever credibility your arguments had up to that point. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8120
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 14:26:00 -
[68] - Quote
you don't want wardecs reformed, you want them removed
seriously why do hiseccers whine, whine, whine whenever they realize that something exists that allows them to be blown up? when they don't whine about suicide ganking, they whine about wardecs; when they don't whine about wardecs, they whine about getting popped in lowsec
this is a game about blowing ships up. don't like it? keep your $15/month and get out Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 15:00:00 -
[69] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Because the defenders set up their POSes for industry, and the attackers will set them up purely for combat survival. The same relationship will exist between the attackers' POSes and the defenders that already exists between the attackers' ships and the members. If the defenders are unwilling to undock and fight a five-man aggressor corporation today, they sure as hell won't be willing to undock and fight a large tower with eleven hardeners, sixty ECM batteries, and medium artillery.
Also, all POSes pretty much take the same amount of time to set up. It's not really a job that takes over three hours, even with lots of modules.
If you're just going to cry troll and act indignant when someone doesn't share your views, we can just stop this right now. Let's not play the little internet victim game.
Any change can't be judged on current mechanics. Changes are never as simple as one facet. The POS station used in this case could be one specific to warfare. (i.e. an HQ base which is standard across the board). The defenders don't have to worry about this as they aren't the one's issuing unprovoked wars. The aggressors wouldn't destroy the defenders HQ base even if they had one as they'd want to continue the war for their own entertainment.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if corp B won't come out to fight corp A. That's their individual choice to hide under a rock. But just because you have some anecdotes concerning some corps within the confines of current mechanics doesn't mean that every corp in existence wouldn't utilize an opportunity to fight a war to an end.
Should the option not exist for anyone because (potentially) some would not use it? |
Prototype SV-17
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 15:06:00 -
[70] - Quote
Andski wrote:you don't want wardecs reformed, you want them removed
Strawman.
Andski wrote:
seriously why do hiseccers whine, whine, whine whenever they realize that something exists that allows them to be blown up? when they don't whine about suicide ganking, they whine about wardecs; when they don't whine about wardecs, they whine about getting popped in lowsec
Ad Hominem.
|
|
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
489
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 15:22:00 -
[71] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? If you want to declare war you should need to have an operational POS minimum unless you were attacked by a member of said corps. In which case, your corp could use the kill right to declare war through CONCORD (personally, I believe this is the only way you should be able to make war decs if not a null sec alliances/corp with sovereignty claims). If someone wants to war against me I should at least have a means of striking at them in a meaningful way. Ship to ship PvP is not striking at them. That's what they want. They would not have declared war if they thought losing ships was detrimental. Wars are a bad joke in this game where you look for red flashing pilots from some corp you'd never even heard of prior to the war dec.
And I use to term "war" lightly as it isn't war. War requires things like borders, assets, etc. You can win a war by permanently eliminating any adversary, their holdings, or ruining them economically. All "war" decs are is circumventing the rules of high sec by paying off crooked cops (CONCORD). Given the current system, why can't I just randomly pay CONCORD a little ISK to unprovokedly destroy any random player(s). Know about independent miner or freighter pilots that frequents an area? Pay CONCORD for kill rights and don't worry about suicide ganking. I don't see how the war dec system is any different other than it being between alliance/corps.
I understand CONCORD allowing null sec alliances to fight in high sec if they are at war and I understand war decs based on acts of aggression, but sanctioning unprovoked killing just because someone pays them to get permission to kill people seems... odd. Isn't CONCORD supposed to police capsuleers and not be accomplices to their crimes?
Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. People tend to get very rude in this game when opposing views are expressed for some reason.
If you want care-free happy lala land, you're in the wrong mmo.
In eve, if you want to feel safe, understand that NPC's will not provide this for you. Either yourself or other players are the only thing in eve that can provide you with the security you desire.
If you don't like it, most people will tell you to htfu or leave. I would suggest to you that you give it a try, and you might find interacting with people ( even when it's in a way you'd rather not ) can be far more entertaining than most other mmo premises.
Even losing your ships can sometimes create the greatest war stories.
I hope you learn to love eve, but either way,
Fly well or fare-well,
o/
Ris Dnalor
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8121
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 15:29:00 -
[72] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:The only reason to oppose such a thing is if you are a griefer looking for easy kills. The not-so-elusive "PvP carebears" who are quick to mock those so-called "carebears" who they terrorize (noobs with shallow pockets), but the mere thought that someone could terrorize them back in a meaningful way and dictate their gaming experience sends them into panic mode. It's utter hypocrisy.
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Strawman.
and thank you for playing Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Troedoff Dude
Gambino Crime Family
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 15:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
OP you sir are an idiot. I routinely fly ships that cost ten times as much as a pos. If you take one of my pos's down, I'll put up ten more. They aren't that large of an expense. Blow up a handful of my faction fit pirate ships or other shinies and you dent my wallet. This probably sounds foreign to you, but I make my isk with MasterCard, and I don't care if I make one single isk, or loot one wreck. I play eve to blow **** up. Your **** my **** everybodies ****. Good luck mining, and doing whatever carebearish things you do, seeya soon. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight
100
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 16:40:00 -
[74] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:Why are corps with nothing to lose allowed to circumvent high sec rules and declare wars on other corps without prior provocation? ... I was going to explain the rationale for this game mechanic here, but this and this should cover it nicely.
p.s. WoW is that way
p.p.s. I was going to dec you, but your hiding out in an NPC corp. ::sadpanda:: Will you be joining a real corp anytime soon? http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca |
BoSau Hotim
Whale Whatchers
5372
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 03:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
So the scenario seems to be boiling down to a 'capture the flag' scenario in a way? or destroy the flag may be more like it. *GLOMP* with your AltGäó-á |
Canthan Rogue
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 03:24:00 -
[76] - Quote
Let's be honest, most high sec war decs do not result in quality PvP. Nothing of value will be lost if wealthy, high SP players will no longer be able to gate camp or play station games with newbie corps. If you want to encourage PvP, the way to do it is to get people out of high sec with various incentives, not to facilitate high sec PvP through one particular broken mechanic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8137
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 19:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:Let's be honest, most high sec war decs do not result in quality PvP. Nothing of value will be lost if wealthy, high SP players will no longer be able to gate camp or play station games with newbie corps. If you want to encourage PvP, the way to do it is to get people out of high sec with various incentives, not to facilitate high sec PvP through one particular broken mechanic.
i'm sorry that your 3000-man highsec-based alliance with far more high-SP characters than any wardec corp can't take on the famous PvP powerhouse that is "German Freakshow" but that doesn't mean wardecs need to go, nor does it make them broken Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8137
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 19:13:00 -
[78] - Quote
also if you want playstyle segregation, kindly find the door Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
667
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:24:00 -
[79] - Quote
Troedoff Dude wrote:OP you sir are an idiot. I routinely fly ships that cost ten times as much as a pos. If you take one of my pos's down, I'll put up ten more. They aren't that large of an expense. Blow up a handful of my faction fit pirate ships or other shinies and you dent my wallet. This probably sounds foreign to you, but I make my isk with MasterCard, and I don't care if I make one single isk, or loot one wreck. I play eve to blow **** up. Your **** my **** everybodies ****. Good luck mining, and doing whatever carebearish things you do, seeya soon. Part of the goal here isn't just isk damage. In fact isk damage for a defender may well be entirely irrelevant. Even if the defender takes down 1B while only losing 10m themselves it's in the end just a 10m loss in addition to the general disruptive nature of the wardec. Since that disruption is what is meaningful, being able to end the war is likely to be of far greater value then being able to "hurt" the wallets of people whom if they are smart are only fielding what they are prepared to lose.
Having war goals isn't about hurting the attacker's wallet, it's about getting back to doing what you were doing before the war quicker. |
Beliar Gray
Alpha Sleepers
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:31:00 -
[80] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:You agree to be subject to non-consentual PVP every time you undock.
It's been that way for 10 years and is not likely to change.
/thread |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8148
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 20:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
Canthan Rogue wrote:the way to do it is to get people out of high sec with various incentives, not to facilitate high sec PvP through one particular broken mechanic.
okay let's nerf incursions into the ground, like so far into the ground that the incursion "communities" will dissolve and maybe have their members pay out of pocket for their accounts, or better yet, get out Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
BoSau Hotim
Whale Whatchers
5375
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 09:36:00 -
[82] - Quote
Prototype SV-17 wrote:If there are no victory conditions you have no war. And it's just a means to circumvent high sec and force non-consensual PvP on people without any repercussions. Nothing more. Nothing less. As there is no goal or reason other than pew-pew (typically against noobs who can't defend themselves) it has no legitimacy. In a game where time spent in-game reflects total skill points and hence total skill, high sec needs to serve as a new player nursery and relative safety net. If some guy who's been playing for 10 years wants to PvP he should look in low/null where there is an expectation of aggression. Not in high sec looking for 1 week old players who may very well NEVER catch up to him due to Eve's progression mechanics. It doesn't matter if you log in once a day for 1 minute or play 18 hours a day/7 days a week you take the same time to skill up. If the POS costs lots of ISK and requires lots of time to construct (not some little tower that can be set in a day) I don't see why such structures can't be used as determining factors in war.
