I want to agree with you, because I like you guys, but just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. CODE have, in fact, been responsible for disbanding various corporations.

You say that, but again, just because you haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But, we were talking about CODE getting corps to disband without wardecs, not what you can and can't achieve with wardecs. That most certainly does happen, and the evidence is in the various corps they've stolen, and subsequently disbanded.

I've driven people out of the game too. So what? If I didn't do it, someone else was going to. Some people who play EVE are the kind of people that were always going to quit anyway because they don't even bother to try to understand the nature of EVE.

That, and qq'ing in local entertains me.

You appear to be confused. Dec dodging isn't in any way the same as not logging in. The player is still playing, they've just moved themselves into a state where your dec is worthless. It's a working mechanic they are using to avoid the combat. Fleeing is a perfectly valid tactic.

You miss one important point that goes with more people in Hi-Sec....they aren't there for the pvp. Only conclusion I can come to is if someone is in hi-sec for pvp what they are really looking for is easy kills.

It will be an exploit when CCP says it is an exploit...until then it's not.

I'm not missing your point at all. It is a fine and ANCIENT usage of the wardec mechanic. Extortion is fine and good and all and if you actually hit something that isn't vapor, then it may be payday. Just don't expect me to co-sign the BS that would have your gameplay trump someone else figuring out how to beat your extortion racket with their equally shady (and very Eve-like) corporate structure. I mean we are still talking about an ingame system where player corps 'bribe' the space cops to look the other way when we decide that there is someone in 'high security space' that needs to be shot at, right?

If CCP were to make some expansion that targeted NPC tax dodging, I'd probably fail to object, just for the tears and lols alone, but tbh, that sounds a bit farfetched and maybe this game has a few other broken issues to deal with first.

No Im not. Maybe youve missed me saying this a few times, but a wardec for the purposes of extortion is NOT "looking for meaningful PVP in hisec." It's far less hassle if they don't fight at all. For the umpteenth time, it's about MONEY. It's not about being risk-adverse, it's not about wanting easy killmails, or anything of the sort. It's about being a pain in someone's arse to the point that they pay you to just go away. Put a different way, it's about bullying the little guy out of his milk money in lieu of beating him up.

Naturally the "tribute" would be cheaper than hiring a merc corp. As for your ASSumtion that I would just hide behind a different character, here's how you can research if that's true or not: Look at the war histories of the corps Ive been in. Then go look at my killboard. You'll notice I have killed and been killed on the dates that said wars were active.

Open mouth, insert foot?

Mhmm. I hear that some valiant miners have taken up arms and have CODE on the run.

Call it what you will, using wardec mechanics to 'negotiate' an isk payment has always been part of the game. Don't mistake my acceptance of strong arm tactics in a game where we bribe officials to use force against others in supposedly 'high security space' as any acceptance of creating a system that locks 'weaker' targets into an inflexible pay or die scenario. Both sides of this fight are gaming a system to improve their content opportunities. The real question is 'Does CCP need to intervene here?' My answer is, no. The Pro argument has failed to be compelling and, at worst, is just a masked attempt to grief Incursion/Mission bling.

Hence my idea of killrights.

No one should be *forced* to stay in a corp. But there should be consequences for leaving during a dec.

That, and forming a corp should be a 50mil fee, since it has not been adjusted since inception and wardecs have.

Lol.

A real consequence would exist if there was a cooldown to rejoin a player corp, and if NPC corp taxes had an effect on anything besides bare bones mission payouts.

Then they don't get to be in player corps, and they should be eating fairly significant NPC corp taxes and other restrictions.

Why should they get to have their cake and eat it too?

Because it Validates the WD. It gives it meaning.

It also gives players choice. Drop Corp and eat NPC taxes, to be able to continue with that char / Or play an Alt / go outside, or fight and defend. All of which the WD was i believe meant to achieve.

ATM the BiS, and only choice is Drop and reform. Which totally, and utterly trivialises WD's

The existence of the surrender mechanic displays otherwise.

Have you ever thought that the drop corp mechanic didn't turn out the way they were intended.?

I do not in any way shape or form deny the use of a CCP excepted mechanic. Does not mean I think it is unbalanced, and want it fixed.

Hypocritical? No. It is just plain common sense.

That's because it stands to benefit you, and not the people you don't like.

Read what I said again. I didn't say it benefits you specifically, merely that it stands to in opposition of benefiting the people you don't like.

No, that's a judgement based on your post history. You're about as bad of a carebear advocate as you can be without being Ripard Teg.




Oh, the irony.

I've been saying for pages and pages and pages (AND pages) that it's not always about the PVP. It's about inconveniencing and denying content. As Veers or whatever his name is said, it's an embargo of sorts. You'll find that many of not most wardecs from merc corps have 0 kills, but in that week they kept the WT shut-in, and thats the goal.

You will never defeat the "if you want pvp find someone else who wants pvp" dodge. it's one of those things that people (mostly high sec people) say to make themselves feel better about holding what amounts to an untenable opinion.

I've been in the same boat many times. No matter how much I tell people that I'm a pve player who isn't some ship v ship pvp fanatic, they insist that the ONLY reason I could possibly hold any opinion contrary to theirs is some selfish desire to make their ship explode thus padding my killboard and puffing up my ego. No matter how many time I tell them "unless you are a Guristas that has become self aware, you are generally safe from me lol", they cling to that incorrect belief.

They HAVE to, what they believe doesn't work without greedy, evil people trying to do them harm. It's no different from them saying "you are trying to push me out of high sec into low so you can kill me" despite the fact that almost no one cares about if they leave high sec or not..

It's also because the realization that no on gives a damn about what they do would hurt

I'm aware of what it says.

The point is, the changed their mind once.

But you've never really been very good at getting points have you Beers.

If you are "incapable of fighting back"(which I take to mean "unwilling", since everyone in this game has some gun skills trained by default) , then you don't deserve to be in a player corp in the first place.

Nothing of the sort. And you know that, so it puzzles me why your side keeps repeating that lie.

Since they won't fight or interact with anyone else in the game anyway, their corp is no better than a chat channel to begin with.

And if your sub honestly actually hinges on PvP not being allowed to happen in highsec, good riddance.

Basically then, you are saying that you want to be in a Corp for the benefits it offers. Remove that benefit and you'd be gone. The Only reason you are defending this mechanic is it keeps your benefits going. Sod trying to defend those benefits while I have absolute immunity from defending those benefits while still getting them.

Selfish

Besides, that is really what this comes down to.

The ONLY justification that the carebear side has put up for continuing to allow wardecs to remain toothless is all the theoretical people who would apparently quit the game if PvP were ever allowed in their vicinity.

Well, that and "you can't make me", which is basically the same cop out answer that verifies that such a person belongs in an NPC corp anyway.

Who said anything about a fair fight or e-busido? I will repeat what I said in clearer terms, if you want to hunt in high sec learn to deal with the concord. If you want to fight in high sec pick a corp that also wants to fight or a corp with something worth defending. The only pro to high sec is the protection it offers stop trying to rob players of that for your own selfish reasons.

And, here we go again.

Why are you even in a player corp then? Why do you think you deserve to be in one, if all you use it for is a glorified chat channel and a tax dodge?

you have two scenarios.

Wardecs being trivially dodged.
Wardecs being exploitable to the point of abusive harrassment.

pick one, and only one. It's obvious which one we'll end up with.

Trixie and I were discussing changes and solutions a few pages back. Since everyone's arguments on both sides of the issue are getting rather circular and repetitive, let's try to think up something totally out of the box where everyone wins.

I do think it's doable, but I'm enjoying better living thru chemistry atm and cba to think it all over.

[Well, Im thinking something radical and totally out of the "box" here, in our sandbox

Lots of ppl talk about nerfing NPC corps to force or encourage ppl to get into or stay into player corps, which among other things can be wardecced.

What if we did the opposite... what if we somehow buffed NPC corps? Maybe even, as someone suggested, give them a "sliding scale" based on their time in the NPC corp, like the longer theyre in, the higher the tax rate goes, or even do it the other way and make them lower, hell idk this is an undeveloped idea so far :D

Anyway, the idea would be to make npc corps REAL "boot camp" so to speak. We also need to come up with new and interesting ways to encourage players into player corps, but the idea is that players will migrate to the player corps once they feel "rdy." Maybe encourage basic combat skills or something, idk. Maybe, for the carebears, increase the yield on PI, and idk do something with other carebear activities. Maybe a boost to mission rewards if in a player corp, that kind of thing.

That's not how this works.

Highsec has too much safety. Yes, the end result of this will be that you have less safety. Yes, you are expected, just like every other group in the history of EVE Online so far except you, to eat a nerf for the sake of the health of the overall game.

One other important point, they're not looking for a compromise.

How much more ideal can it get past "perfect safety"? (nevermind that you should never, under any circumstance have that in a sandbox PvP game)

Everyone who signed up for a PvP game. So, everyone with an active EVE sub.

Ha ha, no. Citation needed on that bullshit statement.

But on the one hand, carebears cried about wardecs and CCP changed them, but on the other hand if a PvP player wants something changed, tough **** that's how it is live with it sucks to be you.

Oh no you don't, that is not what I asked and you know it.

I want a citation for "CCP changed it... because they were losing customers."

Please, please try and prove that obvious lie.



At least try to dodge. You just made an outright and obvious hypocrite of yourself, and you aren't even going to answer the charge? Just ignore it and keep drumbeating your risk averse, cowardice narrative?

Surely you can do better.

He's upset; probably over the recent E1-related bans, given his rant over "harassment".

"I will see the end of ganking in high sec." You honestly believe this fool is serious?

No one here is stupid enough to risk an account ban by reposting that tripe over and over again. Nevermind that, as real players, we have more self respect than that.

And none of us sock puppet besides Solecist anyway.

Besides, why the resistance? That nutball belongs to your side, own it.

Don't hate the playa, baby.. hate the Game.

Because people are not supposed to be immune to PvP.

Because it's a sandbox, and "I feel like it" is always a good enough reason to do anything.

And lastly, because shooting other players is fun.

I can't accept this generalisation.

Not ALL of us shoot people for lulz or tears, okay?

Whenever people raged at me for ganking them,
I tried explaining them the issue calmly and based on reason.

when one did not want to understand... I blocked them and that's it.

That being said, of over 800 pods I've killed less than 20 every complained about it.


So ... even though you are mostly right about a big group of people who just
love to pick on others, not ALL gankers are alike.

Thanks.

Eve Online...

You undock, you consent to being attacked.

Everything else in the game is secondary to this.

It includes corp hopping in the case of unwanted wardecs.

The biggest game mechanic issue is that we have no way to fight back with cold hard cash. This puts indy/trade and large new player groups at huge disadvantage.

I think it's more of a case of, hound the carebears, they've ruined our game, they must pay.

Wow, this topic has gone from wardec mechanics to crying about not being able to freely pop people in high sec. People need to quit getting so damn angry over a video game.

Why do people keep repeating this lie?

There is no "perspective", it is 100% possible to mission or mine during a wardec.

I do it pretty much every time someone decs this character's alliance. This is my locator character, I need to keep his standings high.

And I do it in a faction battleship what's more, either a Navy Apoc or a Rattlesnake.

It's possible, and it does happen. But since it requires more than zero effort, carebears write it off as not even being an option.

You're not even pretending to pay attention, are you? I am a suicide ganker, and an awoxer among other things. But those two being somewhat functional methods to kill someone is absolutely no excuse to leave the third option broken and toothless.

But hey, don't let silly things like facts stop you from just making **** up about me to support your narrative.

Wrong.

I've been in corps that have been decced by Marmite three times. The first time, I lost two ships, on both occasions trying to fight them.

On the other two occasions, we'd learned how to deny them kills, and carry on business as usual. We even went to trade hubs.

Don't tell me that rolling corp is the only way when I have done it plenty of other ways myself.

Nonsense, and i highlighted the reason why. I personally don't care that people can leave during a war dec though i think NPC corps are not restrictive enough (this is a payer run game, being in a non-player corp should not confer so many advantages for so little cost).

If it was a matter of "fold the corp, lose the corp name forever" I'd have less of a problem with the activity, but it's "fold corp, make new corp with exact same name, keep on truckin". That's lame. I don't care if someone fights or not, but a game like EVE shouldn't have any such zero consequence BS.

Who other than you said anyting about non-consensual pvp. I don't care if anyone fights or dies, I'm saying the zero consequence mechanic is dumb.

A player corp should have to deal with a war situation in some fashion that has potential costs. The way it is now, a small player corp doesn't have to deal with a war, just drop, fold, reform. It literally takes a couple minutes. Such a thing isn't in keeping with the spirit of EVE.

Because that's the game. The strong win over the weak. Better to become strong.

The current mechanics reinforce weakness and don't inspire innovation. A war dec'd corp should be figuring out how to turn the tables on the war-deccer in some super creative way, how to keep doing business despite adversity. That's what makes a game fun, people figuring out new ways to counter other players.

The current mechanic jsut says "its ok to be a monumental panty-waist in a video game where real loss is impossible". That's not EVE.



That's the lie you types cling to. I'm not a war dec guy, hell I don't much do pvp. I am an EVE player who thinks EVE should be EVE, a game for ruthlessly creative people who want to play, not a game for weak-minded people who can't deal.

you keep throwing this word "harassment" around. while deccing might be considered harassment by some dictionary definitions, it is in no way harassment by any judiciary meaning of the word.

no one is really advocating harassing other players, or even really making it easier to do so. all we're advocating is a meaningful consequence to dodging out of pvp. right now there is no such consequence. you are literally whining about the idea that you cant dodge pvp costfree.

in the past, dodging wardecs was often considered a bannable exploit, but repeatedly deccing a corp was never considered harassment. something to chew on.

They do that as a roundabout way of trying to make their rabid risk aversion legitimate. Because unless it is legitimate, absolutely nothing justifies permitting this exploit to continue.

So if they manage to establish the dialogue that PvP of any kind constitutes harassment, then avoiding is a *good* act, instead of an evil one.

That demonstrates the underlying incorrect thought process that is the barrier here. EVE is a harsh open world sandbox pvp game. "Killyouall" is prefectly at home in such a game. "Notgonnahappen" is in the wrong game and should be playing a consensal pvp only themepark game like Star Trek Online (which i also play).

"Killyouall's" opposite in a game like EVE is and should only be a guy named "GonnaBeatYouAtYourOwnGameWithMySmartsYouPvpHoe"

If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all it should be meaningful, that means a defender shouldn't be able to use a simple exploit (drop corp) to dodge it.

Now I can debate whether wars should exist at all or not, but what I cannot stomach is a failure in logic that tries to defend the indefensible, an exploit to a game mechanic.

CCP would say this isn't an exploit, and 'working as intended', that's them trying to have their cake and eat it too. I might selfsame just say bullsh!t, and bad war mechanic is bad...

In short...

- Wars *must* follow someone who drops corp under wardec, for one week or until war ends, whichever is sooner. Anything less is an exploit and loophole.

Additionally...

- Put wardec fees in a 'bucket' claimable by the defender, based on aggressor assets killed.
- Increase NPC corp taxes to 50%. If someone wants to be safe, a premium should be paid for that.

DONE.

F

For years CCP has gone down the wrong path.

I see 55 pages of back and forth, without addressing the simplest issue here:

What is to prevent the target from docking up for a week and playing on alts? Please explain how your mechanic change prevents this solution?

I like this idea. Since the corps just get disbanded and recreated within a short period of time, you might as well just add in a feature that cancels a war after 24 hours, for the fee of 50 mill isk.

I doubt however you'll find much sympathy here for any alternative suggestion that doesn't severely penalize the defending corporation.

Finally, for your pansified heresies against EvE HTFU, we are adding a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue, where an innocent carebear will be murdered by us in hisec and told it was because of you and your heresies in this thread.

Your heresies, our hands, their blood, your conscience.

F

Complete joke for the defending side.
You have no idea who put mercs on you in the first place.
Odds are high your paying guys working with the guys who are deccing you.

I've yet to ever hear of one time hiring mercs helped a defending corp in over 5 years of playing.

The hands of the holy inquisitors of HTFU will be washed clean, by issuing a Kill-It-Forward notification to the victim post-detonation, explaining how you are the cause of his demise.

In a magical act similar to the transmogrification of host into HIS flesh, the sin of capsuleer murder will be transferred from our skilled inquisitors hands, onto yours....

Just imagine. Out there right now some innocent carebear is running level 3 security missions in AFK bliss, unwaware that Grog Aftermath has set into motion his date with DEATH.

...unless perhaps, you publicly renounce your pansied heresies against HTFU.

F

Because it would save the life of the carebear you have otherwise condemned with your heresy.

Our inquisitor who performs the beheading will no doubt now inform the victim you were also offered the opportunity to recant to save his life, and refused to do so.

The clock is ticking..who will the lucky actor in our pageant of death be? Delicious...

F

And not only that ...
... I will make it a mutual foreverwar ........

I have no idea where you pick that 30-1 from ...
... but I guess making up excuses to duck out is your greatest ability....

Unlike you, I am not a coward ....


Try me ........ *points at Veer*

I disagree. You have no "right" to avoid PVP in a game, the main focusw and premise of which is non-consensual PVP, even if it is also a "sandbox."

That's too sweeping a generalization to be an honest counterpoint, IMO. Isn't it HOW one avoids conflict that we're discussing here?

For example, back in the Everquest days (hey its the first thing that comes to mind, ok :D) there was an exploit called "plugging;" if someone was killing you, you'd just unplug your cable modem, the game would then "autoplay" your character for you, only WAY WAY more powerful than you'd normally be. IIRC the idea was to save you form dying to a monster if you somehow lost connection, but in reality it was abused to avoid PVP deaths.

That was "avoiding conflict," too. Coming up with an exploit that would make you be able to warp away without stabs even when pointed would be "avoiding conflict." Would that be ok? No.

Too generalized counterpoint is too generalized.

It's not irrelevant at all. I showed how an EQ player could "avoid conflict," or "avoid dying."

I've been saying basically this for a while. (although hearing Gevlon Goblin agree with it is... disturbing? yeah that's a good word for it)

NPC corps right now skew the risk/reward ratio.

They provide too much relief from risk without commensurate loss of reward.

But of course the whole problem stems from player corps not having enough carrots as well, obviously. Maybe some kind of structure you had to anchor in order to run higher level missions, or collect incursion payouts? Something to get people out and playing the game.

Gotta be the drop and reform corp and declare 30-1 victory. Nothing pisses em off more!

Then you aren't thinking very hard at all, or reading much, because a veritable myriad of reasons have already been given on this very thread.

And of course we get back to the e-honor argument.

Are you seriously incapable of realizing that, yes, I do have fun shooting people whether or not they chose to fight back? And yes, by the way, it is "chose", not "able", because everyone in EVE Online is able to fight back.

Thanks for confirming loud and clear that you haven't thought about it as much as you think you have. There are a stack of reasons, many of them discussed right here in this thread, to declare war in high sec that have nothing to do with the four you listed. I'm not sure what a four-piece version of a false dichotomy is called exactly, but that's what you just did.

*points at Veers for being a coward and a liar*


meh... wrong char.
There goes my consistency. -.-

So?

As if he needed the money for anything productive anyway.
All he cares about is incursions, isk/hour and ruining highsec.

If you leave, we all win anyway.