EVE Search - Wardecs Redux - Letting the defender win

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Wardecs Redux - Letting the defender win

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Velicitia XS Tech 2700	Posted - 2015.01.07 14:15:07 - [1] - Quote Was reading one of the recent "wars are broken" threads in War & Tactics, and one of the people had a decent idea of letting the defenders win by simply winning the ISK War, then at the end of the week, "winning" gets the defender the ISK that was paid to dec them. IMO, that's good on the surface, but it has the potential vector of encouraging blobbing style tactics. In order to deal with that possibility, make the ISK War weighted on pilot damage percentages, similar to how Incursion payout is weighted to fleet sizes. I'm NOT saying that "a fleet must be X pilots in order to get maximum value for a WT Kill" ... but rather that your "Adjusted ISK Destroyed Value" is calculated based on how the fleet damage spread was. (please be nice here, it's been forever since I've done stats) 1. Grab damage done by each pilot and drop off one pilot that ONLY threw a point on the target (i.e. 0 damage). If more than one pilot did 0 damage, choose one randomly. 2. If remaining pilots on the KM > 1, then calculate the mean damage done. If all pilots are within 1 standard deviation of this, then kill is worth whatever the war report says. If a pilot greater than one 1 and less than 2 standard deviations from the mean damage, then their contribution drops to 50% of their damage. If a pilot is 2 or more standard deviations off, then their contribution is worth nothing. 3. KM value has a lower bound -- for the purposes of this post, I used "top damage dealer", though something else may be more fitting. So, if you have for example, a 300m KM, and 11 pilots involved. - Pilot 1 does 82%damage - Pilots 2-10 do 2% damage each - Pilot 11 is the point (and does 0 damage so not counted) - Mean Damage = 10% - Standard Deviation (assuming I'm doing this right ... stats was forever ago, and this is such a small sample size) = 25.3% (25.29822) - Pilots 2-9 are within 1 standard deviation of the mean, so their contribution counts (total = 18%) - Pilot 1 is past 2 standard deviations, so his contribution is zero. - Rule 3 comes into effect, and is worth 82% of the KM value (246M) Same KM, but with people all over the place: Pilot 1 - 12% Pilot 2 - 15% Pilot 3 - 20% Pilot 4 - 3% Pilot 5 - 10% Pilot 6 - 5% Pilot 7 - 16% Pilot 8 - 3% Pilot 9 - 4% Pilot 10 - 10% Pilot 11 - 2% Mean damage = 9.0909...% Std Dev = 6.16% (6.155559) 1 Std Dev = 3.64 to 15.96% (Pilots 1,2,5,6,9,10) = 56% * 1 = 56% 2 Std Dev = 0 to 3.64 AND 15.96 to 22.12% (Pilots 3,4,7,8,11) = 44% * 0.5 = 22% Adjusted KM = > 78% * 300m = 234M Initially, this is applied to ships. Structures and deployables (e.g. POS / MTU / etc) aren't included. TL;DR -- Giving "win" conditions to "Defenders" is a good thing, especially if they can be balanced to some degree. One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Gregor Parud 881	Posted - 2015.01.07 15:23:14 - [2] - Quote The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided.
Helios Panala 6	Posted - 2015.01.07 15:36:13 - [3] - Quote I agree with a win condition for the defender. I don't agree with your proposed idea though.
Toriessian Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium 363	Posted - 2015.01.07 16:04:40 - [4] - Quote Blobbing style tactics are perfectly legitimate
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2116	Posted - 2015.01.07 16:24:41 - [5] - Quote wow, a whole 50 mil...to share between my entire corp for a week of risking their stuff? If they are purely motivated by isk, they can drop corp, make 50 mil in a short days grinding with much less risk, then rejoin corp. yes to defenders being able to win. But not for isk. By far the most sensible reward would be just ending the dec early. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Velicitia XS Tech 2702	Posted - 2015.01.07 17:31:55 - [6] - Quote Toriessian wrote: Blobbing style tactics are perfectly legitimate I never said they weren't ... however, I was trying to avoid situations of "one BS and 45 noobships" . I mean, sure you COULD do that, but at a reduced "adjusted value" for the KM. Would you not agree a fight is better (for both sides) if you have a pair of gangs squaring off (or a gang on a single target), or a trap, or any situation OTHER than "BS + noobship blob". Really, I was hoping that it would ENCOURAGE people to fly together, in similar ships (e.g. a BC fleet) so that they can stay at (or very close to) "100% value" of the kill after adjustments. Daichi Yamato wrote: wow, a whole 50 mil...to share between my entire corp for a week of risking their stuff? If they are purely motivated by isk, they can drop corp, make 50 mil in a short days grinding with much less risk, then rejoin corp. yes to defenders being able to win. But not for isk. By far the most sensible reward would be just ending the dec early. Good point - I grabbed the "they get the ISK" from that other post. In your "end it early" approach, what would the victory condition be? One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2116	Posted - 2015.01.07 18:34:35 - [7] - Quote Some form of capture/control/bash or other territory mechanic. its concept only and not ironed out in detail because im waiting to see what CCP have in store for sov. Maybe something can be stolen from or inspired by what ideas they have for null sec territory. Im not looking to turn war decs into a territory based mechanic though. Simply borrowing 'triggers'. I.e. - Aggressors must anchor structure to make outgoing decs - Structure takes fuel (this acts like part of the war dec cost) - Typical additional costs per dec and typical dec rules apply - Has a reinforce mode like most structures - Structure is destroyed or offlined, all non-mutual outgoing decs end 24 hours later. So what this does: Attackers dont get a set period with which to bide their time, picking and choosing their fights. They cant play guerrilla warfare all week. If they dock up, or otherwise dont play an active role in their own wardec, defenders can attack the structure and end the dec. All those times a 3 man corp decs a 200 man alliance just to ambush soft targets in frigates can be swiftly ended should the alliance decide to do something about it.- Dec become less one sided, and more meaningful. Mercs have something to do for defenders other than watch market hubs. In fact, a merc payment can be set-up to transfer the moment the structure is taken down. Or denied if they achieve jack ** ('no win no fee' can be a thing).- More meaningful merc contracts. Less scamming mercs.** EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 374	Posted - 2015.01.07 18:45:55 - [8] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. Quite so. Give players something to defend that can't simply be skipped from corp to corp and they will. Or they'll go back to an NPC corp that suits their playstyle more and chat to the grunting psychopaths in the Brutor channel. The current system assumes players have the right to both the benefits of being in a corp (Indy, Tax, Offices, whatever) and the right to avoid risking any of it. Change that and you're halfway home. The downside is it probably involves structures. ******* hell. Travelling at the speed of love.
Velicitia XS Tech 2703	Posted - 2015.01.07 19:10:04 - [9] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: (stuff) I like this... like it a lot. What about from the attacker side though? I mean otherwise, they can permadec their WTs (not that it's a bad thing, but they should get a victory condition too). One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2117	Posted - 2015.01.07 20:24:40 - [10] - Quote i dont think its necessary for attackers to have a mechanical objective. firstly, they have their reasons for deccing and they can end the dec when they like whether they've achieved this or not. second, typical dec mechanics apply despite the structure. Every dec, every week, costs and, provided you have the funds and can defend your structure from your targets and all their allies, you can perma-dec like you can now. As for trapping decs with a mutual war, make it so you have to have the exact same structure to make a war mutual. Thus a war can be made un-mutual again (and cancellable by the aggressor) by its destruction. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"

Helios Panala 7	Posted - 2015.01.07 20:27:41 - [11] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. If the war-dec system is basically just a fee to engage in high-sec ganks that CONCORD don't care about sure. Let's stop calling them wars though because it really doesn't apply in the majority of cases.
Iain Cariaba 853	Posted - 2015.01.07 20:59:28 - [12] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. If the war-dec system is basically just a fee to engage in high-sec ganks that CONCORD don't care about sure. Let's stop calling them wars though because it really doesn't apply in the majority of cases. Sure it does. The simple fact that you would rather cower in fear and ask others to fix your problems for you does not, in any way, invalidate the usage of the term wars. Five people spend less than 10mil each on PvP frigates, you all undock on station camping wartarget, maybe lose, maybe win... Either way, the fact that you're not simply going to roll over and feed them expensive ratting and mining ships will quickly get you off the lists for wardecing by the groups out for those kind of kills. Man up and protect your ****, or you don't deserve to keep it. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 395	Posted - 2015.01.07 21:19:15 - [13] - Quote This isn't going to solve anything. Most corps will still turtle up or just drop corp and reform and will never even try to go for the bonus or for the target structure. The few that do try to stop the war, will just be wardecced by multiple attacking corps if the attacker is determined enough. The only way to fix wardecs is to make the corp want to defend them. More things like POCOs that are valuable to the corp, but cannot be taken down after a wardec. Something like a series of deployables that are moderately expensive and take some accumulated effort from the corp (to prevent drop/reform being the optimal strategy) that give bonuses to mining, missioning and industry, but are vulnerable once the dec starts. Then corps would be forced to defend these assets or lose them, and the corp itself would have some persistent value. Otherwise there is still no incentive to actually defend a corp over just dropping to an NPC corp which will always been the easiest as long as corps have so little value over an NPC corp. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Gregor Parud 882	Posted - 2015.01.07 21:39:01 - [14] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. If the war-dec system is basically just a fee to engage in high-sec ganks that CONCORD don't care about sure. Let's stop calling them wars though because it really doesn't apply in the majority of cases. I'm sorry for you that you feel helpless and inadequate, it's all in your mind. If someone chooses to stay ignorant on combat, pvp and teamwork in this PVP centric MMO they choose to be targets.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2117	Posted - 2015.01.07 22:04:20 - [15] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: This isn't going to solve anything. Most corps will still turtle up or just drop corp and reform and will never even try to go for the bonus or for the target structure. The few that do try to stop the war, will just be wardecced by multiple attacking corps if the attacker is determined enough. In which case, nothing lost. My proposal only adds to a defenders options, and some defenders are quite capable of doing it if they choose. It takes nothing away from existing mechanics. Theres also nothing wrong with multiple corps deccing. They all have to pay the cost, they all have to fuel their structures, they are all just as vulnerable. What may be the problem here is corp hopping, which should be nerfed for attackers as well as defenders. could be as simple as a cool down between hops to player corps (but dropping to NPC corp can be done anytime, your just in an NPC corp for 7 days after that) Black Pedro wrote: The only way to fix wardecs is to make the corp want to defend them. More things like POCOs that are valuable to the corp, but cannot be taken down after a wardec. Something like a series of deployables that are moderately expensive and take some accumulated effort from the corp (to prevent drop/reform being the optimal strategy) that give bonuses to mining, missioning and industry, but are vulnerable once the dec starts. Then corps would be forced to defend these assets or lose them, and the corp itself would have some persistent value. Theres no reason this cant be done at the same time. Black Pedro wrote: Otherwise there is still no incentive to actually defend a corp over just dropping to an NPC corp which will always been the easiest as long as corps have so little value over an NPC corp. Your suggestion alone provides no incentive for the aggressors to do anything either. They can war dec corps/alliances much more powerful then thamselves and simply wait in station for a soft target to present itself. They have a week after all. And in the mean time defenders have normal 'activities suspended' and are on 'full alert' for the whole week, or more. It can be exhausting and morale destroying. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Lugh Crow-Slave 420	Posted - 2015.01.07 22:18:44 - [16] - Quote The "winner" of a war is to be left up to the people involved not some in game system
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 396	Posted - 2015.01.07 22:43:57 - [17] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Your suggestion alone provides no incentive for the aggressors to do anything either. They can war dec corps/alliances much more powerful then thamselves and simply wait in station for a soft target to present itself. They have a week after all. And in the mean time defenders have normal 'activities suspended' and are on 'full alert' for the whole week, or more. It can be exhausting and morale destroying. Why does the attacker need an incentive? If they do nothing, they lose the wardec fee and there is no loss to the defenders. Eve is a sandbox in which there can be many reasons for a war. This proposal grafts on a "PvP battleground" mechanic onto what is suppose to be a tool to disrupt your enemy, and for the sole reason to enable them to get out of the war. It is the defenders who are earning ISK so it is the defenders who have to take the risk that someone will try to stop them. Letting them out of wars breaks one of the main purposes of them if wars are now consensual or avoidable. (Yes, I know the drop-fold mechanics render them partially broken already). If your corp is too fragile to function under wardec then it shouldn't exist. I do however think that if you don't want this responsibility (or the rewards that come with it) you should be able to form a "corp-lite" that is exactly like a NPC corp in mechanics but with a player name and channel so you do have a way to opt-out of wardecs but retain the social connection of a corp. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 205	Posted - 2015.01.07 22:50:02 - [18] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. Actually, that is not true. Once the war is started, the war is started. If members leave the corp, even if there are no ship kills, this is a positive for the attacker. If the corp disbands during the war, this is a positive for the attacker. If the corps activity diminishes during the war, ie: average isk generated compared to a prior 30 days activity from missions or ratting or volume of ore mined, it is a positive for the attacker. The above should get reflected in the war report since there is more to war than merely shooting other ships. But preventing people or corps from disbanding because of a war dec is short sighted and only looks at the game in terms of kill boards. This is built into the game to a certain extent, but would be remedied if CCP added tracking to account for fiscal and activity damage dealt. Creating artificial objectives a war target has to defend if they didn't already have a POS or Customs Office up is stupid. Research your target first. If they do not have space bourne objects needing to defended then it is likely they will turtle or even disband.... Heck, you can see that simply by looking at corp history. If all a war deccer cares about is killing the target, why are you wasting time in High sec? Or is preying on the weak the best you can do? Otherwise, the best solution to such an issue is having the economic and activity "damage" reflected in the kill report. FYI for anyone frothed and wanting to war dec me: most of all my activity and the activity of my alliance is in low sec and null. No war dec is necessary. Just visit us.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out 7021	Posted - 2015.01.07 23:05:43 - [19] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The "winner" of a war is to be left up to the people involved not some in game system ^^ This. Introducing "structures" and/or arbitrary "victory" conditions is, in my opinion, the bane of gaming in general (look at SOV and Faction Warfare). It basically says, "anything you do does not matter unless you can achieve X condition".... which also means that any tactics that do not work to achieve "X condition" are pointless. In other words... it forces certain combat styles over others rather than let the situation develop organically (where everyone is trying to counter the counter of the counter). The biggest problem is that all this talk about "what should war mean" is that it is wholly subjective. People who declare war want to kill things (whether they want "sporting" kills is a matter of debate, but not a call anyone can make). People who avoid wars want to be left alone and do their own thing without losing anything valuable (regardless of how many "carrots" you place in front of them). There ISN'T a middle ground between these two. And if you try to force a middle ground people will just find ways around it or stay on their extreme corners refusing to budge. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. "How did you veterans start?"
Iain Cariaba 854	Posted - 2015.01.07 23:27:10 - [20] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The "winner" of a war is to be left up to the people involved not some in game system I agree here. When my highsec alt corp gets wardeced, and I can make the agressor waste a week flailing about trying to get kills off me while not feeding them any and still keeping my highsec operations going, I consider myself the winner. When I undock in cheap t1 frigs and destroyers and engage one man corp wartargets in a little PvP, where gudfites are had, wartargets give me a modicum more respect because I actually fought back, yet I actually lose very little, I consider it a marginal win. When I let wartargets camp me in a station and I come whining on forums about how unfair it is that I'm unwilling to defend myself, I consider that a loss. I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I don't pay a monthly subscription fee to CCP every month to lose. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.

Helios Panala 8	Posted - 2015.01.07 23:49:49 - [21] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Helios Panala wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. If the war-dec system is basically just a fee to engage in high-sec ganks that CONCORD don't care about sure. Let's stop calling them wars though because it really doesn't apply in the majority of cases. I'm sorry for you that you feel helpless and inadequate, it's all in your mind. If someone chooses to stay ignorant on combat, pvp and teamwork in this PVP centric MMO they choose to be targets. "Hah, he thinks high-sec wars barely qualify as wars, he must be terrified of them." Odd conclusion to arrive at.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2118	Posted - 2015.01.08 01:21:19 - [22] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: It is the defenders who are earning ISK so it is the defenders who have to take the risk that someone will try to stop them. Letting them out of wars breaks one of the main purposes of them if wars are now consensual or avoidable. youre not making sense. what youve said here is in absolute agreement with my proposal. first, in the current system, how can the defenders 'stop' them in a war dec (besides dropping corp and docking up)? they cannot stop a war dec being made, they cannot stop a war dec going on. They can destroy 1trillion isk of attackers assets on day one, and it is still the attackers call whether the dec goes on for 6 more days or not, or even longer. but what i am proposing allows the defenders to actually STOP a war dec if they take the risks like you just said they should. Second, my proposal does not 'let' them out of decs. It will always involve getting out there and taking risk if they choose to take a shot. Aggressors get targets, defenders get that chance to break a dec. Competition, risk, reward. Quote: If your corp is too fragile to function under wardec then it shouldn't exist. I do however think that if you don't want this responsibility (or the rewards that come with it) you should be able to form a "corp-lite" that is exactly like a NPC corp in mechanics but with a player name and channel so you do have a way to opt-out of wardecs but retain the social connection of a corp. What has this got to do with a corp that is too fragile to function under a war dec? it is in fact the opposite kind of corp that stands to benefit from what im suggesting. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 644	Posted - 2015.01.08 01:23:40 - [23] - Quote What if... What if when you leave a corp under wardec, pending or active you have to pay 10 mil that goes to attacker. Winning the war with at least 5 kills and isk war won or something like that makes attacker lose about the same. So you can evade wars but at small cost. 10 mil per pilot is still pretty tiny but then buying good defenders becomes a business. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2118	Posted - 2015.01.08 01:59:19 - [24] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The "winner" of a war is to be left up to the people involved not some in game system ^^ This. Introducing "structures" and/or arbitrary "victory" conditions is, in my opinion, the bane of gaming in general (look at SOV and Faction Warfare). It basically says, "anything you do does not matter unless you can achieve X condition".... which also means that any tactics that do not work to achieve "X condition" are pointless. In other words... it forces certain combat styles over others rather than let the situation develop organically (where everyone is trying to counter the counter of the counter). The biggest problem is that all this talk about "what should war mean" is that it is wholly subjective. People who declare war want to kill things (whether they want "sporting" kills is a matter of debate, but not a call anyone can make). People who avoid wars want to be left alone and do their own thing without losing anything valuable (regardless of how many "carrots" you place in front of them). There ISN'T a middle ground between these two. And if you try to force a middle ground people will just find ways around it or stay on their extreme corners refusing to budge. My proposal does not try to define wars. Im not trying to say deccers should only dec for one reason or another. Nor is it 'unsandbox' or any more arbitrary than paying into an isk sink to allow combat without CONCORD intervention. When i say it makes decs more meaningful, it doesnt mean for the same reasons. Every war will still be made for whatever reason anyone likes, but under my proposal it may not be in the best interest of a corp to war dec a group hundreds times their size with the belief they can just pick and choose fights at leisure. Instead when they choose who to dec they might need to think about actually having to fight their targets on terms that arent theirs or lose the dec (not a tragedy). EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2118	Posted - 2015.01.08 02:03:00 - [25] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The "winner" of a war is to be left up to the people involved not some in game system I agree here. When my highsec alt corp gets wardeced, and I can make the agressor waste a week flailing about trying to get kills off me while not feeding them any and still keeping my highsec operations going, I consider myself the winner. When I undock in cheap t1 frigs and destroyers and engage one man corp wartargets in a little PvP, where gudfites are had, wartargets give me a modicum more respect because I actually fought back, yet I actually lose very little, I consider it a marginal win. When I let wartargets camp me in a station and I come whining on forums about how unfair it is that I'm unwilling to defend myself, I consider that a loss. I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I don't pay a monthly subscription fee to CCP every month to lose. All still doable EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 85	Posted - 2015.01.08 02:57:01 - [26] - Quote I admit there are some interesting twists here to the ages old "let's force people to fight simply because I war dec them" thread. Simply because I am tired of the +1, -1 crap I will use these instead. You all get an A plus for some interesting ideas and to this point a calm, rational and reasonable discussion. You also get an A plus because there are some, perhaps even many players/corps/alliances that are on the fence as the saying goes and offering a way for them to actually "win" thus ending the war might give this group a reason to un-dock and fight. I give an F minus because you all seem to think that a HS WD is really a war, but what the hey if you want to continue to live a lie that's OK with me.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1033	Posted - 2015.01.08 03:22:48 - [27] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Helios Panala wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: The only way wardecs are broken is that they can be avoided. If the war-dec system is basically just a fee to engage in high-sec ganks that CONCORD don't care about sure. Let's stop calling them wars though because it really doesn't apply in the majority of cases. Sure it does. The simple fact that you would rather cower in fear and ask others to fix your problems for you does not, in any way, invalidate the usage of the term wars. Five people spend less than 10mil each on PvP frigates, you all undock on station camping wartarget, maybe lose, maybe win... Either way, the fact that you're not simply going to roll over and feed them expensive ratting and mining ships will quickly get you off the lists for wardecing by the groups out for those kind of kills. Man up and protect your **, or you don't deserve to keep it. Oh come on now, we all know that war decs are just a means to sit in Jita and Amarr and shoot reds undocking from market stations. Attackers don't give a ** about anything other than getting kills. Period. Why should they though, there is nothing gained by "winning" a war by either side. Nothing tangible really. Other than kill mails without concord interference. If you believe wars are done for any other reason you are delusional. The term Wardec should just be changed completely to "License to Kill" As the only thing wrong with the system is the term "War Dec".
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11094	Posted - 2015.01.08 03:28:05 - [28] - Quote Or we can scale back a bunch of the ludicrous advantages that NPC corps have, and make player corps worth defending in the first place. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 387	Posted - 2015.01.08 06:24:27 - [29] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Or we can scale back a bunch of the ludicrous advantages that NPC corps have, and make player corps worth defending in the first place. So the list as I see it currently is -No wardecs -No AWOXing (Which from the sounds of it may be getting changed for player corps relatively soon) The downsides of an NPC corp -Unavoidable 10% corp tax that goes to CCP -No control on who is in NPC corp chat So overall, I'm seeing 2 advantages when compared to a player run corp. Really only one of them could be seen as ludicrous since CCP is looking into limiting/eliminating AWOXing in player corps. Even then, the overall structure of NPC corps would have to be reworked to still protect new players. Anyways, past that, I am curious how one can make player corps worth defending more without creating a barrier to entry for new players. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Gregor Parud 886	Posted - 2015.01.08 07:53:16 - [30] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Oh come on now, we all know that war decs are just a means to sit in Jita and Amarr and shoot reds undocking from market stations. Attackers don't give a **** about anything other than getting kills. Period. Why should they though, there is nothing gained by "winning" a war by either side. Nothing tangible really. Other than kill mails without concord interference. If you believe wars are done for any other reason you are delusional. The term Wardec should just be changed completely to "License to Kill" As the only thing wrong with the system is the term "War Dec". While I will certainly admit that a majority of wars are camping nonsense, not all of them are like that. I play alone with a bunch of alts and I wardec a lot and there's really no use for me to camp anything, not even stations. And yes there can actually be more to it than just farming kills, be it teaching some loudmouth a lesson or exposing a shitcorp for what it is, but also simply for income. Not saying that's how the majority does it but there's certainly exceptions to what you say.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.