You still have not stated which high sec rules are being 'circumvented' in wardecs. I know this has been stated before, but every time you undock you are consenting to possible pvp. The thing is for noobs to learn this as quickly as possible and learn what they can do to minimize their losses which many of them do with the help of other pilots and corporations.
A noob may never catch up skill wise to a 10yr old player, but that does not mean that he cannot join a corporation who can whoop 10yr old butts.
Because you dont' like the idea of wardec PvP for the sake of PvP does not mean that isn't a good reason or a good goal for many of the players of EvE. It doesn't make it illegit or even wrong as you make it out to be.
You have your own code of how you think EvE should be played. Like the 10 year old pilot you mentioned above. You say that he should only look in low or null for a fight. Why? Because you are trying to push your own gaming values on everyone else.
That 10 year old pilot earned the right to fight whoever he wants and play as he wants. As you do. Yes, someone's play style will impact your play style, even violently without provocation. That is how the devs intended this game to work, even in high sec. *GLOMP* with your AltGäó-á |
Cismet
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 12:04:00 -
[83] - Quote
You know, the mechanism of having a PoS probably won't work and having a free-form contractual system won't work (for system/development reasons more than anything else) but I do like the idea of wars that have consequences and the potential to end for both sides.
Your "aggressors" do it for whatever reason, causing massive destruction, griefing, disruption to a mining operation to allow their own miners to work the area, whatever their reasons arem the power to continue/end that war is with the attackers and only with the attackers. The attackers can choose entirely when to end the war and the defenders pretty much get no choice out of it. Sure they can make the war mutual but there are mechanics around that introduces a while ago if memory serves. What would be nice would be some way for both sides to be able to end the war as per the OP. Difficult to implement and possibly unused by some corps who will probably turtle up but having the ability to end the war (and stop an immediate war-dec again) would be nice for the defenders. It would give some of the corps something to AIM for in a war instead of just survival. The game maybe about survival but that doesn't mean it can't be more interesting. For the attackers their goal to "end the war" could just be a number they have to reach in assets destroyed that they get to put in. If they want their war to basically be a free for all they just add a ridiculously high number that would be impossible to reach (I'm thinking tens of thousands of trillions of ISK here). For the defenders it could be "keep from losing more than a percentage cost of your total assets as a corp" which could be conditional on spending x hours per day in-space or online or the Aggressors can keep the war going for free. If you can keep your assets from being lost then after the week is up you win and the Aggressors can't re-dec for a calendar month perhaps?
There could be others and choices could be offered when a war is created of victory conditions for each side. The aforementioned could be examples, the defenders could choose to have to kill a percentage of the aggressor's stuff in a single week etc.
i don't think this will damage the war declaration system, I think it will turn it into something more interesting that the defenders have a chance at winning on their terms. At the moment everything is on the aggressor's terms which is I think where the problem lies. Yes your uber-powerful corp can still attack a smaller corp which cannot win in a straight fight but if they can out-think and keep their losses below a certain threshold (determined by the value of their assets or some other meaninful mechanism, or possibly even by the Attackers, t |
Daniel Whateley
33
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 07:22:00 -
[84] - Quote
Because eve is a PVP game, go back to WoW, you'll be happier raiding dungeons there. |
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 19:05:00 -
[85] - Quote
My opinion, that one should not need a good reason to destroy someones space-day aside, one of the fun things about Eve is, that PvP doesn't necessarily happen just for PvPs sake or because "abloobloo, the other guy started it". Not all the time, but sometimes Eve players fight for very strong reasons, as far as videogames go.
Sometimes you fight over a humiliation or a personal dispute between the mighty, sometimes you fight out of spite, sometimes you fight over trade routes, space, resources. Sometimes you even fight because you consider the other party to be a looming threat to your and your friends interests or just because you feel that you need to prove something. Most of these reasons were at some point or are still considered valid reasons to start a war in real world history - at the very least by the warmongering party, and they certainly are valid reasons to start a war in a videogame that stands and falls with its armed conflicts.
Now, with all those diverse and more often than not rather complex reasons, how do you expect a computer to decide, which one is valid and which one is not? Or should CCP maybe employ a few "judges" to decide if a declaration of war is justified?
As for the Idea with the POS: It would not change anything besides making the cost to declare a war a bit higher. A highsec wardec corp could just put down a large POS at the arse end of nowhere, filled to the brim with ECM and hardeners. So many hours of fun and excitement shooting that thing without Dreadnaughts, provided you can even find it before the war ends.
Or they will just slap an alibi-small-tower to some random moon at the price of not even a single fitted battlecruiser, let alone the pirate faction and T3 cruisers "evil" people like to fly so much these days.
If the defending party really wanted to hurt the attackers, they best grew a pair and put up an actual defense. The attacker can not use any tactics the defender can't just use as well, and more often than not, empire wardeccers tend to fly hilariously overpriced pimpmobiles. |
Axefork
The Wise Man's Fear You Failed the Mumble Test
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 19:35:00 -
[86] - Quote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the episode of Jericho, see Casus Belli (Jericho episode). For the similar term "acts of war", see Acts of war (disambiguation).
Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means bellic ("of war"). It is usually distinguished from casus foederis, where casus belli refers to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and casus foederis refers to offenses or threats to a fellow allied nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO.
The term came into wide usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory".[3][4] Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.
Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.
Proschema (plural proschemata) is the Greek equivalent term. The stated reasons may or may not be the actual reason for waging the war (prophasis, -Ç-ü+¦-å+¦-â+¦-é). The term was first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, who identified fear, honor, and interest as the three primary real reasons that wars are waged, while proschemata commonly play up nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to rational or reasonable fears). |
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 19:58:00 -
[87] - Quote
Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say with this quote? |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
168
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 20:51:00 -
[88] - Quote
CCP has said multiple times that EVE should be a hostile place where your day could be ruined any moment.
As the person that declares all of the wars for Whores in Space I am highly against your proposals. Eve should never be safe, even in high sec, so do not try to make it so.
What is your "reason" to not be war decced? Because you want to be make money risk free?
What would be my "reason" to dec you? To make sure you don't make money risk free.
In the real world it is impossible to make money without risk. Why are you so special? |
voxile
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 01:09:00 -
[89] - Quote
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]Well OP, we can have a more realistic war system after we get a more realistic system for catching and punishing criminals. That is to say, if you don't want wars to be such an absolute means of conducting hostilities in high-sec space, we don't want CONCORD to be such an absolute force in instantly destroying criminals with no chance of survival or escape.
Does that sound like a good compromise to you?
umm.. no
[quote=Destiny Corrupted]7. Sure, I'd wardec you. Who's your main? And no, you won't break my ****, lol. I've caused more people to quit this game than the amount of terrorists the US has killed in Afghanistan. Yes, I keep count.
lol, you might be a little biased on the whole wardec toppic. ya think
|
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
5564
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 05:32:00 -
[90] - Quote
Axefork wrote:
Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.
I'll lay out my reasons for going to war: Because I want to.
I'll lay out the steps that may avert it: Pay me Isk
end of story I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!-á Now... where's Ken? |
|
voxile
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:14:00 -
[91] - Quote
hate to see this discussion end.. |
Cismet
Icon Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 10:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
Daniel Whateley wrote:Because eve is a PVP game, go back to WoW, you'll be happier raiding dungeons there.
I'm not sure that this was directed at me or not but I'll address it nonetheless. Congratulations on giving out the ******** answer that is absolutely meaningless in what was an interesting discussion. "Becauthe it'th PVP and I don't wanna", what are you, 2 years old? Add something meaningful to the discussion or don't even bother because you are wasting everyone's time.
To the others with a similar argument some of what has been proposed would actually make your wars more interesting, by adding in the ability for a defending player to end the war on their own terms in some fashion (beyond the payment of ISK which comes right back to Ransom and may or may not be successful), you give them a reason to not turtle up and make your war boring. If a war is declared on me I would be perfectly happy to sit in a station and go play one of my other games that are sitting and waiting on the shelf for me to go finish if I have no meaningful way of hurting my attackers and am just going to lose ships. There is a valid psychological tactic to this. I take away your enjoyment of declaring war on me by not presenting a target and you will eventually get bored and stop. Sometimes that will take longer than others, but frankly, I can wait. That's not fun for you when I just sit in a station and wait for you to get bored of paying to continue the Declaration. How much more interesting would it be if the defending corp had a list of options they could make when the war is decc'ed that would allow them to end the war.
They could be from taking out 10% of your corps assets in a single week, keeping their losses to under 10% of their assets in a single week (conditional on them being in space for a set period a day), mining a billion ISK in ore without losing a ship (value changing depending on their corps size). There are probably others but I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet..... The point is that if the defender manages his "win condition" then the war ends at the end of the current week and the aggressor cannot implement another war against the same corp for a month. Some of the defenders will still turtle up and that happens but that's what a sandbox is for but some of them will actually try for their win-condition and what will that do? Give you more targets and give them a reason to play the game with you, they have something to aim for.
I have already elaborated in my previous post that you could make your "victory condition" a meaningless, unattainably high value so as to keep it going indefinitely, though I concede you could just leave the option on the aggressors side as no victory condition and have it as wars are now. It's not something to stop the care-bears whining that's being proposed, it's something to encourage the care-bears to be less care-beary.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |