Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 18:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:
1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.
2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.
The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
454
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 18:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
You should probably run now. These boards are not kind.
I agree that there should be some restrictions on activity under a wardec in high sec, however high sec isnt supposed to be safe. In many ways it is more dangerous than null. |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
267
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 19:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:
Please explain how "High" might equate to "Total" or "Complete" as you are implying? Also explain your blanket assertion that wars in highsec are purely for, as you put it, "killboard padding" and never for any other reason (including, but not limited to: grievances, assets (poco, pos), colliding ideologies, undesired presence in an area)
Avarus Brightfyre wrote: 1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.
To have a non-PVP corp in a PVP-centric game is ludicrous. Would you not agree?
Avarus Brightfyre wrote: 2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.
So take this example and proffer a solution: A Corporation places a POS on each moon in a highec system, and a POCO on each planet. The CEO and members of this Corporation suddenly leave the game for whatever reason. In your proposed absence of war decs, with no further modifications made to the game beyond that, how would you propose the reclamation of these areas be attained by another corporation?
Avarus Brightfyre wrote: The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense.
No, it does not. "High" security space affords you protection through deterrence (CONCORD response). "High" does in no definition of the English language mean "Complete" or "Total" Security, which is what you're looking for. If you are looking for such areas to exist, Eve as we all know it would be redefined on a most basic level. Eve is a PVP game. There are no "safe zones", perhaps only "safer" zones.
This is not hard to understand, right? |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
260
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 19:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
No one likes getting war decced by someone that knows how to make your bear elements cry.
That said, mechanic is still great and functioning well. Remember, dropping corp is an option. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
856
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 19:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
I am sorry that your corp is going to be war decced by dozens of people that see this thread. Actually i am not sorry at all. At least it won't be arbitrary lol. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Clementina
Coreli Corporation
156
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 21:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
War declaration costs should not go up, actually they should go down a little bit. Not enough people are being war-decced so certain carebears think that high-sec is safe from all hurt, harm, and danger.
Anyway, I yielded to temptation and looked up the Original Poster on eve-kill.net. I found that he lost a Helios and his pod (With a head full of +3's) to a war dec. Not even to the usual suspects either, Mastercard were themselves deced by Marmite. My question is Why did this lost cause our original poster to post such tears here in the Features and Ideas Discussion Forum? I can't figure it out, It's just one frigate. |
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 21:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
1) I didn't say that war decs were ONLY for killboard padding; I simply stated that it happens.
2) I never said anything about complete and total safety. Even outside of war, you can be scragged by anyone at any time. There is simply a consequence for doing so in hi-sec, such as CONCORD going after you. Why should wars be any different? Because you paid a little ISK for permission?
3) There are plenty of non-PVP options in this game, so how can you define it as PVP-centric? Yes, there may be quite a bit more PVP in this game than others, but it certainly isn't the only reason the game exists.
4) As to your example, I certainly don't claim my solution is perfect or the only one. Perhaps it could be adjusted so that only gates and NPC stations are off limits, since they are under the protection of CONCORD. Any idea can be improved upon.
5) War should require significant resources and a concerted strategy. Wars are supposed to be a means of addressing a problem. Allowing corporations to just do whatever they want to another in hi-sec turns it into lawful thuggery. |
Endovior
Osmosis Inc Li3 Federation
190
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 22:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
1: So, some people have decided that they want to go to war 'randomly', for 'no good reason', or otherwise for reasons you don't understand or agree with. Yes... and? It's a game, they're doing what they find to be fun, just as you are.
2: They should be different from normal hisec PvP (read: suicide ganking) because that's how the mechanic works, and that's what the fee is for. Remember, you get a warning in advance, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.
3: Not the only reason, no. But it IS a fully-PvP game, with no real 'safety'. Changing that would unduly distort the market.
4: Refer to 3. Also, for reference, I myself am pretty much perma-decced by Marmites and friends. The only things I want in hisec are in stations behind gates. If those places were safe, there'd be no reason for that war. I'm not in favor of that; I find their actions to be legitimate gameplay, and I make my plans accordingly.
5: Refer to 1. The fact that you don't like your opponents' objectives and strategy does not render them invalid. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
857
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 22:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:
3) There are plenty of non-PVP options in this game, so how can you define it as PVP-centric? Yes, there may be quite a bit more PVP in this game than others, but it certainly isn't the only reason the game exists. .
What are these non PVP options? mining reduces the value of all ore in the game and hurts the income of other miners. missioning or FW LP farming reduces the value of things bought by LP. Trading is the most viscious PVP that is seen in eve (even if you personally don't notice or understand it) Manufacturing you are constantly weighing the demand for the product , the current price and the likely supply from your competitors. Many wars /ganks are designed to interfere with competition. For instance miner gankers are often people that produce mining equipment and have it on sale in the system where they gank and are thus creating demand. Other mining groups will see competition for their local belts and hire mercs to kill them (obviously neither the hirers or the mercs have an interest in advertising that this is the case so no revenge can't be plotted).
Eve is more complicated than you think and everywhere there are webs of intrigue and bad blood. People are trying to gain an advantage over their competitors in any way possible. The only thing wrong with war decs is that it is so expensive to dec large alliances. It needs to be cheaper.
Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 22:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
I have posted my suggestion and I'm sure it will be reviewed just like all the others. The devs will make their decision based on their own criteria; they'll either agree with me or they won't. I'm certainly not going to get into a protracted argument about something I have no control over, especially on a forum with people I don't know. I have stated my suggestion, and the outcome is in the hands of the developers. We all have to live within the rules of the game, and we all accept it. I am free to suggest changes I feel would improve the game, but they are, in the end, my own opinion. You don't have to like them, and I'm sure many of you don't.
I appreciate those replies that were given in the spirit of imparting knowledge, even if I disagree with them. I will ignore the ones that were simply condescending, as they don't warrant my attention. |
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 22:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
While War Decs can be a but random and annoying, they are necessary given the dynamics in EVE for reasons beyond padding killboards.
Removing POSes anchored by corps whose member no longer play EVE is just one example.
Besides, given the demonstrably corrupt nature of CONCORD - it makes sense they would take money to look the other way.
|
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 22:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Besides, given the demonstrably corrupt nature of CONCORD - it makes sense they would take money to look the other way.
That answer makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks! |
nia starstryder
Blitzkrieg.
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 01:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote: Please explain how "High" might equate to "Total" or "Complete" as you are implying? Also explain your blanket assertion that wars in highsec are purely for, as you put it, "killboard padding" and never for any other reason (including, but not limited to: grievances, assets (poco, pos), colliding ideologies, undesired presence in an area)
there are mercenary corps that do nothing but set on hubs and kill any thing that is not a risk to them, simply by wardecing their corps. there are no grievances between them, no assets no ideologies or even a problem with presences in the area. its strickly a way to get easy kills for them. the first sign of a actual threat to them and they dock.
Tarsas Phage wrote:To have a non-PVP corp in a PVP-centric game is ludicrous. Would you not agree?
not at all. pvp requires weapons and ships, and most of them are made by non pvp corps. without non pvp corps pvp cant happen as there are no one to make ships. how do you make ships if you are under constant attack from the time you start mining until you get the ships on the market? people use non pvp alts and they are generally in non pvp corps for that purpose.
|
Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
475
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 01:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
nia starstryder wrote:Tarsas Phage wrote:To have a non-PVP corp in a PVP-centric game is ludicrous. Would you not agree? not at all. pvp requires weapons and ships, and most of them are made by non pvp corps. without non pvp corps pvp cant happen as there are no one to make ships. how do you make ships if you are under constant attack from the time you start mining until you get the ships on the market? people use non pvp alts and they are generally in non pvp corps for that purpose. Ugh. This attitude gets so tiring after a while.
Miners and builders are important on a large scale. But a specific mining or manufacturing corp is a drop in the bucket of nearly no overall worth though. Any specific indy person or corp could all stop playing and the effect would be minimal.
And when you quit, supply drops and prices raise in proportion to your contribution to the market. And then people who were not previously mining or manufacturing then start in order to take advantage of the increasing prices. Your leaving means very very little. The ore will be mined. The items will be built, then sold. You may not be doing it, but that matters not at all to the people buying the items except perhaps a tiny tiny increase in prices.
TLDR: You are not entitled to protection from PvP players simply because you produce 0.001% of the ore/item market. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3541
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 02:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
Because dec dodging still exists, wardecs are completely optional.
So "no" to your suggestion. If anything, since they can be dodged for a small fraction of the minimum cost of the wardec, wardeccing should be made easier. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
270
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 05:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
nia starstryder wrote: there are mercenary corps that do nothing but set on hubs and kill any thing that is not a risk to them, simply by wardecing their corps. there are no grievances between them, no assets no ideologies or even a problem with presences in the area. its strickly a way to get easy kills for them. the first sign of a actual threat to them and they dock.
The only reason they get easy kills is because their targets let them. If their targets put forth the effort to lean how to fight in and navigate through a highsec war and all the mechanics it entails, I assure you that things would be different.
But, hey, if all their targets want to do is undock in noobships and haulers all day long in areas of high visibility, then so be it.
If they do get together and present a threat, then mission accomplished. The wardec'er docks up and they're neutralized as a threat (hint: doing this on a station undock is almost always going to end up with underwhelming results; try learning how to trap people in other places)
nia starstryder wrote:Tarsas Phage wrote:To have a non-PVP corp in a PVP-centric game is ludicrous. Would you not agree? not at all. pvp requires weapons and ships, and most of them are made by non pvp corps. without non pvp corps pvp cant happen as there are no one to make ships. how do you make ships if you are under constant attack from the time you start mining until you get the ships on the market? people use non pvp alts and they are generally in non pvp corps for that purpose.
Implying that a PVP'er and a miner/PVE'er are mutually exclusive professions for any given character is a long-standing fallacy, as is the whole "farmers and warriors" thing. Guess what? I sometimes mission, during war, with this very character - Level 5's in a Paladin lowsec and a sentry Domi for level 4's in highsec. I get both war targets and potentially hostile neutrals sniffing my butt all the time when I do that. The difference is {A} I have some amount of confidence in my abilities (something your general Eve corp lacks), and {B} just plain experience. I've gotten away by the skin of my teeth on a few nail-biting occasions - close calls that have made me want to think twice for a few minutes about doing that crap. Missioning at war is never necessarily a bad thing. Not taking the appropriate precautions and getting caught when doing so is what turns it into a bad thing. That jive at all?
But, you see, rather than gain experience and insight in how this game and the people who play it work and think, the knee-jerk reaction for most is to want to charge into these forums and put forth half-baked ideas in an effort to change the mechanics in ways they believe will fully compensate for their own unwillingness to acquire knowledge... knowledge which leads to confidence (not hubris - there's a pretty clear distinction there.) This is what drives people like myself up the wall - people who do take the time to do risky things and succeed (or at least try to be good at tactics and predictions), only to see other people post here wanting CCP to implement Easy Mode because they themselves can't or won't bother to take responsibility and develop themselves. So, in the world of Eve, if you're going to act like a lamb, others will see you as just that and you'll be slaughtered accordingly.
Chew on that for a bit and get back to us. |
Sith1s Spectre
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
797
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 12:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:
1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.
2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.
The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense.
Dear OP. CCP has stated over and over again no where in Eve should be "safe" If you want a place to be "safe" i suggest you stay docked as it's the only place where you are guaranteed someone can't blow you up.
As to the highsec "mercenaries" 90% of them only want to camp the Amarr to Jita pipe or the 2 trade hubs. When tasked with some actual objective based work or they're presented with a group who can fight most of them simply aren't up to the job or worth the title Mercenary.
Regards,
Sith Sky Fighters - WH Space Mercs. -áFor more details https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=286708&find=unread
|
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
137
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 14:05:00 -
[18] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:
1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.
2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.
The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense.
0/10 - your trollfu is weak
if you aren't trolling... (hard to believe given you play this game and have this opinion)...
Then:
1) No - War Decs are part of the non-consensual PvP sector of the game and barriers to entry should not be dramatic. Significant yes but not dramatic. All corps are PvP corps please get this through your head. There is no PvE only corp because at any time PvP may be forced upon you...whether it be through war decs, suicide ganking or members traveling to low and null sec regions even if it is by mistake. When you undock you are engaged in PvP. When you manipulate markets with market alts and trade minerals and set up buy orders you are engaging in PvP. Any interactions with other players is by definition PVP. There is no instancing, no sharding or other divisions in the server between you and me. If I feel like it I will hunt your character down and suicide gank him *just because*. I don't need a reason other than that you exist. I however generally don't go out of my way to do it unless I perceive some advantage.
List of Advantages: A: Tears of a Carebear - delicious and the hate mail that usually follows is glorious to share and post on forums/fwd in mails B: You have stuff that I want to take C: I want to simply make a point that you aren't safe anywhere and should adapt your play style. D: Its Wednesday and I'm bored and I don't care if you're all meta 1 fit or not E: I'm heroically saving EVE from you F: I decided to role-play and hire myself out as a mercenary and take down your corporation for its involvement in a conspiracy to **insert reason here** G: My blood sugar is low and you're in the way. H: I like wars and find the mechanics entertaining - fight back or get allies to help you...hire mercs to come after me with your mighty PvE wallet and drive me off.
2) Shut up you know nothing. War Decs exist to get around the high sec restrictions in a systematic manner. These days you (as the war Dec'd party) have many advantages of bringing in support to help. The only difference now is that you cannot simply dodge the dec by moving to an alt corp. The (relatively) new criminal/suspect flagging system is a massive help against neutral alt reps. You can bring in friends just to deal with that if you wanted. There are mercenary corps: look into hiring them if you are being grief'd. There is no PVE only area.
Please quit the game if you don't like it...or adapt. HTFU. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1216
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 14:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
how do u know uve been decced for killboard padding? maybe u pissed someone off without knowing. maybe they hired mercs to stifle ur operations and just didnt tell u.
ive hired suicide gankers and mercs to kill ppl who mine in the same belt as me. teaches them not to touch my stuff.
Never the less, the benefits of being in a player corp deliberately come with the risk of being decced by other player corps. Any player corp can war dec u for any reason they like, even kill board padding. Yes this is ok whether u like it or not. fortunately for u, u can leave corp AT ANY TIME.
if u want to remove the risk of being decced, remove urself from player corps.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 14:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
I find it amusing that people get so worked up over this game. It's almost like I insulted your religion or something, you take it so seriously. This is just a game, and I have a hard time understanding why people get all pissy when someone puts forth an idea they don't like. If you're so sure that my idea is so stupid it would never happen, then just ignore it and I'm sure CCP will do the same. Then the thread will fall down the list and the issue goes away.
Continuing to get on here and ***** about my idea only keeps it at the top of the forum and gets more people to read it, some of whom might potentially agree with the idea and possibly affect change in that direction. Why would you want that if you want my idea to just go away? In case you hadn't noticed, the only reason this thread is still on page 1 is because people keep getting on to ***** about it. Otherwise, it would be on page 2 or 3 by now at minimum and would probably be already dead. I realize that most don't agree with me, and I certainly haven't been bumping the thread, as I only respond to some of the replies I feel merit one. It seems to me that you should just ignore ideas you think are stupid so that they just go away.
As far as people's suggestion that I just "adapt/figure it out" or whatever else, of course I will. Otherwise I would cancel my subscription. If I was only going to whine and **** about it and nothing else, I would have thread after thread about all the little things I don't like about the game, and would propose no solutions to my problems. I simply took a few minutes to post a suggestion that I think would benefit someone other than the people who spend their time ganking people leaving hi sec stations. If CCP doesn't want to do that, it's no skin off my back; that's why this is called the IDEAS forum. I will adapt and figure out ways to avoid the things I want to avoid and life will go on. We all play the game according to the rules the way they are, not the rules the way we wish them to be. |
|
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
137
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 15:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:I find it amusing that people get so worked up over this game. It's almost like I insulted your religion or something, you take it so seriously. This is just a game, and I have a hard time understanding why people get all pissy when someone puts forth an idea they don't like. If you're so sure that my idea is so stupid it would never happen, then just ignore it and I'm sure CCP will do the same. Then the thread will fall down the list and the issue goes away.
Continuing to get on here and ***** about my idea only keeps it at the top of the forum and gets more people to read it, some of whom might potentially agree with the idea and possibly affect change in that direction. Why would you want that if you want my idea to just go away? In case you hadn't noticed, the only reason this thread is still on page 1 is because people keep getting on to ***** about it. Otherwise, it would be on page 2 or 3 by now at minimum and would probably be already dead. I realize that most don't agree with me, and I certainly haven't been bumping the thread, as I only respond to some of the replies I feel merit one. It seems to me that you should just ignore ideas you think are stupid so that they just go away.
As far as people's suggestion that I just "adapt/figure it out" or whatever else, of course I will. Otherwise I would cancel my subscription. If I was only going to whine and **** about it and nothing else, I would have thread after thread about all the little things I don't like about the game, and would propose no solutions to my problems. I simply took a few minutes to post a suggestion that I think would benefit someone other than the people who spend their time ganking people leaving hi sec stations. If CCP doesn't want to do that, it's no skin off my back; that's why this is called the IDEAS forum. I will adapt and figure out ways to avoid the things I want to avoid and life will go on. We all play the game according to the rules the way they are, not the rules the way we wish them to be.
You are bad and you should feel bad.
|
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 15:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:
You are bad and you should feel bad.
Nothing said here could ever make me feel bad. I don't know you, nor will I ever, thus it is impossible for your opinions to make me feel anything other than amusement that you think you can hurt my feelings with a keyboard. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
117
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 15:59:00 -
[23] - Quote
It seems that there have been a lot of people posting in this forum lately and then complaining about receiving criticism. Perhaps the OP of this thread and others should consider not creating threads on a public forum if they do not wish to engage in discussion about, or receive criticism, of their ideas. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1216
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
im fishing for likes EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3762
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:16:00 -
[25] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:The current system allows certain corporations to declare war on random others in an attempt to pad their kill boards. It makes no sense that CONCORD would allow wars within a "high security" system, so I propose two changes:
1) Drastically increase the price of war decs. Require something like 500 mil ISK to start a war, which would represent a significant investment for most corporations. This would reduce or eliminate the ability for opportunistic corporations to start arbitrary wars that target non-PVP corps, and then sit outside of high security stations picking them off as they leave.
2) Approved non-mutual combat should only be allowed in low/null sec, just like all other PVP. The war dec would still be needed to prevent security standing loss when attacking war targets. Hi-sec is supposed to be a safe area, so allowing one corporation free reign to attack another within hi-sec doesn't make sense.
The current system turns a low risk/low reward area into a very high risk/low reward area during times of "war". CONCORD should restrict non-mutual combat to areas not strictly under their control. Stay in hi-sec; you stay safe. Venture outside of that and you're on your own. That makes sense.
I don't believe this is a serious post. If it is, please let me know and I'll headshot your suggestion while highlighting the fact that you really just don't understand this game mechanic.
Highsec is NOT meant to be safe.
If you are having trouble with wardecs, send me a PM and I can give you some suggestions to help you out. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
460
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:im fishing for likes
You caught at least one. |
Avarus Brightfyre
Invicta Animas
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:32:00 -
[27] - Quote
Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3762
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Ask us why we have the opinions we have. Present your arguments so we can explain why we disagree with them. This is an excellent way to learn.
Alternatively, you could use the forum search to examine the proposed changes to wardecs in the past, and gain an understanding of why they haven't been implemented either.
Serious question: Why do you think wardecs exist? How would your proposed changes alter the ability to remove a POS or POCO in highsec? How would they interfere with your ability to inhibit highsec missioners, industrialists, and the like. More importantly, how would they alter the ability to interfere with Nullsec logistics routes between empire and highsec?
One of the reasons you were "jumped on" is because you don't seem to understand the repercussions of your "suggestion". |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
117
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Avarus Brightfyre wrote:Given the vastly negative response to this thread, I will no longer be monitoring it. I have already argued this point far more than I really wanted to, and none of us is going to convince the other that our opinion is more right than another. I learned long ago not to waste my time arguing with people who have firmly set opinions, and I don't know why I allowed myself to get involved in this argument in the first place. The game is what it is, and that's the end of it.
Oh the irony!
EDIT: Because this is the eve-o forums and someone will probably care; Oh, the unintentional self-criticism! |
Katkon Darnok
The Scope Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 16:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
I personally like the OP's suggestions. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |