EVE Search - Bitter Vet - High Sec War Decs are Broken. Lets Talk :)

alexclone1 wrote:

Hello, i am posting with an alt.

Mr Deleted wrote:

highsec is overrated, lowsec is where its at, and it solves the war deccing problems, all the war deccers cant go to lowsec, thats where real fights are

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner. They won't admit it.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner.

You say this a lot but you never provide a source.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Playing since 2006 is not relevant I guess.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner. They won't admit it.

Yeah, that's exactly how being neg ten works. Roll

Your ranting has really gone off the deep end lately.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner. They won't admit it.

Yeah, that's exactly how being neg ten works. Roll

Your ranting has really gone off the deep end lately.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner.

You say this a lot but you never provide a source.

Playing since 2006 is not relevant I guess. I've done my PVP from null to high and seen the range.

What is it with people these days they need a listicle for everything that must be in print (automatically making it the truth) and a youtube video to walk their ritalined brains through every point in said listicle before they understand it.

Rather than play your "show me proof" game I'm going to do something more enjoyable and allow you time to prove me wrong.

As for Kaarous - try undocking sometime and you'll see what goes on in game instead of writing about it.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

There's a fellow by the name of LieK Darz who operates around towards the Korsiki direction of The Forge region and he's negative ten along with an alt he uses and I have not seen it stop them.
(Very by the book and respectable too )

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Mr Deleted wrote:

highsec is overrated, lowsec is where its at, and it solves the war deccing problems, all the war deccers cant go to lowsec, thats where real fights are

Like taking a Stratios, Broadsword, Proteus and Gnosis to kill an Interon Mk V, Sigil or Badger? Or even more ships to kill a Mackinaw? Those sorts of fights?

Seems plausible. They look so much more real than what the highsec pvpers do.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner.

You say this a lot but you never provide a source.

If you're going to do something as asinine as demand that I disprove an unsubstantiated claim that you have made against other people, then I will just go ahead and say that I've been in the game two years longer than you have, and as such, anything I say automatically overrides anything you say, because I'm the older player.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

You just described 99% of highsec pvp. I've never seen a mackinaw in lowsec.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Surely, not being stopped by being -10 is not the same as travelling in the same safety as the mission runner or incursioner (or really, anyone that isn't outlaw)?

This is totally off topic to the OPs point (since being a wardeccer doesn't go well as a -10), so not worth spending much time on, but surely you can't say they are the same.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

I'm going to give you a really big clue, OP. And I won't post it on an alt, either. Are you ready?

As someone who has ran/currently is running multiple high-sec piracy/mercenary corporations, I haven't had any problem with incoming war declarations, even in the very, very rare instances in which we actually received them.

Why do you think this is?

Perhaps this is a little old case of not being able to defend what you have, and asking for artificial defense in the form of restrictions implemented by the developers, instead of either scaling down your operations to become less of a target, or becoming proactive and aggressive enough so as not to appear as one to others in the first place, hm?

Edit:

Quote:

Ive done it all: Build caps; Military Director for a Large Sov holding allaince; FC for small gang leet pvp low sec; FC for high skilled high sec mercs

Yeah uh, I'm not buying it.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Did not say they are the same. I'm saying that a -10 operating in highsec is still having a better time than nullsec PVP.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You see the highsec PVPer wants to travel in the same safety as the mission runner or the incursioner.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

There's a fellow by the name of LieK Darz who operates around towards the Korsiki direction of The Forge region and he's negative ten along with an alt he uses and I have not seen it stop them.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Even the "deny the playing of the game" mechanics are being reviewed and/or changed.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

You just described 99% of highsec pvp. I've never seen a mackinaw in lowsec.

Go and look at that guy's killboard.

He is ridiculing highsec pvpers on the basis that 'real fights' happen in lowsec. But he is doing just the same.

It's the typical double standard argument.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Even the "deny the playing of the game" mechanics are being reviewed and/or changed.

In just about every thread when this comes up, most people on both sides of the argument express the view that the wardec system needs to be changed. Not everyone, but many have the view that the mechanic could be improved.

The -10 argument doesn't really have any place in this thread, since that is a separate thing. This one's about highsec wardec mechanics being broken, not gankers.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Go ahead and pull rank then. I'm going to disagree with you anyway. I can't avoid this pattern that you and several well known forum names around here swoop into these threads like moths to a flame to say the same old stuff over and over again.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

And shame on you for not remembering what the game used to be like, how much better it was when the community was not so aspergian.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

There are very few real fights in EVE. Everybody wants an easy gank. But the risk-reward for highsec mercs is broken.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Quote:

Ive done it all: Build caps; Military Director for a Large Sov holding allaince; FC for small gang leet pvp low sec; FC for high skilled high sec mercs

Yeah uh, I'm not buying it.

You don't see the logical conclusion of this argument. You want PvP focused bittervets with a half dozen alts apiece to be able to kick the **** out of everyone else, anywhere in the game. And you don't see why this is bad.

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

...Everybody wants an easy gank...

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

There are very few real fights in EVE. Everybody wants an easy gank. But the risk-reward for highsec mercs is broken.

The only way it's broken is that it can be dodged.

Everything else is dependent on the defender. My risk is what they are willing to give me. If they aren't, that's their fault, not mine, and not the game's.

Theirs.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That's not risk when the wardec occurs on the attackers prerogative unless the attacker looks for it or wrongly estimates the capacity of the opponent.

Quote:

Every wardec target has a limit to what they can respond with and we can't all be the strongest entity. That's just not possible.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

There are very few real fights in EVE. Everybody wants an easy gank. But the risk-reward for highsec mercs is broken.

That's not risk when the wardec occurs on the attackers prerogative unless the attacker looks for it or wrongly estimates the capacity of the opponent. Every wardec target has a limit to what they can respond with and we can't all be the strongest entity. That's just not possible.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And this would be a problem, were it not so ridiculously easy to avoid the consequences of war, or bring in allies at a fraction of the cost that the aggressors pay.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That's not risk when the wardec occurs on the attackers prerogative unless the attacker looks for it or wrongly estimates the capacity of the opponent.

And that's the fault of the target still. The only defenseless people in New Eden are those who choose to be that way.

Quote:

Every wardec target has a limit to what they can respond with and we can't all be the strongest entity. That's just not possible.

I didn't say it was. I said that "not defending myself" is the NPC corp option. If that's what you want, then you belong in an NPC corp, period. Player corps are for people who will deal with wars. NPC corps are for people who won't.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And while a corps strength may be a result of that corps choice, it doesn't change the fact that not all corps can reasonably be equal in strength and that the attackers initiative creates the match ups. Even a corp that does take combative action risks being destroyed by a superior force. All it takes is for you to catch the eye of a bigger fish.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You can avoid it by not making claims about other people, from their perspective, without presenting some kind of quantifiable data to support it. That, or you could preface such statements with "I think that..." Either would work.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

And shame on you for not remembering what the game used to be like, how much better it was when the community was not so aspergian.

Nothing has changed, except the ever-increasing tendency to demand to be able to operate outside of the game's conventional rules by the average revolving-door freemium fan who gets an EVE trial link from his favorite YouTube broadcaster.

We killed (and were killed by) players ten years ago exactly the same way as today (except there were much less limitations on player violence back then), and the only difference is that back then, much fewer players complained about it.

alexclone1 wrote:

Who is there to hire when all the pvpers are in the war decing alliances? Where is there to go? What is there to do?

Sadly i had spent too much $$ for a corp website that never saw the light of day because once i relized the war dec mechanics, it was no longer worth it to be a successful large (50+) high sec corp.

I have no issues fighting, but a 50 man corp spread in euro/american tz simply cant do jack about the HUNDREDS of experienced pvpers camping your stations with nothing better to do.

I would love to have a conversation in the comments from both sides. Perhaps there is some middle ground?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

There are very few real fights in EVE. Everybody wants an easy gank. But the risk-reward for highsec mercs is broken.

And this would be a problem, were it not so ridiculously easy to avoid the consequences of war, or bring in allies at a fraction of the cost that the aggressors pay.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Hang on for a second. When did war start to have to be fair? When did competition for resources start to have to be fair? Are we playing EVE, or a game of tennis?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Accepting NPC corps but declaring evasion as an issue with wars doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

C'mon even you have to admit the sperging ISK/stats addiction is worse than it ever was. For every miner with one eye on the wallet who won't fit a tank, there's a highsec PVP/gank spanking noobs with one eye on the killboard. It used to be that a noob was left alone in lowsec (unless really being dumb or asking for it) and having a KB full of month old noobs and frigates was nothing to be proud of.
The Crimes and Punishment forum was even better, full of great tales of ganks and capers usually against people who stuck their necks out (knew what they were doing) or thought they could pull a fast one (should have known better).

Those days are gone. The kind of player you describe as being bad for the game is on both sides of the gank or highsec wardec. You know this and there's no dishonor in admitting it. I'm not trying to win forum fu contests.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Accepting NPC corps but declaring evasion as an issue with wars doesn't make sense.

Evasion is not an issue. The use of dec dodging to get the benefits of being in a player corp with NPC corp safety is.

Quote:

If you want fair fights, you're playing the wrong game.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Who said anything about fair fights? You said you wanted to trap people in decs, that doesn't make sense considering the massive potential strength differences. That has nothing to do with actually declaring war, or the ability to pursue or engage weaker targets that don't evade, or even seeking out other means to pursue those that do.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Also the differences between a player corp and an NPC corp are largely not worth fighting over for most corps. The "benefits" amount to very little, thus there is no reason for such determined defense in the face of overwhelming odds. You line of thought leaves no room for codifying any form of identity save for fighting capacity in a social game. I can't be the only one who finds that odd.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Who said anything about fair fights?

Quote:

You said you wanted to trap people in decs

Quote:

Also the differences between a player corp and an NPC corp are largely not worth fighting over for most corps.

Dracvlad wrote:

It is quite obvious that if you lock non-PvP players into this so they cannot play they will up sticks and move to another game, gee thats obvious to me, but not blinked people like Kaarous.

Quote:

Currently I have two war decs on by Marmite and Foresaken, both paid for by a Goon, most of my corp mates are playing GTA 5, and me I am floating around doing the odd thing like saving a freighter from the Goons or playing Shadow of Morder while sitting cloaked or docked, the joys of Eve indeed... There you go I am like a leet AFK cloaker, I just won Eve Big smile

Dracvlad wrote:

I also pointed out that there was also an issue in that if anyone fought back, then other hisec mercs would also pile in so it was a zero-sum game.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

It is quite obvious that if you lock non-PvP players into this so they cannot play they will up sticks and move to another game, gee thats obvious to me, but not blinked people like Kaarous.

No one wants to lock them out of the game.

I merely want risk vs reward to mean a goddamned thing, instead of be skewed enormously in favor of the PvE players.

Quote:

Whose fault is it that your corp is too risk averse to actually play the game?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Not trap; there should always be a way out. But that way out shouldn't equate to a "okay, we're canceling your war now, bye o/".

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I agree. Perhaps it's time that they raised the NPC corp tax to something along the lines of 40-50%, which would be in line with the amount of protection afforded by them.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

If you want fair fights, you're playing the wrong game.

Dracvlad wrote:

You want them locked out of the game, you have said so in numerous threads.

Quote:

As for not fighting, we did 4 roams looking for Marmite

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why is "we're cancelling your war now" inherently different from "we're cancelling your relative peace now"? Why is one more allowable than the other?

Quote:

So long as wardecs are arbitrary why can't dodging be equally so?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

It is quite obvious that if you lock non-PvP players into this so they cannot play they will up sticks and move to another game, gee thats obvious to me, but not blinked people like Kaarous.

No one wants to lock them out of the game.

I merely want risk vs reward to mean a goddamned thing, instead of be skewed enormously in favor of the PvE players.

Quote:

Whose fault is it that your corp is too risk averse to actually play the game?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Who said anything about fair fights?

You did, when you were jawing on about "reasonably equal in strength".

Quote:

You said you wanted to trap people in decs

Nope. I said that dec dodging should not be permitted. If you don't want to deal with wars, you belong in an NPC corp, full stop.

Quote:

Also the differences between a player corp and an NPC corp are largely not worth fighting over for most corps.

Which is why NPC corps themselves should be nerfed, and player corps commensurately buffed until being in a player corp is the optimal choice for personal income.

Player corps should mean more than just a glorified chat channel and a station hangar.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Damn I could have bet ISK on these responses.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why is "we're cancelling your war now" inherently different from "we're cancelling your relative peace now"? Why is one more allowable than the other? So long as wardecs are arbitrary why can't dodging be equally so? And why is the only risk an informed declarer might face, the fact that his targets might not willingly go along with their intent, too much to be dealt with?

As for the latter, you double my EHP on every ship I get in so that I'm actually twice as "safe" in reality as compared to the warped view of protection you've created and we might have a fair deal.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

We must have been playing a different game, because when I played back then, we sat 150km off low-sec gates and popped every little thing with Tachygeddons and sniper Feroxes, and rolled around the belts killing and ransoming anyone we could find. A player's age made no difference either, since everyone was pretty new.

Is it more of a numbers game today, where math and exact calculations play a bigger role in pvp? Sure. but that's evolution, not regression. No one counted their DPS and healing in vanilla WoW raids either.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, I never said fights should be fair, but rather that differences in strength should allow differences in response.

Quote:

Disabling the ability to dodge is trapping someone into a dec.

Quote:

Also, why again should a player corp need to meet any standard?

Quote:

Player corps should mean what those who create them intend for them to mean and be defended as they intend them to be defended.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.

Certainly you are proud of your accomplishment. If I could go back in time I would beg CCP to ensure that ship size put a limit on how many ships could lock it. But you know, the game mechanics that make kill-everything-that-moves for no reason game play has been in your favor, and you used it in your way. But every time you are bored in your gate camp, remember you have only yourself to blame.

Give yourself a pat on the back. Yay. Woopee. Hey we have someone who killed everything they saw on their overview over here. All hail!

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

You want them locked out of the game, you have said so in numerous threads.

No, I want them to not get to have their cake and eat it too.

I want conflict to be promoted by the game mechanics, not stifled.

If conflict being a thing means not playing the game to you(or to anyone), then you're what's wrong with EVE Online.

Quote:

As for not fighting, we did 4 roams looking for Marmite

Wait, what? Why would you "roam" looking for Marmite? Go to a trade hub.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why is "we're cancelling your war now" inherently different from "we're cancelling your relative peace now"? Why is one more allowable than the other?

Because loss is supposed to happen. It's pretty much the entire point of this game.

Quote:

So long as wardecs are arbitrary why can't dodging be equally so?

Because wars are intended, and if you don't want them, you already have an option, NPC corps.

What you want is the best of both worlds via an exploit. You're flailing wildly to try and justify this overpowered advantage, but the truth of the matter is that if you don't want wars, you do not belong in a player corp. Player corps are for players.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Damn I could have bet ISK on these responses.

Are you going to bite ankles, or are you going to rant about the good old days like a hipster? Pick one.

Black Pedro wrote:

alexclone1 wrote:

Sorry to hear you were unable to successfully start a corp in highsec. Without all the details it is hard to determine where you went wrong, but it is true that there are hundreds of successful corps in highsec and more created every month. That said, it is non-trivial (as it should be) to create a vibrant and function highsec corp in the competitive sandbox that is New Eden.

There is nothing wrong with this. There are very good game design reasons why highsec corps should be under pressure from other players. Unfortunately in this case you were not able to provide the diplomatic and/or military leadership needed to successfully navigate the hornet's nest of ne'er-do-wells looking for targets, or rivals wanting to defend their operations from competitors.

If there is anything wrong with the game, it is that there is no compelling technical reason for you to start a corp in highsec. I don't know what your goals were, but if you just wanted a social place for players to hang out while they learn the game, then the game forced you to assume a lot of risk and attention from PvPers and other rival corps, while providing you with little more than a shared hanger/wallet and a chat channel. If this was your goal then I have some sympathy for you and hope CCP gets around to implementing a "social corp" or another mechanism where you can have the social benefits of a corp without the added risk of wardecs.

If you were starting a serious industrial corp then the failure of your corp was working as intended. This game is designed so you have to defend your industrial operations. If you are going to extract benefit from the Eve economy, then you need to be at risk from your competitors, including to direct pressure from wardecs. A competitive corp is not entitled to opt-out of wardecs while dumping resources and industrial goods onto the market. Doing so would limit destruction which is bad for the war economy of Eve, and targets for other players which is bad for a vibrant PvP game.

There is nothing stopping you from trying again. Start a new corp and pay more attention to the risk of wardecs. Spend some effort developing plans and doctrines to deal with the threat, and work on making friends to help defend you or find mercenaries that will do that for a fee. Perhaps grow a little slower by spending more time on that and less on spamming invites in rookie systems just to get your numbers up quickly and you will have more success.

Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.

Quote:

So mister genius suggests that going to Jita where they have ships to pick from and all their RR alts stationed is a good idea when I am better off picking them off in the pipes, which was why they ran. My guys did that a few times said damn this lets play GTA 5, these are people who have done a lot of PvP, not people who talk about it.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Damn I could have bet ISK on these responses.

Are you going to bite ankles, or are you going to rant about the good old days like a hipster? Pick one.

I'm going to point out again that you are a broken record repeating the same crap over and over again.

Are you an NCO? I bet you are the kind that shows up early for PT in shined boots the day after coming back from a deployment and expecting everybody else to love you for that and want to drink your sweat.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Yes, I'm in that small minority of players that should have been neutered a decade ago, so that EVE could have become a successful, cooperative themepark, in which players work together to make the universe a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Sorry for ruining your game.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss. Places in which wardecs have no meaning play host to the greatest amount of loss per person living there. Eliminating wardecs would probably be one of the least impacting things to happen in terms of loss for any equivalent mechanics change. We're also not dealing with a mechanism of guaranteed loss. CCP themselves noted that a number of decs end without loss due to both evasion and inactivity. We could count that inactivity as some sort of moral victory for the attacker, but really it's just another contributor to alt proliferation.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.

I support every mechanic that increases risk, especially to those who try to avoid it to carebear all day long.

I do not support people who would rather not play the game than deal with risk.

Quote:

So basically, because you couldn't get easy kills against people who were prepared to deal with you, you just stopped playing the game.

*golfclap*

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss.

Quote:

As for wars being intended, if all "dodging" is unintended, why is it still possible? It should be mechanically simple to restrict it, so why is it not happening?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.

I support every mechanic that increases risk, especially to those who try to avoid it to carebear all day long.

I do not support people who would rather not play the game than deal with risk.

Quote:

So basically, because you couldn't get easy kills against people who were prepared to deal with you, you just stopped playing the game.

*golfclap*

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

And what, praytell, does that mean? I bet you're about to say that weaker groups should just be allowed to be functionally immune.

Quote:

No, it's not. It's keeping people from playing games with the corp creation system in order to be immune to wars.

If you want to be immune to wars, there's already a place for that. If you aren't in that place, you get to deal with wars.

Quote:

Because this is a PvP game, first, last, and always. Defending yourself is not optional, or at least it shouldn't be.

Quote:

Not if how they intend for it to be defended is an exploit, no. Defending does not mean "push button, get free safety". Defending should mean actually playing the game.

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.

I support every mechanic that increases risk, especially to those who try to avoid it to carebear all day long.

I do not support people who would rather not play the game than deal with risk.

Quote:

So basically, because you couldn't get easy kills against people who were prepared to deal with you, you just stopped playing the game.

*golfclap*

So where is the risk to the cloaky camper?

I am trying to get kills against people trying to get easy kills, work out what happens, they run and we don't go where they are strongest, we don't have their numbers, in any case my vets have a problem with fighting in Jita due to lag issues thay had in the past, so that is out of the question, even though I personally did that against Deadly Fingertips on the Jita undock, you should have seen just how much they had ready to use in Jita, nah are you sure you are in the military?

Dracvlad wrote:

So where is the risk to the cloaky camper?

Quote:

I am trying to get kills against people trying to get easy kills, work out what happens, they run and we don't go where they are strongest, we don't have their numbers, in any case my vets have a problem with fighting in Jita due to lag issues thay had in the past, so that is out of the question, even though I personally did that against Deadly Fingertips on the Jita undock, you should have seen just how much they had ready to use in Jita, nah are you sure you are in the military?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.

Quote:

If they "push button, get safety" that would indicate it was not intended to be defended would it not?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss.

No, but since they decided to give everyone a button to turn off one of the better means of inflicting loss, wars have improved in importance in that regard.

Quote:

As for wars being intended, if all "dodging" is unintended, why is it still possible? It should be mechanically simple to restrict it, so why is it not happening?

It was officially an exploit for some time, until people like you cried so hard that CCP flip flopped on it.

I want that decision to be revisited.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.

So does the defender. Or is there some trick I'm missing where being the attacker means I can't get hit back?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

So where is the risk to the cloaky camper?

It's commensurate to his ability to have any effect in open space.

That is to say, very little.

That's basically the point of cloaking devices, after all. Can't use any mods, so you can't get killed easily in exchange.

Quote:

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

All I hear is you dogging on someone who is playing the game. Hypocrisy.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.

So does the defender. Or is there some trick I'm missing where being the attacker means I can't get hit back?

You're missing where the defender has limited ability or interest, which is no less valid than the attacker's desire to hit them in the first place.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And why should other players be able to cancel my mining income by mining out all of the asteroids themselves, or cancel my trading income by undercutting my orders on the market? Why is one more allowable than the other?

At least the people declaring war have to pay something for it, while defense is completely and utterly free (let's not argue that the 2 million to reform a corporation is an actual cost here).

And ship EHP has already been buffed, many times. Especially on haulers and barges.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

Have a baby three weeks ago, mostly. Gotta be a good husband, after all. Before that, that would be a wife with a high risk pregnancy. Anyway, I reported you both to Ezwal again for taking this to personal attacks.

You both need to settle down already.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.

So does the defender. Or is there some trick I'm missing where being the attacker means I can't get hit back?

You're missing where the defender has limited ability or interest, which is no less valid than the attacker's desire to hit them in the first place.

It's absolutely less valid, yes. Loss is supposed to happen, it is the intended state of the game, and the function by which the economy is driven.

Besides, as I mentioned, my desire is for player corps to be the optimal playstyle for personal income generation by a large margin. Even being in one would be something worth defending.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Sorry you have to resort to the reporting tool.

Personally, I find it regrettable that you two devolve into ad hominems and personal attacks so quickly. It's really rather telling of the state of your argument, when all you can is spend an entire page on that kind of nonsense, rather than even try to argue your point.

You need to settle down, as I mentioned above.

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Diddums, and your posts are full of personal attacks, and we don't report them. Roll

Thanks for confirming something we all knew in that post.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

I for one am thoroughly enjoying watching all of the personal attacks come from exactly one party to the argument.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, it's no less valid because no one is obligated to offer up their ships to create loss.

Quote:

Loss happens upon failure to mitigate another players attempts to take something you have. It's not a natural automatic function that happens without realized intent. And that intent should have a variety of responses.

Quote:

Mechanics are set up for those who want to avoid loss to do so should they be willing to take some action towards it, and in this case the response is appropriate to the method of aggression.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Diddums, and your posts are full of personal attacks, and we don't report them. Roll

Thanks for confirming something we all knew in that post.

I haven't seen him personally attack a single person in this thread.

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

Diddums, and your posts are full of personal attacks, and we don't report them. Roll

Thanks for confirming something we all knew in that post.

Dracvlad wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Diddums, and your posts are full of personal attacks, and we don't report them. Roll

Thanks for confirming something we all knew in that post.

I haven't seen him personally attack a single person in this thread.

Really, wow you sure about that...

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Diddums, and your posts are full of personal attacks, and we don't report them. Roll

Thanks for confirming something we all knew in that post.

I haven't seen him personally attack a single person in this thread.

Really, wow you sure about that...

Very sure.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Not that I'm going to be a tool and discuss forum moderation, but if I made so many personal attacks like you claim, why weren't they deleted when Ezwal had to come in here so many times because of you two guys?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, it's no less valid because no one is obligated to offer up their ships to create loss.

See, that's just a lack of understanding of the nature of EVE. Each and every player is obligated to do this. That's why non consensual PvP is a thing in the first place.

Quote:

You bet it is, or the NPCs wouldn't shoot back.

Quote:

Mechanics are set up for those who want to avoid loss to do so should they be willing to take some action towards it, and in this case the response is appropriate to the method of aggression.

Things like warp stabs, mining or ratting while aligned, or tanking your ship, or watching local, those are all fine.

Eliminating half the risk in highsec by playing games with the corp creation system? That is not fine.

Dracvlad wrote:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You know you are not supposed to talk about forum moderation, good test this one, will it get deleted.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

You are the one who does that, then uses the reporting tool when you get back what you dished out. That, IMO, makes you the lowest form of life and no lionger worth debating with knowing you are going to go running to the report button. I must have used the report button at best 5 or 6 times since 2006.

I'm done with you. This is like arguing with a died-hair social justice warrior on Twitter.

Go and report that too.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, no player is obligated to it, which is why observational and defensive mechanism exist. You are allowed to keep you assets to the extent of your ability to keep them from harm. The nature of eve in no way defies this. It's only a failure to understand the limits of PvP that encourages thinking otherwise.

Quote:

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

He doesn't need to. I did already.

Irrespective of who it's from or who it's directed that, those types of posts don't belong here.

Quote:

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.

Passive... what in the hell are you talking about?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Now, don't shoot steam out your ears, but I did report that double post for deletion.

Dracvlad wrote:

diddums...

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I think you misunderstand.

I'm not talking about an obligation to die in every specific instance. But as a general rule, yes, everyone exists for their ship to explode, it's the major driving force in the game.

Quote:

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.

Passive... what in the hell are you talking about?

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

diddums...

It's also just total disrespect to the OP, who bought a well thought out and expressed post, which we all just totally derailed from the start.

Why even carry on with this sort of stuff when the actual topic of the thread could be discussed instead. I'm not claiming to be better than anyone in this. Just lamenting the situation that we can't be civil to each other, especially when unprovoked to begin with.

alexclone1 wrote:

Hello, i am posting with an alt.

Intro: Ive done it all: Build caps; Military Director for a Large Sov holding allaince; FC for small gang leet pvp low sec; FC for high skilled high sec mercs; mining; manufacturing.

So after my Military Director stint for over a year, i took a break from the game. Back in 2010 i was the CEO of a high sec corp. That was most fun ive ever had. We had 160 peeps in 3 months and membership was exploding.

Ive been playing eve since 2006 and back pre 2013 (i think) one had to pay a fixed fee to wardec someone which doubled every time a new entity wardec'd. This means that rarely would a corp get more than 3 war decs at once. The average war dec time was 1 week out of the month.

So i come back to do that high sec corp all over again. The problem is once my corp got to 50 guys in 2 weeks, the war decs came hot and heavy. And they werent like the old days of small corps. Now it was huge multiple war decing alliances. We didnt have a prayer. The corp was wardeced EVERY WEEK afterwards. Thus stomping us out of existance.

Who is there to hire when all the pvpers are in the war decing alliances? Where is there to go? What is there to do?

Sadly i had spent too much $$ for a corp website that never saw the light of day because once i relized the war dec mechanics, it was no longer worth it to be a successful large (50+) high sec corp.

I have no issues fighting, but a 50 man corp spread in euro/american tz simply cant do jack about the HUNDREDS of experienced pvpers camping your stations with nothing better to do.

I would love to have a conversation in the comments from both sides. Perhaps there is some middle ground?

Dracvlad wrote:

The slime dripping from that post was awesome to behold...

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Maybe we're just dealing with the inversion of the same principle, while at any time you may find yourself outwitted and out of a ship, per the rules of the game, you may also find yourself on the winning side of your pursuit to keep your ship intact. I find neither of these possibilities to be more for or against against the nature of eve.

Quote:

In applying to the wardec situation I feel the same. There is validity in mitigation of potential loss.

Quote:

That shouldn't mean corps that are purely social constructs shouldn't exist because the only valid corps are defense pacts between players.

Quote:

As far as the use of the word passive, in this context I used it to mean acts that aren't directly confrontational to protect ones assets, tanking a barge, avoiding bling fitting mission ships, not overloading haulers isk wise, basically things that aren't designed to deter a specific aggression as much as to prevent aggressors from even taking notice of you.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And, so long as you're actually doing it with intended game mechanics, I have no issue with it either.

But you cannot sit there and tell me that CCP intended wars to be trivially removed by screwing around with loopholes in the corp creation mechanics. It's right there in the dev blog, the intended method to dissolve wars is the surrender function.

Quote:

In applying to the wardec situation I feel the same. There is validity in mitigation of potential loss.

If that mitigation involves actually playing the game, yes. I have no problem with people who avoid me, I spent damn near three hours a while ago hunting one guy who I just could not catch.

But flipping corps and trivializing the existence of the mechanic in the first place is not "mitigation". It's an exploit used to abrogate the need for any other forms of mitigation at all.

Quote:

That shouldn't mean corps that are purely social constructs shouldn't exist because the only valid corps are defense pacts between players.

Purely social constructs are chat channels. Nothing further need be done about that.

Quote:

Those all involve actually doing something in the game itself. Those involve making decisions and weighing choices. Dec dodging does not, it just gives you free safety, no fuss, no muss, fire and forget.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Come on now Drac. I know that, compared to the pampered, isk bloated life they have right now, that actually having to play the game will be quite the shock for the average carebear, but if they can't get over it, that's not my problem.

The game needs to change to promote conflict, instead of boring people to death. That change will mean a less safe highsec. If that's a deal breaker for some, well, don't let the door hit you.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Personally I think a wardec should be as trivial to exit as it is to enter. If 50mill (+ costs for members) to concord starts one it should end one just as easily. Since we don't have that the next best thing is dec dodging, which is better since it lacks the harassment potential for dec'ing repeatedly for isk attrition.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Scipio Artelius wrote:

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

There are ways out of wardecs that don't involve dec dodging. Whether that is to surrender, fight or hire someone to fight for you Corps do have options. Adding more options to the mechanic that doesn't just provide a near free way to avoid conflict is also something I hope CCP eventually add.

On the other hand, not every wardec fits into the 'frivilous' category that is often complained about and we have no figures to know what percentage of wars are for a genuine greivance, to gain a competitive advantage, etc. v declaring because the mechanic exists.

In situations where someone is genuinely trying to 'avenge' a greivance, or if they are trying to get rid of the competition, gain some market advantage, etc.; the dec dodging mechanism robs them of that opportunity to genuinely bring conflict against someone they have a reason to.

In that respect, the mechanic is totally to the advantage of the dec dodger and to the disadvantage of the other person/Corp. Mercs make a living off settling someone's greivance for them and the dec dodging mechanism also affects them.

So looking at it from the perspective that the war has a genuine reason to exist, the dec dodging approach is a bit too easy.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Fighting and ransom payment both have the singular effect of marking you as a target for future exploitation, exception being that you are better than your aggressors at the latter.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Lucas Kell wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The problem with this attitude is that it's simply saying "if your corp wants to do anything other than PvP, it can't". No amount of defense in the world allows you to run non-PvP operations while being wardecced by groups who focus purely on PvP who are multiple times your size. You have no problems because all you want is PvP. That doesn't work for corps who want things outside of that. There's a reason there are no large scale highsec corporations with a non-PvP focus that don't operate almost entirely through NPC alts.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Like 4 years ago decdodging was considered an exploit and if you did it repeatedly you could be temp/permabanned.

There is no ifs ands or buts about it. It was 100% an exploit ccp said.

Then many people cried and complained for years and eventually it got to be removed from the "known exploits" page.

Nothing about it changed, no other mechanics introduced to balance it, just was exploit for years, got many many complaints, then miracle! No longer enforced.

Its still the same mechanic as when it was enforced as an exploit

Danalee wrote:

Do you think it's OK for large non PVP organisations to exist and be allowed to farm isk 24/7 freely and without consequence?
Also, do you think this situation would be good for the game and it's economy?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

If you fight back in an annoying manner, aggression will stop. No one wants to screw around with a dozen Blackbirds. You don't need to be a bunch of hardmen with Vindicators and Nestors to accomplish this.

If you surrender, negotiate the surrender in such a manner that your aggressors become your allies in the next conflict. Build relationships with them. Pass on intel on other juicy targets you spot in your area, which will both take heat off your organization, while damaging your competitors.

There are just so, so many ways of dealing with this sort of situation. If someone chooses to complain about it instead, that means they refuse to even try.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Danalee wrote:

I think it's irrelevant, because the same people currently farm isk 24/7 with little effect on the economy, they simply do it from 1 man alt corps or NPC corps. I think that allowing them to exist under a united banner would be healthier for the social elements of the game which we know improves player retention. Personally I'd like to see wardecs as they currently stand removed and alternate methods of attacking corps and their income streams which are profitable for the aggressors to be added which aren't simply a "turn off concord" mechanic.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Citation needed. I've seen this claim multiple times and not one person has been able to show where CCP stated that this was an exploit. I've never known it to be an exploit and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011 and it's not an exploit now or in the past couple of years, so I'm not sure when or where this was ever said.

Lucas Kell wrote:

In the vast majority of cases a corporation would lose far more than simply evading the wardec, with the added bonus of wardec evasion being a good indicator to the wardeccing corp that you have no issues evading, making them less likely to dec you again. I certainly don't think any of the main wardec corps are going to care even remotely about a dozen blackbirds. At the end of the day, the problem is that the current mechanics promote mass farming of easy wardec targets rather than challenging content, and so the targets of wardecs invariably have very little to resist with.

Dracvlad wrote:

I liked this post so much, and for those whining about people dissolving their corps to evade war dec's, stop whining, there is no issue with it, the fault is yours for war deccing people who can't fight, get over it.

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Hi Dracvlad, I understand you are happy to see someone who posted something that might lean on your thoughts about our game.
Still, I'd love to challenge your premise and maybe invoke some thoughts other than knee-jerk reactions.

- What is your alternative to wardecs?
- Are you OK with everyone being able to just farm isk without consequence?

And maybe a little bit mean but; Why don't you play on sisi? You can PVE there without consequence 24/7.

D.

Bear

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

I don't even know why you ask these people these things. They'll give you the same "I want what's best for the game" spiel every single time, without actually putting out a concrete viewpoint on the matter.

But I can tell you that I've infiltrated a significant number of carebear corporations, posed these questions to them while passing myself off as one of the chums, and got exactly the kind of answer you'd expect.

Danalee wrote:

Still, I'd love to challenge your premise and maybe invoke some thoughts other than knee-jerk reactions.

- What is your alternative to wardecs?
- Are you OK with everyone being able to just farm isk without consequence?

And maybe a little bit mean but; Why don't you play on sisi? You can PVE there without consequence 24/7.

D.

Bear

Solecist Project wrote:

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

*leans head on your shoulder*
More posts like these are needed so badly.
Well done!

Dracvlad wrote:

Actually the main issue is to have something to fight over, which is what I suggested in my first post in this thread, I think the new structures as proposed will change this so people have something useful to fight over. You guys should be very excited over that, think that through, because its exciting to me. The whole argument about people dropping corps and evading is irrelevent, because those that have skin in the game will have to defend it, perhaps then your scatter gun approach is no longer needed and then you will stop whining about it. The only issue you will have is that the people who don't want to and can't fight will be able to have no skin in the game and will re-create their corp, so what.

Dracvlad wrote:

I reject your premise, there are always consequences in Eve and rightly so, and in any case if there was no war decs people would still gank and that is something that has a whole sub culture around it, epic fights around a bumped freighter.

Dracvlad wrote:

Mean, well actually incorrect, first check out my killboard, I do have one you know, SISI is not playing against other people, its wiped out, its meaningless. My fun in this game is to play regardless of people trying to stop me, yesterday in spit of a war dec from you I went and helped save a freighter from the Goons, we won, I was waiting for one of your chaps to come along and I would have gone for him, but no show.
I am still in corp, still moving around in hisec and neither your alliance or Foresaken have killed me, gold star when you do...

Dracvlad wrote:

Well you are a legend in your own lunchtime, Eve is the easiest game to infiltrate other entities,its so easy I have zero respect for anyone who does it as all you need to do is buy an existing toon on a clean account and your golden, rather like the OP in fact...

The answer is simply that some people find it too much fun taking candy from babies, it makes their self worth greater, I on the other hand have always played this game against enemies who are more numerous and better equipped then me and that I have thrived and survived is all I need to say in return to you, my killboard speaks for itself...

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Well if you know how legendary I am, then you should also know that I do this for the entertainment (drama), and to see whether or not I can turn a particular corporation around by steering it towards a modicum of efficiency. The fact that you feel the need to bring your killboard into this shows just how insecure you feel about your place in this entire debate.

But you know what? I'm not going to go down this path. Instead, I will tell you that you're right; I do find it a lot of fun taking candy from babies. Now you need tell me why I shouldn't be able to do this in the game called EVE Online.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Oh look a disdainful carebear on its high horse. How terribly new and interesting. I sure do expect for it to have lots of interesting ideas about how to improve the game.

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Why be in a corp at all if not to have something to fight for?
Taxes, structures, social cohesion, a name for yourself, a reputation, etc..
People dropping corp in a hearthbeat is hardly irrelevant, it's broken beyond belief.
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, I haven't spoken out for or against what you call 'shotgun approach' let alone whined about it.

Dracvlad wrote:

So you propose a buff to ganking instead to compensate the lack of other risks? Please elaborate.

Dracvlad wrote:

What you are saying is you don't play on sisi because it's meaningless? The fact that no other players are there to try and interfere with your group makes it bland and boring, worthless even?
Good on you for mocking the big bad mercs; Now go and spread that message of defianec to the others instead of crying/whining(?) for nerfs!

D.

Bear

Solecist Project wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Relevant side question: How often does it happen you recruit people this way?
Like pulling them out of the corp, to your own?

I understand that it can be hard to notice yet locked up potential.

"Recruiting by shooting" works, so this might as well.

Solecist Project wrote:

Responsebait oneliners which only serve the poster himself ...
... and have no other purpose than making the other one respond ...
... and don't add anything for clearing things up or adding information ...

... should be punished with a warning and then a permaban.

You aren't legit.
nothing more to say about this.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

So my question to the floor is - what are you wardeccing FOR?

This is a good question. My answer: to extract a ransom/maintain a protection racket, or as part of a mercenary contract in which someone else hired me to conduct a war for any reason (I don't ask).

afkalt wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

So my question to the floor is - what are you wardeccing FOR?

This is a good question. My answer: to extract a ransom/maintain a protection racket, or as part of a mercenary contract in which someone else hired me to conduct a war for any reason (I don't ask).

Thank you :)

Setting aside merc work as that question should be posed of the hiring unit. The former will very much against some corps, for other people I rather suspect repeatedly suicide ganking until they pay you is the way forward there (actually there's probably a lot of money in that) - I'm thinking here NPC bears doing missions etc.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Oh look a disdainful carebear on its high horse. How terribly new and interesting. I sure do expect for it to have lots of interesting ideas about how to improve the game.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

So my question to the floor is - what are you wardeccing FOR?

This is a good question. My answer: to extract a ransom/maintain a protection racket, or as part of a mercenary contract in which someone else hired me to conduct a war for any reason (I don't ask).

You can actually ransom freighters with the threat of a gank while bumping them. Aside from that, wars get the message across quicker than ganking does. Ganking is useful for showing someone that you mean business even if they choose to corp-hop or dissolve entirely, but it's not a good opener, due to the cost factor. And a war allows me to keep the ransom relatively low, while ganking would raise it every single time due to the quick accumulation of sunk costs. Ganking is simply better for one-time profit off of a specific target.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

Absolutely, it depends on the target and the aim of the objective - which was my original question/point - wars are a tool in the box, but they are not always an appropriate tool for every target. Research should be done as to the most effective way to squeeze a given target with a set objective in mind.

I'd not open with a gank either, after one has a suitable reputation as you said the threat of violence is often going to be enough but nor would I wardec that "one man corp", I'd go straight to a thrasher based welcome.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

The problem is that CCP keeps taking these tools out of the box, and now we're left with just two: wars and ganking. We used to have stuff like the lofty, the awox, can-baiting, tricking someone into shooting you and then getting CONCORDed, remote assistance suicide-assassinations, etc etc. And then CCP implemented aggro transfer restrictions to prevent the lofty, a "friendly fire" toggle to prevent the awox, a safety that prevents someone from being tricked into shooting you, automatic shutoff for modules in case of aggression, etc etc. We're down to exactly two methods of killing someone in high-sec that the victim can't nullify by flipping a switch. That's saying a lot. Just two more nerfs, I guess.

Valedictio wrote:

Oh and for a certain individual, the game is not all about loss, to me it is all about me enjoying myself.

Valedictio wrote:

To sum it all up. War Decs are not broken if they are used for an intended purpose, Disbandment, Disruption, Destruction (In space assets), the problem with them only occurs if they are being used to grief an individual or farm easy kills when the target doesn't comply.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

afkalt wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Lofty, don't know that one, but awoxing you can still do, lowsec and nullsec, can flipping has been replaced by suspect baiting and some people do it very well, like the guy in Osmon using a Fenrir. In affect all the changes have done is forced people like you to up your game and take more risk, you do not like it do you?

invulnerable RR, was one of the reasons why so many people decided not to fight war dec's, its so much better now, we have people out of corp in fleet waiting to jump them, you don't like that do you. Ganking has only got more expensive in terms of the fact that some ships were given a slightly better tank, CCP finely worked out on balance.

The dropping from corp, or recreation of corps was to get away from the large number of one man war dec corps that did nothing for the whole war dec, and yet you blame the carebears for your own folly. At least the people I knew in the Orphanage did not have your attitude...

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

- Suspect baiting is great and all, but still completely nullified by the safety setting.

Danalee wrote:

To the OP:

If you care to try again, I offer consultancy for your new corp. For free.
Send me an in game mail and I will assist in making it work for you in hisec.

D.

Bear

Danalee wrote:

Lucas Kell wrote:

Danalee wrote:

Ok Lucas, that puts your point in perspective.

As long as their is no alternative, don't you agree we need to keep wardecs as they are and maybe even think about the social corps combined with strict limits on NPC corps?

D.

Bear

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You just said that you like your "indy playstyle." Would you be able to enjoy yourself if there was no demand for the items you produce?

Dana Goodeye wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You just said that you like your "indy playstyle." Would you be able to enjoy yourself if there was no demand for the items you produce?

do you want to tell that, the hisec indies generates the most of the demand of ships/mods? im pretty sure, the hisec gankers, the losec/nullsec pvpers/ratters buying a lot more stuff than the hisec indies. i mean if an indi pilot buy something, its usually for build more stuff. if a pvper buys something, you can be sure, at least eve will lose one ship at minimum in a short time =D pvpers makes the demands on the market, the indies fulfill them, the traders are exploit booth parties =D i think we should do something to be able to gank station traders =P

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

- You can do anything in low-sec and null-sec. But we're not discussing low-sec and null-sec here.

- Suspect baiting is great and all, but still completely nullified by the safety setting.

- I like risk, but I also like fairness. Pirate players should be treated as fairly as any others, within the confines of the game's environment. Telling pirate players that they should have all the risk just because they support the concept of it is unfair and inane.

- I never brought up invulnerable RR as a point of contention. This was actually a good change.

- Ganking got more expensive because most industrial ships got EHP increases in the hundreds of percentage points ranges, and because insurance was removed for losses to CONCORD.

- If the one-man corp aggressors do nothing for the duration of a war, then why do the "victims" even have to disband? I don't follow here.

- I was in The Orphanage.

- You're trying too hard with those yappy-dog heel bites of "you don't like that, do you?" stuff.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Valedictio wrote:

Oh and for a certain individual, the game is not all about loss, to me it is all about me enjoying myself.

You just said that you like your "indy playstyle." Would you be able to enjoy yourself if there was no demand for the items you produce?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Here you go buddy:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19881

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=117249#post117249

The rabbit hole goes deeper if you ask Google. Plenty of dev posts on the old EVE forums.

Now you can tell me how "this isn't proof of anything," et cetera. I'm familiar with your runaround.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

- If they lose too much by defending, then it's obvious that their operations are too bloated. Any amount of wealth has to have a corresponding, proportional amount of protection. If folding up is the most economical option, then that's just fine. But I don't think it's fine for a corporation to strip-mine all the belts and hog all the moons and then claim that it's too easy for it to be attacked.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

- The main wardec corps aren't going to care about a dozen Blackbirds because they never leave the main hubs. Other wadec corps will care, because a dozen Blackbirds is a massive nuisance. It's a fact that most hunter-type wardec corporations are smaller than the targets they go after. Jamming every single enemy in such a scenario is entirely plausible.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Well in the first one, he's talking about dec shields which were declared an exploit at one time. No mention is made of corp recycling.

The second link is actually more telling. For corp recycling it states "Not an exploit" while under corp hopping it states "No longer an exploit", which tells me that corp recycling wasn't considered an exploit before and still isn't.

You can try to accuse me of whatever you want, but the facts remain that at no point have I see any mention of closing and reopening a corp being an exploit other than from players claiming it is.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Not really, in fact quite the opposite. The smaller the corp is, the more likely it is going to cost more to defend than simply recreate the corp. PvE activities gain very little benefit from being in a corp, which is why there's no large scale PvE corps in highsec, with or without protection.

Lucas Kell wrote:

That really depends on the wardeccer. Marmite might hang around in Jita, but other wardeccers don't do just that. And a half awake serious PvP corp would have ships and fits to count mass ECM. ECM is not an "I win" button.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The consistency of someone's language is open to interpretation. As someone who busted a rage nut during the period of time when those debates were taking place, I'm pretty sure that our claims have merit. You have to understand though that the pages with rules in them have long been deleted or edited, so all we have to go by is word of mouth and forum records. The latter are still there, or at least some of them are, but I don't want to spend my time on a deep search to try to find specific posts by the management.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The problem lies in a lack of economical sense of the average EVE player, because after all, we're still all derpy teenagers playing our "video entertainment toys." The lack of protection in pve corporations, both large in small, is rooted in the greed and lack of foresight of the players who populate them. Would it cost a lot to keep players like myself on staff for security? Yeah, but there would be actual results. But no, the average bear wants all the money for himself, not just some. And seeing as how there aren't any penalties for re-rolling corporations, of course it makes sense to do this instead of paying for actual, tangible protection. I don't blame them for doing this, but it shouldn't be the case. Bringing up the cost of corporation creation to match that of starting a war would be a good first step toward fixing the problem, and raising NPC corp taxes would be a good second one.

Paying a quarter of your income to fund a proper combat wing would make a lot more sense if the alternative would be to give up half (along with a great deal of efficiency and convenience) in order to stay in an NPC corporation. Unfortunately, there's no other way to solve this issue aside from hard nerfs that put a price on safety. Pirates have been eating such hard nerfs for many, many years now, so perhaps it's time our industrious counterparts took one for the team as well.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It's just one example. Am I going to have to post one for every single tactical doctrine I can think of? There are multiple forms of e-war that are very quick and easy to spec into, and all of them scale really well with numbers, which means that the defenders usually have an inherent advantage.

Memphis Baas wrote:

I also see an issue with the fact that the wardec itself isn't a contract (has no UI-enforced secure transaction capability). You pay the extortion money and the war can continue.

I'd prefer to see the wardec system get changed to be contract-like, with a clear duration and clear win conditions (you pay x amount, or you provide x items or ships) as decided by the entity that declares the war, of course. Like an item exchange contract for the win (or for surrendering). With the war being instantly invalidated if the contract terms are paid, and not possible to declare the same war again for a while afterwards.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Well I've been playing since 2005 and I don't ever remember a time when corp recycling was an exploit. This isn't the first time I've asked someone to provide proof of this either and as of yet nobody has been able to find anything. I myself have searched though hundreds for threads and old dev blogs and not been able to find it there either. If this were ever considered an exploit I just can't see why it would be this difficult to find a post from a dev stating it.

Personally I believe it's one of those things that one person has stated, has caught on and has just become uncontested fact.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

But it wouldn't just be a quarter. They'd pay a quarter, but when under wardec they'd be unable to do most activities in space anyway. Having a PvP wing around you does nothing against a seasoned team of dedicated PvPers who have no goal other than PvP. Besides, would you really want to play a game where you sit and watch a PvE player do PvE all day just in case a wardeccer shows up, being paid 1/4 of a highsec PvE income?

Forcing players into paying huge taxes to not be mass wardecced by the wardec groups that exist would be completely unreasonable. All that would do is get a huge chunk of PvE focused players to quit. As hard as it is for you to understand, EVE is not all about shooting people. And as for the old "us pirates get so many nerf waah waah" this has been thrown out there so many times recently. Pirates have also had multiple buffs, even if you refuse to acknowledge them.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

It's irrelevant, because a group of players specifically gathered together to engage in PvP are always going to be tougher than a PvP group originating from a PvE corp.

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Lucas im not sure why you are even worried about this topic you nullbear rat farming renter

Destiny Corrupted. wrote:

The fact that you feel the need to bring your killboard into this shows just how insecure you feel about your place in this entire debate.

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Dude you even quoted the dev in destinies linked thread, the second one.

NO LONGER are the key words you dont seem to understand. That means that at a time previous to 2011, corp hopping to evade wars WERE AN EXPLOIT cuz at that point in time they became NO LONGER.

Dude you type too much here to act like you dont understand what the dev ment by NO LONGER CONSIDERED

Solecist Project wrote:

Lucas... saying a group that originated from PvE and then went to PvP
can not be tougher than a group that started with PvP directly ...

... is like saying these people are incapable to learn and gain practise like the others.

That's not right.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Corp hopping isn't what's being questioned though. What we're talking about is corp recycling - the act of deleting and recreating a corp to evade a wardec. That did not say "no longer", it simply said "not an exploit". Please though, find me the dev post stating that corp recycling is an exploit. I'd like to know the answer one way or the other for certain. As it stand there's absolutely no proof it ever was an exploit.

Solecist Project wrote:

You misunderstand. A corp that is PvE focussed and has some PvP players is going to be less effective at PvP than a dedicated PvP group who do nothing but PvP.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Paying a quarter of your income to fund a proper combat wing would make a lot more sense if the alternative would be to give up half (along with a great deal of efficiency and convenience) in order to stay in an NPC corporation. Unfortunately, there's no other way to solve this issue aside from hard nerfs that put a price on safety. Pirates have been eating such hard nerfs for many, many years now, so perhaps it's time our industrious counterparts took one for the team as well.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The solution is having those seasoned, dedicated pvpers as part of your team. The industrialists gain the benefit of protection (and I'm talking real protection, as in "wait a second, did these guys just put a dozen Vindicators on the field? I thought we were going to kill Retrievers?"), and the pvpers get the benefit of cheaper stuff, and maybe having someone else cover their war fees for a change.

And that last part I typed there? It's important. The trick to retaining these pvpers isn't just helping them out financially, but actually allowing them to operate how they want, under their own rules. Then they can go out and do the same pvp they would have done on their own, while the industrialists do their own thing. No one has to bleed their eyes out watching miners mine for twelve. Meanwhile, the non-rubbish killboard stats show everyone that you're a hard target, and no one ever dares to **** with you.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

I've been a long-term member of two such corporations throughout my years in the game. Here's a killboard link for one of them: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=corporation&name=Ore+Mongers

Ranked 217 even after half a decade of being effectively disbanded. We had more characters with industrial than combat skills, and we had no problem making the rules everywhere we went.

You keep mentioning how old of a player you are, but the fact that you haven't arrived at this very simple formula for success is downright astonishing.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

We're down to exactly two methods of killing someone in high-sec that the victim can't nullify by flipping a switch. That's saying a lot. Just two more nerfs, I guess.

Danalee wrote:

Dracvlad wrote:

Stay a while and listen while I tell you the story of my people

Dracvlad, sorry to break it to you but the reason you got wardecced was your crying on the forums.
No goon plot to "get you" or anything involved.
The onus for your corpies leaving is therefor on you. They didn't want to go after marmites or whoever and you pestered them untill they left for GTA. Learn from that.

For all the impact you think you have otherwise, you are (as I, I admit) quite irrelevant.
You being docked somewhere doesn't impact anyone. Forums are a fun pastime for me so... meh.
Someone getting killed somewhere in a game about killing stuff is again... Well, you know what I mean.

Please stop derailing this thread with post about how you are bad at EVE and want EVE to drop to your level.
Either shape up or ship out. No tears will be shed, anyway the wind blows.

D.

Bear

Vimsy Vortis wrote:

I just want to know what the end game is. When all is said and done and it's impossible to destroy another player's ship in highsec then what? How is the game going to be better, what kind of super amazing content will that generate?

Where is the value of removing PVP gameplay meant to be?

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

alexclone1 wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

Because those that war dec only want to shoot at miners? And not engage in actual pvp?

My point isnt that an industrial corp shouldnt be war dec'd at all. But currently the ability for 300+ people to war dec AT ONCE and PERMANENTLY does seem right. How is a corp supposed to grow to a point where it can defend itself?

alexclone1 wrote:

Destiny Corrupted wrote: