EVE Search - War dec Fees

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

War dec Fees

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1365	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:17:43 - [1] - Quote I would like war dec fees to change. Smaller corps should start expensive and the bigger an alliance gets, the cheaper it gets. This way you can "spare" more smaller corps and newbie players. The larger alliances are rich enough to handle things themselves and counter us. DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:21:32 - [2] - Quote To add to this, if the corp involved folds before the fighting period begins, the wardec fee should be refunded. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Gawain Edmond Angry Mustellid The Periphery 119	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:31:44 - [3] - Quote or all the people who were in the corp who would have been war dec'ed should have the whole week of being war dec'ed that was paid for :D
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10631	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:34:27 - [4] - Quote Gawain Edmond wrote: or all the people who were in the corp who would have been war dec'ed should have the whole week of being war dec'ed that was paid for :D Since that would create issues regarding repeatedly aggressing people in NPC corps, which is apparently a sacred cow they are still holding on to, my suggestion would be to generate killrights against people who leave a corp during an active war. I still think that if they dec dodge in the 24 hour cooldown window that the fees should be refunded, though. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 210	Posted - 2014.11.18 00:26:23 - [5] - Quote Saw this earlier and forgot to comment: Seems like such a sliding scale would encourage people to just form their own one-man corps.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.18 00:56:14 - [6] - Quote Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec.
Thomas Gallant Bottle Distribution Ops Center ArK Alliance 30	Posted - 2014.11.18 01:02:15 - [7] - Quote To be honest I'm really not sure what CCP intends war decs to be used for (originally or now) It's kind of a mystery to me.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 211	Posted - 2014.11.18 01:13:11 - [8] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec. War decs are social interaction. One of the people I enjoy talking to the most in game is the first person who decced me (also the first person who taught me about locator agents and why mining in a retriever during a war dec is a bad idea). Thomas Gallant wrote: To be honest I'm really not sure what CCP intends war decs to be used for (originally or now) It's kind of a mystery to me. An isk sink to allow combat in high sec. I don't think I can make it less mysterious.
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 198	Posted - 2014.11.18 01:32:57 - [9] - Quote The main issue with wardecs is that currently, people (mainly the defenders) don't have any reason or incentive to actually stand up and defend themselves. It's much easier, and usually a better idea for them, to simply dodge the dec or wait it out.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 62	Posted - 2014.11.18 02:05:53 - [10] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: To add to this, if the corp involved folds before the fighting period begins, the wardec fee should be refunded. + 1 to this idea, those who dec should not be punished for those who choose to disband and close a corp during the 24 hour start up period. Gawain Edmond wrote: or all the people who were in the corp who would have been war dec'ed should have the whole week of being war dec'ed that was paid for :D Simply NO. CCP always needs to leave an out for those who do not want any part of a war dec. If the corp disbands and closes in the first 24 hours the refund is good enough. After that as the saying goes you pay your money and take you chances. Thomas Gallant wrote: To be honest I'm really not sure what CCP intends war decs to be used for (originally or now) It's kind of a mystery to me. SInce there is no Sov in high sec there is no battle over a region of space, and with no moon mining they are rarely filed over the location of a POS. The only reason WD exist in high sec is to give PvP players a legitimate way to try and muster up a fight without Concord intervention. Arden Elenduil wrote: The main issue with wardecs is that currently, people (mainly the defenders) don't have any reason or incentive to actually stand up and defend themselves. It's much easier, and usually a better idea for them, to simply dodge the dec or wait it out. This is a part of the problem for sure, why fight and most likely die when there is nothing to be gained. Another part of this is the unreal expectations of those who file the WD. People that want to fight will, and can often be found in low sec looking for just that. Those in high sec who do not want a fight never will no matter what the rules are or what you do.

Helios Panala School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:27:05 - [11] - Quote An idea I saw for high sec war decs was to make the attackers anchor a war command facility at a high-sec POS, they put their CONCORD bribe in it and get a week of war. The cost of wars should be scaled somewhat to account for the extra isk needed to fuel a tower though. It gives the defenders an objective, a proper way to win. Find the POS and take it down to end the war and steal the attackers CONCORD bribe. (I suppose the defenders should be able to get some anchor-able device that helps triangulate the enemy POS location over about a week. Region - constellation - system - planet - moon over 24h periods after it's onlined.) If high-sec war decs are an excuse to force high-sec PvP without CONCORD interference then it seems like a good idea, it gives the defenders a reason to log in and fight and it gives them a reason to come to the aggressors while still enabling all those mining barge, freighter & mission runner kills. Mutual wars shouldn't require Command facilities.
Lugh Crow-Slave 211	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:34:40 - [12] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: An idea I saw for high sec war decs was to make the attackers anchor a war command facility at a high-sec POS ... I like this idea and with the new polarized weapons even a small groups can grind down a large POS in HS
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1268	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:41:00 - [13] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Helios Panala wrote: An idea I saw for high sec war decs was to make the attackers anchor a war command facility at a high-sec POS ... I like this idea and with the new polarized weapons even a small groups can grind down a large POS in HS If the wardeccing corp, like marmite, did it at a deathstar and kept gunner alts there, even with the terrible state of pos guns, that would very quickly be a bunch of polarized weapons in wrecks for them to scoop. Making the structure be anchored at a pos gives a HUGE advantage for the war corp, as not only does it force the defender to fight them, but it forces the defender to fight a massive uphill battle against a structure that can field 5-6k dps, or a ton of ecm.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 781	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:43:32 - [14] - Quote there are people who dont want to pew pew in high sec and there are people who want. I dont see any reason why CCP should skew the balance towards one specific group of people right now, nor are any provided in this thread. If you want pew pew so badly, you are wrong in high sec anyways, you know there is lowsec, 0.0 and WH space. There is also no reason why wardeccer should have last word over random people, I dont know where this expectation and attitude comes from.
King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 268	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:16:39 - [15] - Quote Base wardec should be 1bil, modified by NPC standings, and the decced party should have the opportunity to counterbribe CONCORD.
Helios Panala School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.18 12:42:22 - [16] - Quote Arronicus wrote: Making the structure be anchored at a pos gives a HUGE advantage for the war corp, as not only does it force the defender to fight them, but it forces the defender to fight a massive uphill battle against a structure that can field 5-6k dps, or a ton of ecm. It does provide an advantage. But it also makes wars more expensive to declare, the defender can recruit allies, and mercenaries can show verifiable command center kills. The attackers may also come to your POS in an effort to stop your attempts to find out where they are. Basically a reason for actually fighting rather than the camping trade hubs and logging off that most HS wars seem to consist of. If that's still not enough I guess the defenders triangulation device could be allowed to stuff the attackers command facility with counter bribes once it has fully narrowed down the POS location. Say double/triple the wardec cost, half to CONCORD half to the attacker with a war duration x2 cooldown timer for the peace afterwards.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 44	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:24:10 - [17] - Quote Gawain Edmond wrote: or all the people who were in the corp who would have been war dec'ed should have the whole week of being war dec'ed that was paid for :D /sign
Gawain Edmond Angry Mustellid The Periphery 121	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:31:26 - [18] - Quote the thing is if you leave a corp that is at war you are still a valid target for; a) 1 week b) untill the war dec ends whichever is soonest. You also can't join a new corp during that time period so extending that rule to a war dec that is due to start isn't unreasonable.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1367	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:36:47 - [19] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: To add to this, if the corp involved folds before the fighting period begins, the wardec fee should be refunded. Make it "untill 1st downtime when the war started" so the war has to actually start or people will fold after 24 hours and 1 minutes.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6957	Posted - 2014.11.18 14:52:29 - [20] - Quote +1 "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3086	Posted - 2014.11.18 14:55:25 - [21] - Quote OP's idea is probably not terrible. OP posting this while being a member of Marmite adds possible credibility to the potential for this to not be a terrible idea. I'll give it a +1. Anyone who's going to make a 1-man corp over this would have done so anyway.
Jur Tissant The TERRA Guardians of Serenity 323	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:16:19 - [22] - Quote That sort of just pushes the problem onto bigger corps, you'd effectively push corps like EVE Uni out of high-sec because every merc and their mum would be deccing them. I think the best change to wardecs, is to rapidly increase the wardec fee beyond week 1. Perhaps double it each week so by the second week it's more convenient to dec a new corp, by week 3 it is prohibitively expensive to maintain a war. Give it a month cooldown or so. Now, mercs still have their carebear targets to pop at gatecamps, but it is beneficial for them to cycle through corps instead of just harassing one.
Jackson Apollo Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:36:55 - [23] - Quote Whats a war dec? Edit: Added opinion instead of a pointless comment eluding to the problem I see. The only change needed is the ability to (wardec?) kill people like me that live in NPC land. Maybe link it to rookie chat or SP or some such. Other than that the War system is perfect.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 781	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:08:22 - [24] - Quote Jackson Apollo wrote: The only change needed is the ability to (wardec?) kill people like me that live in NPC land. Maybe link it to rookie chat or SP or some such. Other than that the War system is perfect. why? HS is not designed that way, people who dont want pew pew can evade wardecs, thats fine. Why should you be able to enforce your playstyle on other people?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1575	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:16:25 - [25] - Quote This proposal can only be valid if tied to a closure of the wardec-dodging exploits that currently exist IMHO. If we are going to pay more to wardec smaller alliances, they then shure as hell shouldn't be able to just have members leave to NPC corps to duck the wardec completely (or re-form immediately under another corp name), and the agressor get stiffed on his fees. If someone leaves a corp under wardec, the war should follow them for 1 week, or until the war ends. Until that existing loophole is first closed, I do not support tweaking at the edges of war mechanics. F Would you like to know more?
Jackson Apollo Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:18:34 - [26] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: why? HS is not designed that way, people who dont want pew pew can evade wardecs, thats fine. Why should you be able to enforce your playstyle on other people? because I have a long list of NPC corp people I want to murder and in this sandbox I might want to rub sand in their eyes. but your question begs the follow up question of "why let griefers force their play style on poor highsec miners?" if opting out of pew pew is easily allowed why not just get rid of war all together? its not like its used to settle disputes, promote religion, or to steal oil.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:31:01 - [27] - Quote Jackson Apollo wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: why? HS is not designed that way, people who dont want pew pew can evade wardecs, thats fine. Why should you be able to enforce your playstyle on other people? because I have a long list of NPC corp people I want to murder and in this sandbox I might want to rub sand in their eyes. but your question begs the follow up question of "why let griefers force their play style on poor highsec miners?" if opting out of pew pew is easily allowed why not just get rid of war all together? its not like its used to settle disputes, promote religion, or to steal oil. Because suicide ganking, like in real life, is always an option. Forcing people who live in highsec into PvP without CONCORD protection is not. Law abiding citizens always have the option of retaining police assistance....if they choose to remain in a corporation during a war they forfeit that...but if they are willing to drop back into NPC corp, there is no reason the sandbox should force them into PvP without CONCORD help.
Jackson Apollo Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:48:46 - [28] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: if they choose to remain in a corporation during a war they forfeit that...but if they are willing to drop back into NPC corp, there is no reason the sandbox should force them into PvP without CONCORD help. still sounds just like forcing someone to play the game a certain way. (I am arguing purely for the sake of arguing... me troll much?) My over arching point is players that don't want any PVP should look into Hello Kitty Online. EVE is PVP centric. I'll stop adding stupid things to this thread now. Sorry
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 777	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:56:42 - [29] - Quote If a wardeccing group waste their money by declaring against a corp that folds it is their own fault I think(unless that was the intention), it's easy to see from war histories who will fight and who will not. If someone wastes ISK then it's their own fault for not doing research.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 754	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:06:50 - [30] - Quote As someone who uses wardecs to clear out offline towers owned by long-dormant corps who haven't logged on in months, I strenuously oppose this change, or any other change that limits the ability of small corps to dec other small corps. I understand the concerns regarding players being drawn towards staying in NPC corps, but that is no justification for stymieing other perfectly valid forms of gameplay that don't discourage players to join player corps. Don't break valid gameplay to fix an un-related issue. Regarding wardec fees, I feel that CCP has the right idea. Wardec fees are essentially bribes to CONCORD to look the other way, and the larger the entity, the larger the bribe necessary. I can see some room for tweaking of the fees and mechanics in general, but it should not be more expensive to wardec a smaller corp than to wardec a larger corp/alliance. EDIT: I don't support wardec fee refunds. Yes, it'd be nice, but there's the whole risk/reward thing. If you could get a refund of your fees...where's the risk? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.

Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1809	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:56:34 - [31] - Quote Jur Tissant wrote: That sort of just pushes the problem onto bigger corps, you'd effectively push corps like EVE Uni out of high-sec because every merc and their mum would be deccing them. Why is this a bad thing? While the highsec merc/general wardeccing community does consist of a few thousand players they are spread throughout multiple groups, many of which are actively involved in killing eachother whereas E-uni is a single unified entity. In fact E-uni is a very, very large entity with an enormous number of veteran players in it, why shouldn't they get more concord protection than a small group with less experienced players. The current cost scaling mechanic literally provides more protection to people who should be more capable of seeing to their own security and that's ******* insane.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 180	Posted - 2014.11.19 01:39:54 - [32] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec. Wardecs are a tool to get easy kills, not to destroy corps or force players into NPC corps. Highsec players that are ignorant of tools that low, null and WH players have used for years should ask themselves first how to utilize existing game mechanics to protect themselves rather than asking for CCP to change the game to cater to their wants. I argue that making highsec safer discourages social interaction, because there's nothing to force people to work together to accomplish a goal. If your little ten man corp can operate with total autonomy and in complete safety, why would you ever interact with anyone else in highsec, except to participate in the economy? Anyone looking for pvp can just take a quick trip to low, null or wormholes, and doesn't have a care in the world when operating in high. You want to be safer with existing game mechanics? You should start by learning them first and then educating other players. Use locator agents, watchlists, form an intel channel. Don't have enough players to fight back or form an op to move corp or personal assets? Well then talk to your neighbors and form an alliance. Use scouts, cloaky alts, or corp spies. Marmite disseminates wardec and important information via mailing list- maybe you should try to get this information. Fight back. Many wardec corps are notoriously risk averse, and faced with something they can't deal with, will dock up and log off. None of these things involve changing the game, but most of them require you to make friends and talk to people. If you want the social option then take it and stop spreading your self serving lies about what problems that highsec faces are.
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 203	Posted - 2014.11.19 01:50:52 - [33] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec. Wardecs are a tool to get easy kills, not to destroy corps or force players into NPC corps. Highsec players that are ignorant of tools that low, null and WH players have used for years should ask themselves first how to utilize existing game mechanics to protect themselves rather than asking for CCP to change the game to cater to their wants. I argue that making highsec safer discourages social interaction, because there's nothing to force people to work together to accomplish a goal. If your little ten man corp can operate with total autonomy and in complete safety, why would you ever interact with anyone else in highsec, except to participate in the economy? Anyone looking for pvp can just take a quick trip to low, null or wormholes, and doesn't have a care in the world when operating in high. You want to be safer with existing game mechanics? You should start by learning them first and then educating other players. Use locator agents, watchlists, form an intel channel. Don't have enough players to fight back or form an op to move corp or personal assets? Well then talk to your neighbors and form an alliance. Use scouts, cloaky alts, or corp spies. Marmite disseminates wardec and important information via mailing list- maybe you should try to get this information. Fight back. Many wardec corps are notoriously risk averse, and faced with something they can't deal with, will dock up and log off. None of these things involve changing the game, but most of them require you to make friends and talk to people. If you want the social option then take it and stop spreading your self serving lies about what problems that highsec faces are. See this? This right here, is someone who gets the game. Someone who is absolutely right. I'll leave it at that, because nothing else needs to be said.
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 382	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:40:06 - [34] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: An idea I saw for high sec war decs was to make the attackers anchor a war command facility at a high-sec POS, they put their CONCORD bribe in it and get a week of war. This is a terrible idea for a simple reason: You will no longer have any CONCORD-compliant means to harrass null-sec supply lines. I mean, not even our terrible players will be at risk. Marmite will anchor their structure, and the CFC will roll over it. Done. No more high-sec war decs for us null bears. We can once again travel high-sec on our mains under the umbrella of CONCORD.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:43:51 - [35] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec. Wardecs are a tool to get easy kills, not to destroy corps or force players into NPC corps. Highsec players that are ignorant of tools that low, null and WH players have used for years should ask themselves first how to utilize existing game mechanics to protect themselves rather than asking for CCP to change the game to cater to their wants. I argue that making highsec safer discourages social interaction, because there's nothing to force people to work together to accomplish a goal. If your little ten man corp can operate with total autonomy and in complete safety, why would you ever interact with anyone else in highsec, except to participate in the economy? Anyone looking for pvp can just take a quick trip to low, null or wormholes, and doesn't have a care in the world when operating in high. You want to be safer with existing game mechanics? You should start by learning them first and then educating other players. Use locator agents, watchlists, form an intel channel. Don't have enough players to fight back or form an op to move corp or personal assets? Well then talk to your neighbors and form an alliance. Use scouts, cloaky alts, or corp spies. Marmite disseminates wardec and important information via mailing list- maybe you should try to get this information. Fight back. Many wardec corps are notoriously risk averse, and faced with something they can't deal with, will dock up and log off. None of these things involve changing the game, but most of them require you to make friends and talk to people. If you want the social option then take it and stop spreading your self serving lies about what problems that highsec faces are. Not all of us want to play your game. I live in highsec specifically because I don't want to operate without CONCORD protection. I follow the law, keep a high security status, and set my safety to green, because I want to know that whoever comes to mess with me, CONCORD has my back. I have no interest in playing your wardecc game, and CCP have quite rightly decided that the purpose of Eve is not to force highsec players into PvP without CONCORD protection. If you want that go to low/null/wh, or engage in suicide ganking. I'm perfectly safe already, and have no desire to become less so. And no, danger doesn't lead to social interaction...danger just leads to risk aversion and less interaction. Example - awoxxing. Could you do RL background checks and hold money in escrow when someone wants to join your highsec corp? Sure. But will you? No. Why? Because it's too hard. So instead you just stay in NPC corp or stick with RL friends. Result - more danger, less social interaction. Same with wardeccs - they deter people from joining player corps, and rationally encourage them to stay in NPC corps. Result - less interaction. And no, we don't need danger for interaction. Incursions have lots of interaction, but little PvP danger. Ditto for group mission running, manufacturing, etc... Wardeccing is fundamentally broken, and is yet another tool discouraging the creation of useful highsec PvE corps.
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 203	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:45:31 - [36] - Quote Then it appears that you are playing the wrong game, for CCP has made it abundantly clear that highsec is NOT safe, only "safer" than low/null/wh space. Eve is a game that's built around player interaction, but even more so, conflict.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:49:53 - [37] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: Then it appears that you are playing the wrong game, for CCP has made it abundantly clear that highsec is NOT safe, only "safer" than low/null/wh space. Eve is a game that's built around player interaction, but even more so, conflict. Irrelevant. Highsec is never pefectly safe due to suicide ganking. The question is should it be made even less safe through unevadable wardeccs...CCP has decided not. Perhaps you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you should make a game resembling the streets of Somalia, or something. And if anything CCP is imminently getting rid of awoxxing, suggesting they would like to make highsec MORE safe which will in fact lead to MORE content (actual teamwork, not just blowing ships up for giggles).
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 203	Posted - 2014.11.19 02:54:51 - [38] - Quote And where did I ever mention that I wanted unevadable wardecs? Please don't put any words in my mouth. I'm perfectly fine with players not wanting to be wardecced, they can already do this by staying in an NPC corporation, and I am perfectly fine with that (though perhaps the downsides to being in an NPC corp could be made just a tad harsher).
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:03:50 - [39] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: And where did I ever mention that I wanted unevadable wardecs? Please don't put any words in my mouth. I'm perfectly fine with players not wanting to be wardecced, they can already do this by staying in an NPC corporation, and I am perfectly fine with that (though perhaps the downsides to being in an NPC corp could be made just a tad harsher). Well fine then. Many on your side have called for exactly that (feel free to peruse other threads for details). As far as the OP goes, I don't think adjusting wardecc fees makes sense (it's just a ploy to make it cheaper for Marmite to dec big alliances. Great for Marmite...unclear how it really helps the rest of us). It is a fact though that people stay in NPC corps to avoid dealing with wardeccs. That is surely bad for the game, and a source of less interaction. I'm not really sure how to fix that while retaining wardeccs, but to me that is the #1 issue with wars, not the fact that it's too expensive to permadecc Goons.
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 203	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:08:20 - [40] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Arden Elenduil wrote: And where did I ever mention that I wanted unevadable wardecs? Please don't put any words in my mouth. I'm perfectly fine with players not wanting to be wardecced, they can already do this by staying in an NPC corporation, and I am perfectly fine with that (though perhaps the downsides to being in an NPC corp could be made just a tad harsher). Well fine then. Many on your side have called for exactly that (feel free to peruse other threads for details). As far as the OP goes, I don't think adjusting wardecc fees makes sense (it's just a ploy to make it cheaper for Marmite to dec big alliances. Great for Marmite...unclear how it really helps the rest of us). It is a fact though that people stay in NPC corps to avoid dealing with wardeccs. That is surely bad for the game, and a source of less interaction. I'm not really sure how to fix that while retaining wardeccs, but to me that is the #1 issue with wars, not the fact that it's too expensive to permadecc Goons. Well, wardecs were already changed once, and they increased the price of starting a war 25-fold at the very minimum. So you see, things have already gotten quite a bit better for people that don't wish to be involved in wars. That said, I can understand Tora's reasoning, since whacking on smaller corporations, especially for a large alliance such as Marmites doesn't really offer a good return on investment, so to speak.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:23:50 - [41] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: Well, wardecs were already changed once, and they increased the price of starting a war 25-fold at the very minimum. So you see, things have already gotten quite a bit better for people that don't wish to be involved in wars. That said, I can understand Tora's reasoning, since whacking on smaller corporations, especially for a large alliance such as Marmites doesn't really offer a good return on investment, so to speak. Well, from Tora's perspective he probably isn't asked to take on too many mini-corps, since it's so easy for them to just disband. His main business is engaging larger entities, especially nullsec alliances (I think he gets a few hundred mil a week to go after Goons), and there the 50 mil wardecc fees start to act up quickly. I guess the real question is whether it makes sense for it to be easier to wardecc big alliances. They mostly respond by playing on alts, with a few hilarious killmails thrown in. Tora's wars don't seem to lead to much real fighting in highsec...it's mostly just Marmite camping and blowing up the guy stupid enough to pilot a freighter in his Nullsec main instead of his NPC alt. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that...but it's not something I necessarily see as beneficial enough to the game that we should want to encourage more of it (I mean we could make wars free against any corp with 100+ members, and watch Marmite dec the entire nullsec. Would this really add valuable "content?").
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 87	Posted - 2014.11.19 06:57:06 - [42] - Quote Veers....... The second part of his suggestion is to make it more expensive for a larger group to dec a smaller group.........so a balance if you will. That along should fall in line with what you like to preach about a lot. Otherwise yet again your just blowing hot air....Conflict is the driver for EvE in one way or another....can you please stuff it already or just leave.
Helios Panala 0	Posted - 2014.11.19 09:48:01 - [43] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Helios Panala wrote: An idea I saw for high sec war decs was to make the attackers anchor a war command facility at a high-sec POS, they put their CONCORD bribe in it and get a week of war. This is a terrible idea for a simple reason: You will no longer have any CONCORD-compliant means to harrass null-sec supply lines. I mean, not even our terrible players will be at risk. Marmite will anchor their structure, and the CFC will roll over it. Done. No more high-sec war decs for us null bears. We can once again travel high-sec on our mains under the umbrella of CONCORD. They would have over 1000 systems to hide it in. Even if the 'automatic war command finding facility' is included they'd still have 3 or 4 days before you find it, unless you have a group search every moon in a region, and when the CFC rolls over it they can just anchor another one somewhere totally different and shoot you for another 3-4 days while you figure out where that one is. And if Marmite can't afford to/don't want to keep doing that, well who cares. Seriously. Declaring war on someone much bigger than you should have the potential to become a miserable time consuming pain in the ass.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 182	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:00:52 - [44] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Wardeccs are being used as a tool to destroy player corporations and force people into NPC corps. That is bad for highsec, and bad for the game. We should be making it easier to be in a highsec corp, not more difficult. Wardeccs need to be revamped so they can only hit bigger corps/alliances, say a minimum of 25+ people, or barring that, removed from highsec entirely. Big -1 to any idea that makes it easier to perpetuate these useless wars and discourages social interaction in highsec. Wardecs are a tool to get easy kills, not to destroy corps or force players into NPC corps. Highsec players that are ignorant of tools that low, null and WH players have used for years should ask themselves first how to utilize existing game mechanics to protect themselves rather than asking for CCP to change the game to cater to their wants. I argue that making highsec safer discourages social interaction, because there's nothing to force people to work together to accomplish a goal. If your little ten man corp can operate with total autonomy and in complete safety, why would you ever interact with anyone else in highsec, except to participate in the economy? Anyone looking for pvp can just take a quick trip to low, null or wormholes, and doesn't have a care in the world when operating in high. You want to be safer with existing game mechanics? You should start by learning them first and then educating other players. Use locator agents, watchlists, form an intel channel. Don't have enough players to fight back or form an op to move corp or personal assets? Well then talk to your neighbors and form an alliance. Use scouts, cloaky alts, or corp spies. Marmite disseminates wardec and important information via mailing list- maybe you should try to get this information. Fight back. Many wardec corps are notoriously risk averse, and faced with something they can't deal with, will dock up and log off. None of these things involve changing the game, but most of them require you to make friends and talk to people. If you want the social option then take it and stop spreading your self serving lies about what problems that highsec faces are. Not all of us want to play your game. I live in highsec specifically because I don't want to operate without CONCORD protection. I follow the law, keep a high security status, and set my safety to green, because I want to know that whoever comes to mess with me, CONCORD has my back. I have no interest in playing your wardecc game, and CCP have quite rightly decided that the purpose of Eve is not to force highsec players into PvP without CONCORD protection. If you want that go to low/null/wh, or engage in suicide ganking. I'm perfectly safe already, and have no desire to become less so. And no, danger doesn't lead to social interaction...danger just leads to risk aversion and less interaction. Example - awoxxing. Could you do RL background checks and hold money in escrow when someone wants to join your highsec corp? Sure. But will you? No. Why? Because it's too hard. So instead you just stay in NPC corp or stick with RL friends. Result - more danger, less social interaction. Same with wardeccs - they deter people from joining player corps, and rationally encourage them to stay in NPC corps. Result - less interaction. And no, we don't need danger for interaction. Incursions have lots of interaction, but little PvP danger. Ditto for group mission running, manufacturing, etc... Wardeccing is fundamentally broken, and is yet another tool discouraging the creation of useful highsec PvE corps. Firstly it's not my game or your game, it's CCPs game, and they've designed it so that you can never operate in total safety anywhere in EVE, and have stated clearly that it is a fundamental design choice that they've made with this game, and it won't change. Secondly, CONCORD doesn't protect you. CONCORD only punishes. CONCORD doesn't have your back, because if I, or anyone else wants to blow up your ship enough, we can. If some day they allowed titans in highsec it would still technically be possible to suicide gank them, the only question on weather it will be done or not is how much do they want to do it? Anyone engaging in suicide ganking has already decided that losing their ship is acceptable and is willing to deal with that and every time you undock, regardless of you being conscious of it or not, you consent to PVP at any moment. Thirdly, CCP has provided players with multiple avenues of avoiding awoxers. The only issue that I have here is that CCP should probably provide an in game method of reviewing a character's API, it could be like a resume that may be submitted per request showing the same information as an API, only in game. Regardless, players can still demand an API from prospective recruits, or demand that said recruit has a certain minimum time to discourage people from using throwaway accounts. If its too hard for you, that's your problem. Fourth, if you think that danger leads to risk averstion, you should look to the most dangerous systems in EVE before you make such a statement. Systems like GE-8JV are buzzing because they're dangerous, and the danger, the ships that are blown up, the excitement and opportunity, all of it, it attracts people and makes them come together, either as friends or enemies. Wardecs are a part of this game, and they'll continue to be in some form or another. You are always going to be subject to pvp as long as you play EVE. It's a core part of this game. Instead of making it an opportunity you try your hardest, and lie, misinform, and exaggerate in an attempt to convince everyone that this issue, which is merely an inconvinience at the absolute worst, is somehow ruining the game. If the devs ever listened to people like you (thankfully they don't) this game would die, and it would be your fault.
Daoden The Scope Gallente Federation 94	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:35:40 - [45] - Quote The biggest issue with the war dec system atm is players looking for easy targets and going after non combat groups. These players arnt looking for a fight they are looking for easy kills and there is very little indy corps can do to counter this other then disband. Most cant afford to hire a merc group and most wont join an alliance for protection because that opens them up to more wars most of the time. War decs do have their purpose but unfortunately you will have the high sec pvpers that don't want to risk their ships against someone that will shoot back. Ive been decced by a small 3 man corp before and when we started shooting back they joined an alliance and they brought more friends in, so its not so easy to fight back when half of these griefers have a small network in which they can pool their resources to fight a group that does try and defend themselves and then over power them. It shows that actually trying to interact with other players can become even more costly then just dropping a corp. If wars were not just about getting kills, like going after null sec supply lines or POS/POCO removal, we wouldn't have this problem, but there are to many killboard addicts just trying to pad their numbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13953	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:40:27 - [46] - Quote Daoden wrote: The biggest issue with the war dec system atm is players looking for easy targets and going after non combat groups. These players arnt looking for a fight they are looking for easy kills and there is very little indy corps can do to counter this other then disband. Most cant afford to hire a merc group and most wont join an alliance for protection because that opens them up to more wars most of the time. War decs do have their purpose but unfortunately you will have the high sec pvpers that don't want to risk their ships against someone that will shoot back. Ive been decced by a small 3 man corp before and when we started shooting back they joined an alliance and they brought more friends in, so its not so easy to fight back when half of these griefers have a small network in which they can pool their resources to fight a group that does try and defend themselves and then over power them. It shows that actually trying to interact with other players can become even more costly then just dropping a corp. If wars were not just about getting kills, like going after null sec supply lines or POS/POCO removal, we wouldn't have this problem, but there are to many killboard addicts just trying to pad their numbers. Natural selection. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 196	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:59:36 - [47] - Quote Daoden wrote: The biggest issue with the war dec system atm is players looking for easy targets and going after non combat groups. These players arnt looking for a fight they are looking for easy kills and there is very little indy corps can do to counter this other then disband. Most cant afford to hire a merc group and most wont join an alliance for protection because that opens them up to more wars most of the time. [truncated] If wars were not just about getting kills, like going after null sec supply lines or POS/POCO removal, we wouldn't have this problem, but there are to many killboard addicts just trying to pad their numbers. This is what wardecs are about. There are no such thing as "non-combat groups". Eve is a single-shard sandbox where everyone is in competition with, and therefore can and should be able to influence everyone else. If you are a "non-combatant" you should team up with some "combatants" and protect yourself. Read the last wardec dev blog to see how it is suppose to work. The whole system is designed for you to hire mercenaries or otherwise protect yourself. Can't afford to hire mercs? Come on, you are not entitled to print ISK risk- and cost-free. Spend some of that ISK you are making on hiring protection for your assets. If you are truly making so little to do this then you would have no assets(POSes/POCOs) to protect, or a significant number of members to inconvenience, so just drop corp and reform. I'm not claiming the wardec system is perfect, it is actually from it, but it certainly isn't in its current form stacked against the defenders in anyway.
Helios Panala 1	Posted - 2014.11.19 12:17:15 - [48] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I'm not claiming the wardec system is perfect, it is actually far from it, but it certainly isn't in its current form stacked against the defenders in anyway. The attacker chooses who to attack, when to attack and when to stop attacking. That seems to favor the attacker to me.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 196	Posted - 2014.11.19 13:04:45 - [49] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: The attacker chooses who to attack, when to attack and when to stop attacking. That seems to favor the attacker to me. The attacker has to pay 50M ISK (which is lost if the defender folds corp), cannot have any allies, and cannot stop the war without the consent of the defender (a formal surrender). The defender can drop corp temporarily, fold and reform to shed the dec completely, can invite any ally after the war is declared (and the attacker is committed) for free, and invite additional allies for a cost. The mechanics are clearly designed to favour the defender. Frankly, if you think an attacker should require prior consent for PvP to be "fair" you are probably playing the wrong game. Non-consensual PvP is by definition a requirement of the sandbox (everything is PvP) and cannot be removed without breaking the game completely. But this is getting off-topic. I agree with Feyd, the drop-reform mechanic (as it is) is too powerful a tool for the defender and should be looked at when any further modifications to the wardec mechanic are considered.
Helios Panala 1	Posted - 2014.11.19 13:42:03 - [50] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: The attacker has to pay 50M ISK (which is lost if the defender folds corp), cannot have any allies, and cannot stop the war without the consent of the defender (a formal surrender). The defender can drop corp temporarily, fold and reform to shed the dec completely, can invite any ally after the war is declared (and the attacker is committed) for free, and invite additional allies for a cost. The mechanics are clearly designed to favour the defender. I think the aggressor should get a proportional refund if the defender folds. The aggressor is only locked in for a week max and they also have the option of folding their own corp (I think.) The other things are there to balance out the attackers natural advantages & can be minimized by doing your research on a corp before attacking it. Black Pedro wrote: Frankly, if you think an attacker should require prior consent for PvP to be "fair" you are probably playing the wrong game. Non-consensual PvP is by definition a requirement of the sandbox (everything is PvP) and cannot be removed without breaking the game completely. Yeah. I've never said prior consent should be obtained for war decs... I posted an idea that I think would actual result in more fighting.

admiral root Red Galaxy 1849	Posted - 2014.11.19 14:14:36 - [51] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: If you want pew pew so badly, you are wrong in high sec anyways, you know there is lowsec, 0.0 and WH space. Oh wait, lemme guess, people there shoot back, right?? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1579	Posted - 2014.11.19 14:37:30 - [52] - Quote So, for all the pansy carebears who continually chime in when war mechanics are mentioned, I will simply refer them to membership in an existing mechanic called NPC corporations. If you want to be safe from wardecs, simply stay in an NPC corp, and shut the hell up re: spreading your pansification into further nerfs to wars... Now with regard to war mechanics. If war mechanics are to exist, they should be meaningful. The biggest hole right now that you can (and many do) drive a truck through is the fact people who are wardecced can simply shed the war before its normal & paid-for expiry and 'dodge' it, by dropping corp to either run to an NPC corp or other corp, immediately. This is a bad mechanic. Again, if someone wants to be safe from wars, they stay in NPC corps. If they decide to start a corporation or join one, that has implications. We aren't debating wars 'yes' or 'no' here. We are saying wars are still BROKEN. Now Tora suggests one angle to make war mechanics better. I still however believe tweaking around the edges like that takes focus away from the real main issue, and that is dec dodging. Solution wise? Its completely balanced and fair to say that IF someone decides to make or join a player corp, and a wardec lands, every person in that corp should be subjected to the war for the paid-for duration. No exploit to remove the war. This means quite simply, we should be focussing our efforts on having wars follow INDIVIDUALS that drop corp, for a period of one week (or until war was already set to expire, whichever comes first). This is balance. This is fairness. Now. AFTER that exploit has been plugged, we can talk about revising rate structures, or even putting fees in a bucket claimable by defenders based on agressor ships killed, etc etc. F Would you like to know more?
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 14:50:57 - [53] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: If someone leaves a corp under wardec, the war should follow them for 1 week, or until the war ends. why? You wardec a player corp, not individual player. If player leaves corp, its no longer in a player corp which can in turn be wardecced. Why do you think you should be in position to speak last word over people? You do a click in order to shoot them, they return a click and counter your wardec, its all fine. Jackson Apollo wrote: because I have a long list of NPC corp people I want to murder and in this sandbox I might want to rub sand in their eyes. but your question begs the follow up question of "why let griefers force their play style on poor highsec miners?" if opting out of pew pew is easily allowed why not just get rid of war all together? its not like its used to settle disputes, promote religion, or to steal oil. suicide them if you want it that badly. Opting out of pew pew is as easily as opting in at your part. Its balanced. Did you ever think about wardeccing people who share your playstyle and enjoy HS wars? No? Bullet Therapist wrote: Highsec players that are ignorant of tools that low, null and WH players have used for years should ask themselves first how to utilize existing game mechanics to protect themselves rather than asking for CCP to change the game to cater to their wants. All I see are wardeccer griefers out for easy kills, asking CCP to change high sec to cather to their wants, ignoring existing WH, Low and 0.0 space, where people are successfully living in for years. Bullet Therapist wrote: I argue that making highsec safer discourages social interaction, because there's nothing to force people to work together to accomplish a goal. If your little ten man corp can operate with total autonomy and in complete safety, why would you ever interact with anyone else in highsec, except to participate in the economy? am I the only one who sees a discrepancy in this post? Bullet Therapist wrote: You want to be safer with existing game mechanics? You should start by learning them first and then educating other players. Use locator agents, watchlists, form an intel channel. Don't have enough players to fight back or form an op to move corp or personal assets? Well then talk to your neighbors and form an alliance. Use scouts, cloaky alts, or corp spies. Marmite disseminates wardec and important information via mailing list- maybe you should try to get this information. Fight back. Many wardec corps are notoriously risk averse, and faced with something they can't deal with, will dock up and log off. why should they want to fight back as industrialist and as someone not playing your game? Its like they would ask you to mine and build your own ships instead of buying all stuff from jita. How about that?
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 14:58:08 - [54] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Firstly it's not my game or your game, it's CCPs game, and they've designed it so that you can never operate in total safety anywhere in EVE, and have stated clearly that it is a fundamental design choice that they've made with this game, and it won't change. exactly. Its their game, where you can leave a player corp and dodge a wardec and yet still be vulnerable to attacks (suicide ganks) and never be safe. Its all fine. Bullet Therapist wrote: Fourth, if you think that danger leads to risk averstion, you should look to the most dangerous systems in EVE before you make such a statement. Systems like GE-8JV are buzzing because they're dangerous, and the danger, the ships that are blown up, the excitement and opportunity, all of it, it attracts people and makes them come together, either as friends or enemies. its buzzing with people sharing your playstyle, not industrialists you trying to grief in HS. Why arent you in GE but instaed are squatting in HS crying for CCP to give you vicims and easy prey on a silver platter? In fact those in GE- are way better than you, instead of crying at CCP for nerfing high sec players they head out to places where pew pew is happening. Bullet Therapist wrote: Wardecs are a part of this game, and they'll continue to be in some form or another. You are always going to be subject to pvp as long as you play EVE. It's a core part of this game. Instead of making it an opportunity you try your hardest, and lie, misinform, and exaggerate in an attempt to convince everyone that this issue, which is merely an inconvinience at the absolute worst, is somehow ruining the game. If the devs ever listened to people like you (thankfully they don't) this game would die, and it would be your fault. lol yes they are part of the game, noone argues about this. So are NPC corporations.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:10:12 - [55] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: exactly. Its their game, where you can leave a player corp and dodge a wardec and yet still be vulnerable to attacks (suicide ganks) and never be safe. Its all fine. Not really. It makes wardecs more or less useless. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:13:41 - [56] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Not really. It makes wardecs more or less useless. no, they arent useless if you wardec people who in fact play HS wars and will return fire. Without wardecs noone could be doing wars in HS.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 198	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:13:42 - [57] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: why should they want to fight back as industrialist and as someone not playing your game? Its like they would ask you to mine and build your own ships instead of buying all stuff from jita. How about that? This is the point of the game. You are suppose to compete with others for power and resources and protect your means of production from the bad intentions of others. That is what Eve is. People who buy their stuff from Jita pay the industrialist for it. The game is designed so that the industrialist is suppose to use some of that ISK to pay for the protection of their means of production, either through weapons, or by hiring mercenaries to do it for them. Some of that ISK you earned and covet so much is suppose to be spent of defense of your operation, and flow back to mercenaries (in part through the wardec mechanic). What is not suppose to happen as many carebears seem to think, is for them to sit risk-free in highsec, hiding under the free protection of CONCORD and other game mechanics, amassing ISK and spending none of it on their own defense. Eve needs both explosions and industry, but you don't get to cut yourself off from everybody else just because you want to "play your own game". Grow a backbone, or team up with someone who has and play the game as it was designed.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:17:05 - [58] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: This is the point of the game. You are suppose to compete with others for power and resources and protect your means of production from the bad intentions of others. point of the game is to do whatever you do. Its sandbox, played by CCP's rules, no more no less. Black Pedro wrote: People who buy their stuff from Jita pay the industrialist for it. The game is designed so that the industrialist is suppose to use some of that ISK to pay for the protection of their means of production, either through weapons, or by hiring mercenaries to do it for them. Some of that ISK you earned and covet so much is suppose to be spent of defense of your operation, and flow back to mercenaries (in part through the wardec mechanic). if this would've been this only way, CCP havent given us NPC corps. Right? You can pay mercenaries but you dont need to. So is the game, so are the rules. Its sandbox. Black Pedro wrote: What is not suppose to happen as many carebears seem to think, is for them to sit risk-free in highsec, hiding under the free protection of CONCORD and other game mechanics, amassing ISK and spending none of it on their own defense. I love it when high sec squatters calling out other high sec squatters for being carebears :D Go low, WH or 0.0 there you'll receive lots of pew pew. You are amongst those people hiding under free protection of CONCORD, or what exactly is the reason you live in HS? Black Pedro wrote: Eve needs both explosions and industry, but you don't get to cut yourself off from everybody else just because you want to "play your own game". Grow a backbone, or team up with someone who has and play the game as it was designed. yeah grow a backbone and head out of HS and play the game as it was designed - instead cutting off yourself from everybody else you havent wardecced (industrials and mission runners).
DaeHan Minhyok Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 29	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:38:32 - [59] - Quote How about you cant war dec alliances that hold sov? You know where to find us, come get some! Stop your petty station games and neutral reps. Big alliances get enough griefer war decs as is without it being cheaper, war decs should be more expensive and there should be a max cap on outstanding wars.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:38:41 - [60] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: Not really. It makes wardecs more or less useless. no, they arent useless if you wardec people who in fact play HS wars and will return fire. Without wardecs noone could be doing wars in HS. They are and you know it, we all know it. If you want to hit a rivals assets then your better off just ganking them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:39:43 - [61] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: Not really. It makes wardecs more or less useless. no, they arent useless if you wardec people who in fact play HS wars and will return fire. Without wardecs noone could be doing wars in HS. And the people who won't return fire, who won't play during the war... They either belong in an NPC corp, or not playing EVE at all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:45:48 - [62] - Quote baltec1 wrote: They are and you know it, we all know it. If you want to hit a rivals assets then your better off just ganking them. wardecs arent useless for the reason I mentioned above. Yet they are ineffective if you want to harass people who doesnt play your style and know how to dodge a wardec - however thats absolutely fine, because eve is not exclusively about combat pvp, you know it better. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And the people who won't return fire, who won't play during the war... They either belong in an NPC corp, or not playing EVE at all. you shouldnt wardec them to start with as you know they wont play with you anyways. This is the reason why I left HS in first 2 months of my eve carreer for the mere purpose of pvp, compared to you who still sit there and cry a river about how hard griefing miners and mission runners in HS is.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:48:29 - [63] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: They are and you know it, we all know it. If you want to hit a rivals assets then your better off just ganking them. wardecs arent useless for the reason I mentioned above. Yet they are ineffective if you want to harass people who doesnt play your style and know how to dodge a wardec - however thats absolutely fine, because eve is not exclusively about combat pvp, you know it better. Hence why I say they are useless, they are so easy to avoid and you can do it without spending a penny. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:51:02 - [64] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: you shouldnt wardec them to start with as you know they wont play with you anyways. They shouldn't be in player corps to start with if they don't want to play with others. There already is a place for them, that place is NPC corps. Quote: This is the reason why I left HS in first 2 months of my eve carreer for the mere purpose of pvp, compared to you who still sit there and cry a river about how hard griefing miners and mission runners in HS is. PvP does not just belong in low and null. EVE is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere. That includes highsec. If people don't want to deal with wars, then they belong in NPC corps. Simple as that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:51:16 - [65] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Hence why I say they are useless, they are so easy to avoid and you can do it without spending a penny. they arent useless for the reason I told already. Without wardec there would be absolutely no way to make war in HS. You just need a bit of talent of picking proper corps for HS wars who wouldnt dodge.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:54:00 - [66] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: they arent useless for the reason I told already. Without wardec there would be absolutely no way to make war in HS. You just need a bit of talent of picking proper corps for HS wars who wouldnt dodge. People dont put strategic assets in corps that stick around for war decs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:54:05 - [67] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: They shouldn't be in player corps to start with if they don't want to play with others. oh well, they play with others but not the way you want. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: There already is a place for them, that place is NPC corps. and yes, they go into NPC corps, once you try to force them to your playstyle. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PvP does not just belong in low and null. EVE is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere. That includes highsec. pvp is not just combat. its also industry, mining, trading etc. Are you a noob that you dont know this basics? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: If people don't want to deal with wars, then they belong in NPC corps. Simple as that. exactly what they are doing for the duration of wardec.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:56:32 - [68] - Quote baltec1 wrote: People dont put strategic assets in corps that stick around for war decs. so? What is this argument about?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 15:59:16 - [69] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: People dont put strategic assets in corps that stick around for war decs. so? What is this argument about? Lets say GIA find out the corp that supplies NC. with their ships in a deployment zone. We cant wardec it as they would just skip to another corp the moment the war dec lands and continue as normal. This is why war decs are useless. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:00:11 - [70] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: and yes, they go into NPC corps, once you try to force them to your playstyle. It's not "my playstyle", it's the bar for player corps. If you can't or won't meet that bar, the NPC corps are always recruiting. People playing games with the corp creation mechanics is not the intended gameplay, it's as simple as that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:08:51 - [71] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lets say GIA find out the corp that supplies NC. with their ships in a deployment zone. We cant wardec it as they would just skip to another corp the moment the war dec lands and continue as normal. This is why war decs are useless. oh well yes, for your specific purpose wardecs might be useless, thats it. deal with it. suicide their freighters as your alliance used to, worked fine so long. No reason to nerf everyone else. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It's not "my playstyle", it's the bar for player corps. no its not. HS and Eve is not just about combat pvp. Really not. Learn Eve buddy. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: People playing games with the corp creation mechanics is not the intended gameplay, it's as simple as that. its intended play as long as CCP wont disagree, simple as that.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:15:03 - [72] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: oh well yes, for your specific purpose wardecs might be useless, thats it. deal with it. suicide their freighters as your alliance used to, worked fine so long. No reason to nerf everyone else. So we should be forced to play the game the way they want? See, that sorry argument works both ways. Outside of a few specific purposes war decs arnt worth the isk you spend on them. People are forever complaining about us ganking ships for no profit but we are not being given any other options here. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 784	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:21:14 - [73] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So we should be forced to play the game the way they want? See, that sorry argument works both ways. Outside of a few specific purposes war decs arnt worth the isk you spend on them. People are forever complaining about us ganking ships for no profit but we are not being given any other options here. indeed. wardecs dont suit your purpose, they help same way for you like for your foe - both ways. As if GSF wouldnt employ neutral logistic corporations within HS or NPC alts. What do you think your logi guys would feel about undodgeable wardecs for HS? Generally they are still far from useless for people who (want to) wardec each other and have fun in HS, which was your original statement.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:23:18 - [74] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: its intended play as long as CCP wont disagree, simple as that. Please find me a dev quote saying that playing leapfrog with corp creation mechanics is the intended method to get rid of wardecs. Because from having read the dev blog, it sure looks like the intended method is the surrender mechanic. Which would make dec dodging a textbook exploit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:25:10 - [75] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: So we should be forced to play the game the way they want? See, that sorry argument works both ways. Outside of a few specific purposes war decs arnt worth the isk you spend on them. People are forever complaining about us ganking ships for no profit but we are not being given any other options here. indeed. wardecs dont suit your purpose, they help same way for you like for your foe - both ways. As if GSF wouldnt employ neutral logistic corporations within HS or NPC alts. Generally they are still far from useless for people who (want to) wardec each other and have fun in HS. So why should people be able to avoid having their assets like this? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 787	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:27:25 - [76] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So why should people be able to avoid having their assets like this? why should they not? You gave a special case of 0.0 alliance logistics as argument, which are in fact just a small subset of all HS players; what you asking for is a nerf of whole HS population just to cather your needs to interrupt 0.0 logistics? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Please find me a dev quote saying that playing leapfrog with corp creation mechanics is the intended method to get rid of wardecs. Because from having read the dev blog, it sure looks like the intended method is the surrender mechanic. Which would make dec dodging a textbook exploit. I dont need a dev quote, the existing 10 years old mechanics confirm my stance. If you think players are exploiting loopholes in game mechanics petition them, CCP usually punishes such behavior with (perma)bans.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:29:41 - [77] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: what you asking for is a nerf of whole HS population just to cather your needs to interrupt 0.0 logistics? No, what we are asking for is for a broken mechanic to be fixed. For a meaningless mechanic to be given meaning. If closing an exploit nerfs the "whole HS population", that's their fault for using the exploit instead of playing the game correctly. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 383	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:30:39 - [78] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: They would have over 1000 systems to hide it in. Let's stop right there. If it's true that a corporation can drop this anywhere in high-sec and the target corp doesn't get an idea of where it is, then it defeats the purpose as it's impractical for moderate-sized corps to survey the known universe every time they get wardecced.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 787	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:33:06 - [79] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, what we are asking for is for a broken mechanic to be fixed. For a meaningless mechanic to be given meaning. wardecs have a meaning, like I pointed out multiple times in this thread so stop reiterating on a wrong statement, it wont become true. If you want to pew pew people in HS, you will need to find same of your kind. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: If closing an exploit nerfs the "whole HS population", that's their fault for using the exploit instead of playing the game correctly. there is no exploit, just regular gameplay by rules CCP set up for 10 years already.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:36:35 - [80] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: wardecs have a meaning Consensual PvP sure isn't part of that meaning, no matter what carebears tell themselves to justify their risk aversion. Quote: there is no exploit, just regular gameplay by rules CCP set up for 10 years already. Well, that shows what you know about it. It's nowhere close to ten years old. Do you even bother learning about what you're talking about, or just spew carebear talking points? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 200	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:37:21 - [81] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: I love it when high sec squatters calling out other high sec squatters for being carebears :D Go low, WH or 0.0 there you'll receive lots of pew pew. You are amongst those people hiding under free protection of CONCORD, or what exactly is the reason you live in HS? Friend, highsec mechanics make me a criminal and I am thus exempt from the protections offered by CONCORD. Highsec is lowsec to me at all times - worse in fact with that pesky facpo always after me. I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox. This is really off-topic now so in an attempt to get this back on topic: Tora's suggestion is an interesting one I support, but wardecs are too easily dodged now to the point where they have failed to reach the goal of supporting vibrant highsec PvP and nurturing the profession of "mercenary" envisioned by the game designers (as described in the dev blog). But the current system of increased cost for the wardeccing of larger corps seems punitive to smaller corps. Do see any issue changing it as Tora proposes?
Helios Panala 2	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:52:18 - [82] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Helios Panala wrote: They would have over 1000 systems to hide it in. Let's stop right there. If it's true that a corporation can drop this anywhere in high-sec and the target corp doesn't get an idea of where it is, then it defeats the purpose as it's impractical for moderate-sized corps to survey the known universe every time they get wardecced. It's only a rough idea, however I did suggest that the defenders should be able to set up their own device to slowly narrow down the attackers POS location. Rough time frame of maybe 24hr after the war goes live it tells you the region, 24h later the Constellation, then 3 possible systems, then the system, then the planet, then the exact moon. Attackers would of course be free to assault the defender POS and kill the device just as defenders would be free to assault the wardeccers POS to end the war. Essentially it gives HS miners and mission runners the (possibly delusional) hope that they can win a war on their own terms and therefore gives them some impetus to stay in corp and log in. It gives both sides some bait to try and draw the other into fighting, kill the command facility of the attacker or the triangulation device of the defender. Also due to reasonably long triangulation time corps that just enjoy throwing out decs and camping trade hubs still get almost the full week of doing it. If they're worried they can't defend the POS they can just take it all down to automatically surrender. EDIT: This is off topic anyway, the OP suggestion is not quite enough in my opinion but it a good suggestion all the same.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 788	Posted - 2014.11.19 16:52:50 - [83] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Consensual PvP sure isn't part of that meaning, no matter what carebears tell themselves to justify their risk aversion. pvp is unconsensual, thats true. You always can agress, kill ships in HS even without wardec. What you are talking about are war declarations against player corporations, people can freely join or leave as they feel - which exactly reflects the principles of consensual pvp, depending of what price you are willing to pay pvp can be seen as consensual or non-consensual. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Well, that shows what you know about it. It's nowhere close to ten years old. Do you even bother learning about what you're talking about, or just spew carebear talking points? well then tell me when CCP introduced mechanics preventing random HS folks being agressed by other people freely. Black Pedro wrote: I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox. game is woking fine for you apparently. Black Pedro wrote: This is really off-topic now so in an attempt to get this back on topic: Tora's suggestion is an interesting one I support, but wardecs are too easily dodged now to the point where they have failed to reach the goal of supporting vibrant highsec PvP and nurturing the profession of "mercenary" envisioned by the game designers (as described in the dev blog). But the current system of increased cost for the wardeccing of larger corps seems punitive to smaller corps. Do see any issue changing it as Tora proposes? I spawned my discussion to one of the later replies to original suggestion not the topic starter himself. I have no strict opinion about original topic.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:02:35 - [84] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: baltec1 wrote: So why should people be able to avoid having their assets like this? why should they not? You gave a special case of 0.0 alliance logistics as argument, which are in fact just a small subset of all HS players; what you asking for is a nerf of whole HS population just to cather your needs to interrupt 0.0 logistics? Thats not a special case, a special case is two corps going to war willingly with each other for "gudfights". What I am asking for is some sort of level playing field Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 788	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:06:22 - [85] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Thats not a special case, a special case is two corps going to war willingly with each other for "gudfights". What I am asking for is some sort of level playing field regardless of how much I would love undodgeable wardecs against GSF logistics corps, freighters passing HS (not even living there) from Jita to northern 0.0 really are a special case and a small subset of HS population.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13955	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:08:35 - [86] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: regardless of how much I would love undodgeable wardecs against GSF logistics corps, 0.0 freighters passing HS (not even living there) from Jita to northern 0.0 really are a special case and a small subset of HS population. Attacking other peoples assets however is not a small subset. As it stands war decs heavily favor the defender. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 200	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:13:16 - [87] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I live in highsec to enforce the risk vs. reward design of the game. It is my raison d'etre. Risk is suppose to exist everywhere in New Eden including highsec and I enjoy providing it. Why? Sandbox. game is woking fine for you apparently. Indeed it is. But since this is the F&I subforum I am sharing my "ideas" of what "features" could be added or changed in the game to make it better. I think that wardecs have not lived up to the design intent of the dev blog. Making dec-dodging an exploit again (like it was for the most of the history of Eve), and changing the fee structure as Tora suggested would improve things.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 789	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:28:59 - [88] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Attacking other peoples assets however is not a small subset. you can attack other people assets, anywhere. in any but HS without any wardec even, in HS you can suicide gank dodgers according to HS game rules. baltec1 wrote: As it stands war decs heavily favor the defender. yeah Black Pedro wrote: I think that wardecs have not lived up to the design intent of the dev blog. Making dec-dodging an exploit again (like it was for the most of the history of Eve), and changing the fee structure as Tora suggested would improve things. oh I can hardly tell whether they lived up to, devblog was specifically about HS towers and war shielding and shedding, which isnt working anymore for what I know, so how can you tell the change has failed? Yes, individuals can still dodge but you wont be able to force them giving you easy killmails anyways, they'll more likely stop playing eve for the period of vulnerability or even complete quit the game, which cant be CCP's intention or whose ever.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 777	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:35:36 - [89] - Quote The problem i see is that the people who will dec-dodge have no interest in pvp and will use any valid means to avoid wardecs. This is akin to bumping where you gain advantage without going suspect. Valid mechanic that infuriates some and helps others. Before a corp wardecs they should determine whether it is worth it in their assessment of of the target corp. If they won't fight thendon't waste your time unless you have some reason to disrupt them by forcing them into an npc corp. What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose...
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:53:20 - [90] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose... Those are active evasion methods, they don't just involve pressing a few buttons and freely bypassing the surrender mechanic. Surely the difference is obvious. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 383	Posted - 2014.11.19 17:55:41 - [91] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: It's only a rough idea, however I did suggest that the defenders should be able to set up their own device to slowly narrow down the attackers POS location. Souldn't need to. And you shouldn't need any new structures. Set pricing based on what type of corp is attacking and defending (ie. do they have assets in space to be attacked and where--high or low/null--are they?), give public information as to what constellation a corp has a presence in, and then change the charter fuel types to a much more expensive, non-consumable item that also prevents unanchoring POSes the moment a wardec is announced. Done right, decs against null corporations aren't affected at all, decs against high-sec corps without deployed assets are expensive, and corporations trying to dec other high-sec entities without putting something at risk in high-sec also have to pay a premium. (Even more so if they're also trying to target an asset-less high-sec corp.) But at the same time, everything that war decs are used for now can still happen, and the only new hoops you jump through are the ones you choose to lower your bill.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:04:28 - [92] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: What if a corp decides upon wsrdec that they won't play your game and fly cloaked to hop through WH's? Is that a problem too as this equally effectively avoids the wardec. A couple of losec wWH jumps can send players a long way away if they so choose... Those are active evasion methods, they don't just involve pressing a few buttons and freely bypassing the surrender mechanic. Surely the difference is obvious. But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers. Actually the active method is better as the decced corp carries on elsewhere instead. The corp that simply drop to an npc corp suffer higher taxes too. Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec).
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:09:52 - [93] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers. The result is not the same. One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place. One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest. It's fairly obvious which one is better for the health of the game. Quote: Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec). Among other things, yes. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:15:35 - [94] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: But the net result is the same, wasted time and isk on the part of the deccers. The result is not the same. One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place. One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest. It's fairly obvious which one is better for the health of the game. Quote: Perhaps there should be a 2-4 week period where a player leaving a corp to join an npc corp cannot then join another player corp (at least when leaving a corp under wardec). Among other things, yes. Ahh i wasn't clear. I meant the net result is the same to the deccing corp-wasted time and isk which mean they should have picked their target better...the escaping corp don't really care how as long as they aren't too interrupted.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 789	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:16:55 - [95] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The result is not the same. One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place. One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest. why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids? You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:19:27 - [96] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Ahh i wasn't clear. I meant the net result is the same to the deccing corp-wasted time and isk which mean they should have picked their target better...the escaping corp don't really care how as long as they aren't too interrupted. Yes, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about fixing a broken mechanic. One that is encouraging stagnation, discouraging active gameplay, and in general hurting the game. To me, as an aggressor in the dec, there is a genuine difference between legitimately avoided and being dec dodged. Yes, the mathematical result is the same, but the means by which it is achieved is important. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:22:01 - [97] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The result is not the same. One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place. One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest. why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids? You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things. The economy runs on loss, bro. Causing damage and inflicting loss is one of the single most necessary functions of the game. So yes, inflicting loss, by whatever means, is a higher purpose than just contributing to inflation. One is actually playing the game, one is watching the green number get bigger. And I for one don't think that EVE is deserving of being devolved into a Facebook game. Hell, even a Facebook game has more meaningful and engaging gameplay than freaking mining. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:29:13 - [98] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The result is not the same. One is actually doing something, putting some effort into the game. The other is pushing a button and getting free safety so you can suck roids and farm red crosses in the same place. One is dynamic, one is laziness and stagnation made manifest. why do you feel farming miners or mission runners would be superior to anyone who farms red crosses or roids? You are both of same degree of carebear you just farm different things. The economy runs on loss, bro. Causing damage and inflicting loss is one of the single most necessary functions of the game. So yes, inflicting loss, by whatever means, is a higher purpose than just contributing to inflation. One is actually playing the game, one is watching the green number get bigger. And I for one don't think that EVE is deserving of being devolved into a Facebook game. Hell, even a Facebook game has more meaningful and engaging gameplay than freaking mining. That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective. Miners must enjoy what thry do otherwise they simply wouldn't do it...you enjoy blowing things up and that's fine but until ccp outrights states dec-dodging isn't valid then it remains so. Personally my view is that if a player wants to interdict a mining group and knows a wardec is pointless then they should gank them instead. If they are active miners thrn ganking won't work, if they are afk then ganking will be simple and also painful.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:33:25 - [99] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective. It is not subjective to say that mining is not engaging gameplay. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:42:44 - [100] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective. It is not subjective to say that mining is not engaging gameplay. That depends entirely upon whether the miners feel engaged whilst mining and i'm pretty sure that any organized mining group does so as they chat and interact with fleetmates. Hence it is entirely subjective. It also depends upon where you mine as not being engaged whilst mining in losec/null/WH is pretty stupid...

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:44:25 - [101] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: That depends entirely upon whether the miners feel engaged whilst mining and i'm pretty sure that any organized mining group does so as they chat and interact with fleetmates. That has nothing to do with mining. You can chat with your friends on third party comms while not playing the game at all. (which is only a step below mining anyway) "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 789	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:44:43 - [102] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: That is your view of mining though and as such is subjective. It is not subjective to say that mining is not engaging gameplay. whatever. people enjoy it, they play to relax or collect stuff. Its their game, so its not up to you to decide what is engaging or legit gameplay and whats not, its subjective to everyone himself, people do what they enjoy to do thats it.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:50:35 - [103] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: That depends entirely upon whether the miners feel engaged whilst mining and i'm pretty sure that any organized mining group does so as they chat and interact with fleetmates. That has nothing to do with mining. You can chat with your friends on third party comms while not playing the game at all. (which is only a step below mining anyway) It has everything to do with it! Those who trade in station don't even undock yet they are engaged in an entirely different way. It is a way that has no interest for me but I understand that it works for others. I have exactly the same view of mining. It is not something you enjoy clearly but that doesn't mean that others can't enjoy it. Mining in fleet means actively co-operating in comms to ensure the fleet gets the most from a belt or anom before others do. Surely that co-operation is a key part of Eve whichever element of gameplay it comes in?
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 18:58:18 - [104] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: its not up to you to decide what is engaging or legit gameplay As a reasoning, thinking human being, yes, it is. It can either be legitimately defined as engaging, or it can't. Mining does not fit that definition. It is not engaging gameplay. It does not require you to actually do anything, make any decisions, it is bar none the lowest form of gameplay possible in EVE besides ship spinning. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 789	Posted - 2014.11.19 19:07:15 - [105] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: its not up to you to decide what is engaging or legit gameplay As a reasoning, thinking human being, yes, it is. It can either be legitimately defined as engaging, or it can't. Mining does not fit that definition. It is not engaging gameplay. It does not require you to actually do anything, make any decisions, it is bar none the lowest form of gameplay possible in EVE besides ship spinning. so what? Whatever definition you lay down to measure mining or any other ingame activity, which meaning does it have for anyone else except of you? Right, none at all. People play what they enjoy to play.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10666	Posted - 2014.11.19 19:10:18 - [106] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: so what? So encouraging it at the expense of other playstyles directly hurts player retention. That's what. CCP has said it themselves, PvE centric playstyles hurt player retention. Whereas people who do engage in interaction with other people are much, much more likely to subscribe long term. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 19:20:41 - [107] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: its not up to you to decide what is engaging or legit gameplay As a reasoning, thinking human being, yes, it is. It can either be legitimately defined as engaging, or it can't. Mining does not fit that definition. It is not engaging gameplay. It does not require you to actually do anything, make any decisions, it is bar none the lowest form of gameplay possible in EVE besides ship spinning. By your thinking 'engaging' is something that requires your attention and interaction. Fleet mining requies exactly that along with comms with fleetmates to ensure maximum yield in minimum time. Miners find all of this engaging or they wouldn't do it. I'm pretty sure most miners would find sitting in a null fleet waiting to press f1 when TiDi allows to be deathly dull and not in the slightest way engaging too...each to their own!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 201	Posted - 2014.11.19 19:37:39 - [108] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I think that wardecs have not lived up to the design intent of the dev blog. Making dec-dodging an exploit again (like it was for the most of the history of Eve), and changing the fee structure as Tora suggested would improve things. oh I can hardly tell whether they lived up to, devblog was specifically about HS towers and war shielding and shedding, which isnt working anymore for what I know, so how can you tell the change has failed? Yes, individuals can still dodge but you wont be able to force them giving you easy killmails anyways, they'll more likely stop playing eve for the period of vulnerability or even complete quit the game, which cant be CCP's intention or whose ever. Friend, I think you are being a little obtuse on purpose here. Their intent in that devblog is pretty clear: CCP SoniClover wrote: It is our hope that the changes outlined here will serve to make wars a more engaging, fulfilling and fun experience for all. As always it is very difficult to create a system that supports legal PvP in a one-size-fits-all manner, as people have different playstyles, needs and expectations. With the changes currently in the pipeline we do realize that wars become a bit more hardcore and harder to avoid. But the line that is being drawn in the sand here is that if youGÇÖre in a player run corporation, then war is something you must be prepared to tackle. The ally system and the surrender with enforced peace do give options beside just duking it out (or docking for a week), but if you absolutely do not want to be war decced, then the only option right now is to be in a NPC corp. This is not an optimal solution and we might iterate here in the future, but this is the direction weGÇÖre taking right now. Wars are currently not harder to avoid than before - if anything they are easier, and there are other ways to avoid them than staying in a NPC corp in contrast that was stated above. There has been a clear failure in implementing their intent and this should be fixed by changes to the wardec mechanic like those proposed in this thread.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 789	Posted - 2014.11.19 19:54:45 - [109] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Wars are currently not harder to avoid than before - if anything they are easier, and there are other ways to avoid them than staying in a NPC corp in contrast that was stated above. There has been a clear failure in implementing their intent and this should be fixed by changes to the wardec mechanic like those proposed in this thread. failed by design then. Probably one of the missteps CCP happens to do occassionally. Miners or mission runners wont start to learn undocking during wardec, fighting back or pvp, they will avoid it at all costs, move out to 0.0 in some got forgotten deadend where you cant even move as not part of the bluefest and if that doesnt work out for them, they will leave the game. Whatever vision CCP is thinking in this regard, it will fail miserably. Stop trying to force miners into crippled combat mechanics Eve offers, either you like it or you don't do it, at any cost.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 87	Posted - 2014.11.19 22:12:19 - [110] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Miners or mission runners wont start to learn undocking during wardec, fighting back or pvp, they will avoid it at all costs, they will leave the game. Whatever vision CCP is thinking in this regard, it will fail miserably. Stop trying to force miners into crippled combat mechanics Eve offers, either you like it or you don't do it, at any cost. Hmmph, i ran an alliance not long ago. It had some mission runners, it had some miners, most of all it had aspiring indy personel and a couple of would be combat pvpr's in training. We had pocos, pos, and a good time...... We survived a few wars.....took a few dings, and drew some blood in others. Then a group im sure that could be rightly said to have null connections kicked from null decided to try and move in the region....they dumped on everyone. Few wanted to team up in a coalition for better defense that another group was trying to get all us miner and indy corps/alliances to agree to. Most of us lost everything.....in my Alliance's case at our pique during this 2 month war we had a total of 57 characters spread out amongst 44 players. 5-6 total rose to the drums of War, i held off for 1 week....then the rest all came into TS one day....first time i saw everyone at once begging for me to let them fight. We had the ships, we had the gear....all we had to do was Blob the enemy 1 target at a time with the numbers we had at the best level of ship competency we could muster across the board on avg.....and we could of hurt them a little bit....maybe even earned some respect or made them back off a little or at least come to the negotiation table. But no, the agreed time for CTA....a weekend date so we could muster everyone during the TZ of the enemy....6 logged in. The following weeks.....those same who begged refused to log in game but would log in TS to beg for a surrender or something else while listening to their corpmates actually logged in fighting and dying...and at times having fun. I pulled the plug on that alliance....we began to kick members from the corp as well. I know for a fact at least half those former members no longer play. I was not willing to carry on SRP, nor give people paychecks for disloyalty and turning their backs on those they said were friends in a time of need. I am glad those I know that no longer play are gone. 'carebearism' is the deathknell to EvE....it needs to be dealt with....the loop hole of wardec dodging needs to be closed. Also....missioners and miners DO need to be forced to fight from time to time.... IF you can not fight/defend for what you have then you DO NOT desreve it period.....even if that is a Corp/Alliance name...you dont need it because you dont deserve the respect of having one if you are not willing to try and defend it, same with POS or pocos. Now as to ganking vs dec'ing ...ganking is good and all if it has an objective and i wil be the first to admit my former alliance and even my corp did so when a dec against other miners turned into a corp drop....you leave us no choice but to gank...and so QQ about either one is just dumb...play the game, and if you want something put some effort into it, fight for it in one way or another....just dont drop corp and run like a carebear pansy. i will reiterate: 1.) I support the idea to changing the fees as Tora proposed. 2.) I would support a change to the mechanics that would at least give a corp 1 Killright per person that dropped corp during war....even if that meant i could shoot a former corp mate myself for going soft. 3.) I would even support a change that prevented a corp being closed or members dropping once war has been declared.

Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.19 22:32:02 - [111] - Quote In terms of the OP the fees for wars could do with a change so +1 on that but as for changes that force people into pvp i could never support those as forcing any player into something is always going to be a bad idea. I don't see ganking as forcing pvp by the way since it can be avoided with preparation. Wars should mean something though but a corpbshould also be able to counter pay concorf to not lok the other way at a hopefully dreadfully inoppertune moment ...
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.19 22:45:55 - [112] - Quote Why is it good for the game to make it cheaper for Tora to dec Goons? What does it accomplish? Goons don't fight back, and they have no way to do so. All it does is cause Goons to play in highsec on alts. Until there is a meaningful way for the Defender to force combat, I see no reason to perpetuate more pointless wars by mercs.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1374	Posted - 2014.11.19 23:53:52 - [113] - Quote Veers, go play another game, unless you seriously want to make this game better. My main goal with the changes, is to protect the smaller corps in hs and give them a change to grow and setup a proper defense mechanism, IF they wish. You do this by making the fees high, so no grievers will see them as profitable targets. Larger alliances should get cheaper. Large alliance had enough time for proper defend, they have the isks to defend, You force bigger allainces to go to low,00 and wh space. Which is something CCP also wants I was told. Yes it will make our war dec fees for larger alliances drop..... so what ? Look at the bigger picture without being jealous. If you have a better idea to protect the smaller new corps in hs, let me know. It should never be 100% safe, but a bit more protection is needed. How about the first 25 members in a corp increases the dec fees to 500M, then from 26 and above we keep the old system ? DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:05:38 - [114] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Veers, go play another game, unless you seriously want to make this game better. My main goal with the changes, is to protect the smaller corps in hs and give them a change to grow and setup a proper defense mechanism, IF they wish. You do this by making the fees high, so no grievers will see them as profitable targets. Larger alliances should get cheaper. Large alliance had enough time for proper defend, they have the isks to defend, You force bigger allainces to go to low,00 and wh space. Which is something CCP also wants I was told. Yes it will make our war dec fees for larger alliances drop..... so what ? Look at the bigger picture without being jealous. If you have a better idea to protect the smaller new corps in hs, let me know. It should never be 100% safe, but a bit more protection is needed. How about the first 25 members in a corp increases the dec fees to 500M, then from 26 and above we keep the old system ? I'm always trying to make this game better. Small corps can already pretty trivially disband corp and reform. The only ones who can't do that are the ones with substantial assets in place...and why exactly should we be trying to protect those folks? I mean the 25 and under corps are in a pretty good spot to just roll corp...is there any real need to protect those corps that refuse to do so? I just don't see much value in Marmite wardeccing 150 bigger corps/alliances at once. It's not creating interesting gameplay...just easy gatecamp kills for Marmite, who then dock up if the big boys come to look for a fight. I mean why is it good for the game to make it easy for Marmite to decc more people without any mechanic in place to incentivize Marmite to engage in actual combat when they lack an overwhelming advantage? Honestly, if I were asked to change wardeccs, my #1 change would be to make the attacker face real consequences for running away if the defender formed a fleet and came looking for a fight. Docking up and playing on alts after you declare war should not be costless. As far as "helping" smaller corps, the only real help they need is making it easier to roll corp. If they are big enough or proud enough to not want to do that - go learn to fight.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1374	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:11:04 - [115] - Quote What part of this isnt about Marmites dont you get ? New small corps are the future of EVE, they should be protected as you protect little ducks DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:17:33 - [116] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: What part of this isnt about Marmites dont you get ? New small corps are the future of EVE, they should be protected as you protect little ducks Well, Marmite's would be the main beneficiary of a significant drop in wardecc fees against large organizations. As far as protecting "new small corps," while I'm sure that is a laudable goal, I don't really see how that would materially benefit the game. They already have a very easy time rolling corp to avoid wardeccs, and those that don't utilize that option seem perfectly willing to fight out their wars. If anything from the whining and gnashing of teeth on the forums, it seems that by and large the 25 and under shops are already quite willing to roll corp and foil the wardeccers. If anyone needs protection it's new players who want to join highsec PvE corps, but such protection would not depend on the size of the corp. A 100 man corp full of unskilled PvE players is far more in need of protection than a 15 man PvE/PvP corp full of hardened vets. So it seems to me that making it more expensive to decc small groups doesn't much help the game, nor does making it cheaper to decc large groups, unless you give them some recourse against attackers docking up and playing on alts when the defenders come and try to actually fight the war.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 89	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:28:11 - [117] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Veers, go play another game, unless you seriously want to make this game better. My main goal with the changes, is to protect the smaller corps in hs and give them a change to grow and setup a proper defense mechanism, IF they wish. You do this by making the fees high, so no grievers will see them as profitable targets. Larger alliances should get cheaper. Large alliance had enough time for proper defend, they have the isks to defend, You force bigger allainces to go to low,00 and wh space. Which is something CCP also wants I was told. Yes it will make our war dec fees for larger alliances drop..... so what ? Look at the bigger picture without being jealous. If you have a better idea to protect the smaller new corps in hs, let me know. It should never be 100% safe, but a bit more protection is needed. How about the first 25 members in a corp increases the dec fees to 500M, then from 26 and above we keep the old system ? I'm always trying to make this game better. Small corps can already pretty trivially disband corp and reform. The only ones who can't do that are the ones with substantial assets in place...and why exactly should we be trying to protect those folks? I mean the 25 and under corps are in a pretty good spot to just roll corp...is there any real need to protect those corps that refuse to do so? I just don't see much value in Marmite wardeccing 150 bigger corps/alliances at once. It's not creating interesting gameplay...just easy gatecamp kills for Marmite, who then dock up if the big boys come to look for a fight. I mean why is it good for the game to make it easy for Marmite to decc more people without any mechanic in place to incentivize Marmite to engage in actual combat when they lack an overwhelming advantage? Honestly, if I were asked to change wardeccs, my #1 change would be to make the attacker face real consequences for running away if the defender formed a fleet and came looking for a fight. Docking up and playing on alts after you declare war should not be costless. As far as "helping" smaller corps, the only real help they need is making it easier to roll corp. If they are big enough or proud enough to not want to do that - go learn to fight. No Veers....a Corp should not be allowed to just roll up. If it becomes that is to be the norm then the corp name and alliance names that do go inactive should be permanently inactive by their spelling. I have also seen enough little corps that have had little to nothing in space assets where they figured that was their only choice was to roll up.....they instead should have to fight or return to NPC corp land because they are not ready for the responsibility of a Corp's needs. We dont need it easier to roll corp....if that becomes the case then it needs to be easier and les punitive to gank in HS.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 89	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:37:49 - [118] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: What part of this isnt about Marmites dont you get ? New small corps are the future of EVE, they should be protected as you protect little ducks Well, Marmite's would be the main beneficiary of a significant drop in wardecc fees against large organizations. As far as protecting "new small corps," while I'm sure that is a laudable goal, I don't really see how that would materially benefit the game. They already have a very easy time rolling corp to avoid wardeccs, and those that don't utilize that option seem perfectly willing to fight out their wars. If anything from the whining and gnashing of teeth on the forums, it seems that by and large the 25 and under shops are already quite willing to roll corp and foil the wardeccers. If anyone needs protection it's new players who want to join highsec PvE corps, but such protection would not depend on the size of the corp. A 100 man corp full of unskilled PvE players is far more in need of protection than a 15 man PvE/PvP corp full of hardened vets. So it seems to me that making it more expensive to decc small groups doesn't much help the game, nor does making it cheaper to decc large groups, unless you give them some recourse against attackers docking up and playing on alts when the defenders come and try to actually fight the war. You dont get it do you Veers, that is evident from the weeks and months of shiptoasting i have seen from you. A corp of 100 unskilled PVE players does not deserve to exsist. EvE is a player vs plaver (PvP) game no matter how you dice it. The sooner a new player learns that the better. PVE Activities....ie missioning, PI, Incursions, Mining, and the actual act of hauling stuff around is all related to a PvP oreinted landscape of control of markets and resources and creting the best darn personal player story and sandcastle one can make. Its not about gaining ISK, or collecting things in a Hangar to not show off....its about player interaction and so if small corps cant survive or larger CAREBEAR or unskilled corps that have no clue what they are doing can not survive then they need to rethink their approach to EvE. Activity wise = I am a Carebear Metality wise = I am not a carebear and i dont want them here because they ruin my and many others gameplay. They need to learn how to play EvE....and that means learning how to be diplomatic, be a spy, be a thief...learn how to be devious and cunning....and learn also that if they want something they have to reach out and take it....because no one will give it to them. Because no one has had anything given to them that is worth their salt in what ever profession they play in EvE.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:44:15 - [119] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: lots of text. Lots of words....not sure how this relates to OP suggestions of making it cheaper to wardecc big corps and more expensive to wardecc larger ones. What is your position on that?
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 89	Posted - 2014.11.20 00:58:40 - [120] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Max Deveron wrote: lots of text. Lots of words....not sure how this relates to OP suggestion of making it cheaper to wardecc big corps and more expensive to wardecc larger ones. What is your position on that? ive given my position.... Too bad your too much of a carebear or an idiot to understand. Im really close to being the next to add to your bounty pot.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.20 02:02:12 - [121] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Max Deveron wrote: lots of text. Lots of words....not sure how this relates to OP suggestion of making it cheaper to wardecc big corps and more expensive to wardecc larger ones. What is your position on that? ive given my position.... Too bad your too much of a carebear or an idiot to understand. Im really close to being the next to add to your bounty pot. Your wall of text and whining about rolling corps and dec dodging is not actually responsive to OP suggestion. For future reference it would help if instead of whining about my post you would clearly state if you agree with reducing the fees for deccing large groups and increasing the fees for deccing small ones instead of just whining and trolling.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 89	Posted - 2014.11.20 04:16:47 - [122] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Max Deveron wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Max Deveron wrote: lots of text. Lots of words....not sure how this relates to OP suggestion of making it cheaper to wardecc big corps and more expensive to wardecc larger ones. What is your position on that? ive given my position.... Too bad your too much of a carebear or an idiot to understand. Im really close to being the next to add to your bounty pot. Your wall of text and whining about rolling corps and dec dodging is not actually responsive to OP suggestion. For future reference it would help if instead of whining about my post you would clearly state if you agree with reducing the fees for deccing large groups and increasing the fees for deccing small ones instead of just whining and trolling. I have already, maybe you should go back and see where I have already done so. I simply gave you a rebuttal BECAUSE you brought up the rolling of corps and stuff and just kep arguing that line. Maybe you should take more time reading like i already asked you to when i said i have already given my opinion......oh wait carebears are unable to think for themselves or follow simple instructions
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.20 04:33:46 - [123] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: I have already, maybe you should go back and see where I have already done so. I simply gave you a rebuttal BECAUSE you brought up the rolling of corps and stuff and just kep arguing that line. Maybe you should take more time reading like i already asked you to when i said i have already given my opinion......oh wait carebears are unable to think for themselves or follow simple instructions At no point do I see you stating whether you agree or disagree with OP's idea. All I see from you is Grrr Veers, whining, name calling, pathetic threats, and walls of text. Here is a clue for you Sherlock...try to stay on topic, actually respond to the OP, avoid personal attacks, and move on. If you don't like someone's posting, just ignore them. Getting all riled up, making stupid threats, and blowing hot air around doesn't make you look tough, it just makes you look childish and immature. Cut the Grrr Veers garbage, and actually respond to OP.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3089	Posted - 2014.11.20 05:07:09 - [124] - Quote To be fair, Veers, you make it hard to engage in anything except "Grr Veers" and spout more than a little garbage yourself. As for why 25-and-under corps should be protected more (in this case by higher fees) when corp-rolling is easy at that point, it's because corp rolling shouldn't even happen. I disagree with a lot of things being said in this thread, including most of what Veers says, and I strongly disagree with the notion that wardecs should follow people after they leave corp, but you shouldn't be able to disband a corporation during a wardec. Even if everyone leaves that corp except the CEO, that corp should be prevented from folding and required to exist (that is, the CEO isn't allowed to leave or drop roles) until the wardec has completed and hostilities have ceased. Maybe it should be "roles cannot be dropped during an active war", thereby trapping people in the corp unless a director/CEO kicks them. As for the CEO being required to stay in the corp during active hostilities, it's sort of like a captain being expected to go down with their ship isn't it?
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2726	Posted - 2014.11.20 05:58:32 - [125] - Quote So marmite wants to pay less for their 100+ wars at any given time? Can't imagine why.... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 778	Posted - 2014.11.20 08:01:21 - [126] - Quote I don't mind a change in wardec fees right now and think it would make more sense for larger corps to pay more, maybe a fee per member of the corp since CONCORD have more people to turn a blind eye to. As for rolling corps its perfectly valid now and as I stated earlier if the deccing corp don't do their homework then they waste money pure and simple...I can roll my one man corp in real life for tax purposes if I so choose (I don't as I believe in paying my dues) so see no difference here. Corps are a means to an end to be used as the CEO sees fit. As for 'oh wait carebears are unable to think for themselves or follow simple instructions' I couldn't help but smile...isn't not thinking and following simple instructions the definition of large fleet combat in blob right now? More seriously if a 'carebear' decides not to play war games and rolls corp they have clearly thought for themselves and opted out. Keep track of members in a corp that you dec and go gank their shiny mission ship instead, that'd really tic them off more... There is no benefit to a small corp of non-combat PvPers to fight as they will lose and beome a bigger wardec target in future. As in any predator / prey situation the prey will go to ground instead of being eaten. Since they are doing what's required to play the game their way they are by their own definition playing Eve well. Since it is a sandbox there is no firm or single definition of playing Eve well. Even CCP can't really define that since as soon as players get their grubby little clone paws on anything its initial intent warps and evolves straight away...
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 790	Posted - 2014.11.20 09:37:21 - [127] - Quote whatever, big alliances rely on neutral logi corps or even NPC alts anyways, regardless how cheap or expensive you would make wardecs, so dont expect big changes there vOv.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1374	Posted - 2014.11.20 22:58:56 - [128] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: So marmite wants to pay less for their 100+ wars at any given time? Can't imagine why.... Maybe next time I'll use and alt to avoid the comments where it's about Marmites. Some of you are so obsessed with Marmites, that you cant imagine I am doing this for others then Marmites. Probably the same players who think Goons are evil people in real life, because they are to some of you in game. Grow up.... DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 69	Posted - 2014.11.21 01:35:07 - [129] - Quote Lunacy that people would claim this somehow benefits Marmites. Marmite are contracted to wardec mostly smaller corps, the kinds of corps that would be increased in wardec cost under Tora's proposal. Talk about bad maths, like as if reduction in cost of the couple dozen larger corps they dec would outweigh the increased costs of the over 100 smaller corps in any given week. Alvatore DiMarco wrote: To be fair, Veers, you make it hard to engage in anything except "Grr Veers" and spout more than a little garbage yourself. As for why 25-and-under corps should be protected more (in this case by higher fees) when corp-rolling is easy at that point, it's because corp rolling shouldn't even happen. I disagree with a lot of things being said in this thread, including most of what Veers says, and I strongly disagree with the notion that wardecs should follow people after they leave corp, but you shouldn't be able to disband a corporation during a wardec. Even if everyone leaves that corp except the CEO, that corp should be prevented from folding and required to exist (that is, the CEO isn't allowed to leave or drop roles) until the wardec has completed and hostilities have ceased. Maybe it should be "roles cannot be dropped during an active war", thereby trapping people in the corp unless a director/CEO kicks them. As for the CEO being required to stay in the corp during active hostilities, it's sort of like a captain being expected to go down with their ship isn't it? CEO alt would just become a thing. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2726	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:35:13 - [130] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: So marmite wants to pay less for their 100+ wars at any given time? Can't imagine why.... Maybe next time I'll use and alt to avoid the comments where it's about Marmites. Some of you are so obsessed with Marmites, that you cant imagine I am doing this for others then Marmites. Probably the same players who think Goons are evil people in real life, because they are to some of you in game. Grow up.... Allow me to rephrase.. So [insert large war deccing alliance here] would have to pay less for their [insert # of decs here]+ wars at any given time to the benefit of everybody that gets decced because some alt thought it a good idea..? Can't imagine why... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1375	Posted - 2014.11.21 07:57:47 - [131] - Quote How about we change the dec fees and keep the old way for just Marmite. Hell even increase the dec fees for Marmites. If it would help protect the smaller corp, I would still approve. So far, we often deny contracts on to small corp or make the price so high, most clients will deny the quote. You do not kill the young fish or in the end their will be no bigger fish. So don't get me wrong here, we still enjoy fishing, but it needs to be in balance. DISCLAIMER : All of the above replies are not meant as any form of harassment. It's all SciFi. YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.