EVE Search - War Decs: It's time for them to go away.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

War Decs: It's time for them to go away.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Niriel Greez Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem. 24	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:46:30 - [31] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: During that period we lost 90% of our active player base.Some went to WH, some went to null, but most left the game altogether. Success right there. Wardecs are probably one of the worst mechanics in this game and you already have it way too easy as it is, but until HS stops being a risk-free ISK faucet, gankbears and mercbears should keep slaughtering carebears.
Utara Ataru Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:46:41 - [32] - Quote Giaus Felix wrote: PvP is Player vs Player. With that in mind, please list the activities in Eve that don't require competing against other players for influence, resources, isk, etc.[/quote] The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. Pitting a faction cruiser against a mining barge is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of PvP. But back to your requested list in EVE: 1) Mining 2) manufacturing (which now requires a POS to be cost effective which requires a corp which can then be war dec'd, making the POS vulnerable to attack) 3) missions 4) incursions 5) explorations 6) empire building at the corp / alliance level and 7) pvp - where both sides have combat ships - in low / null / wh & war decs.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 33	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:55:03 - [33] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: Giaus Felix wrote: PvP is Player vs Player. With that in mind, please list the activities in Eve that don't require competing against other players for influence, resources, isk, etc. The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. Pitting a faction cruiser against a mining barge is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of PvP. But back to your requested list in EVE: 1) Mining 2) manufacturing (which now requires a POS to be cost effective which requires a corp which can then be war dec'd, making the POS vulnerable to attack) 3) missions 4) incursions 5) explorations 6) empire building at the corp / alliance level and 7) pvp - where both sides have combat ships - in low / null / wh & war decs. Not really, at least not these days. Traditionally it was seen as combat. But even traders engage in PvP when it's a player run market.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2314	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:56:53 - [34] - Quote Niriel Greez wrote: Utara Ataru wrote: During that period we lost 90% of our active player base.Some went to WH, some went to null, but most left the game altogether. Success right there. Wardecs are probably one of the worst mechanics in this game and you already have it way too easy as it is, but until HS stops being a risk-free ISK faucet, gankbears and mercbears should keep slaughtering carebears. I find it hard to disagree but I don't live in highsec, so my opinion is heavily biased.
Yockerbow Aliastra Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:03:04 - [35] - Quote There's an easy way to avoid wardecs: NPC corps. This comes at the cost of taxes from ratting/missioning and no access to POS. The reward is wardec safety. If you want the extra rewards from NPC jobs and the bonuses of POS industry, you have to take the risks as well. That's EVE.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 25465	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:21:50 - [36] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. The universally accepted definition of PvP means you're competing against other players, as opposed to game constructs. Fairness is not a factor. Unless you're saying that either the faction cruiser or the mining barge in question is not controlled by a player, it would be pretty nonsensical (not to mention outright false) to not call it PvP. All of the things you listed involve competition against other players, i.e. PvP (and as an added bonus, fairness is not a factor in any of them). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Giaus Felix Hedion University Amarr Empire 41	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:23:37 - [37] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: Giaus Felix wrote: PvP is Player vs Player. With that in mind, please list the activities in Eve that don't require competing against other players for influence, resources, isk, etc. The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. Pitting a faction cruiser against a mining barge is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of PvP. If it was universally accepted we wouldn't be having this conversation. PvP is defined as Player vs Player. With regards to Eve your qualifiers are irrelevant, especially in light of CCP's own definition of PvP; just as with "griefing" their definition is the only one that counts. A fair fight means one or both of the combatants made a tactical mistake. CCP in the New Player FAQ (pg21) wrote: INTRODUCTION EVE Online is a game with an unparalleled level of choice available to its players. This level of choice can sometimes become overwhelming to those that are more used to the traditional MMO game model. The options presented later in this section are only a small selection of the activities and options that are available to you. Players are not obligated to progress through these options in any specific order, or even progress through them at all. A player that enjoys exploration above and beyond other options can spend the majority of his time within New Eden pursuing that activity for months or years, completely disregarding industry and/or factional warfare as an example. Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept. In the asteroid field youGÇÖre competing with other pilots to obtain resources; you may also have to defend against ore thieves. On the market you battle for control of the economy in certain areas; for the supply and demand of your products versus other aspiring tycoons. On the battlefield you may fight for glory, for money, or for the right to rule whole areas of space. As always in EVE, itGÇÖs your choice. I've emphasized the relevant parts for you. Utara Ataru wrote: But back to your requested list in EVE: 1) Mining 2) manufacturing (which now requires a POS to be cost effective which requires a corp which can then be war dec'd, making the POS vulnerable to attack) 3) missions 4) incursions 5) explorations 6) empire building at the corp / alliance level and 7) pvp - where both sides have combat ships - in low / null / wh & war decs. The first 5 more often than not involve the market, which in itself is PvP; now onto your list in more detail. Mining is PvP, you're competing with other players for raw materials. Manufacturing is PvP, you're competing with other players for sales or removing potential sales if for personal use. Missions are PvP, if you loot and salvage your haul is either used in manufacturing, recycled for raw materials or sold on the market to others. The LP that results from missions is exchanged for ships, modules and implants that are often sold on the market. Incursions are PvP, you're competing with other groups for the available payouts and LP, even more so if the site is being contested. Exploration is PvP, you're competing against other people for sites, recently there's been many a thread bemoaning the difficulty of finding decent hisec sites for example. Empire building is PvP, by its very definition. Empire building involve the acquisition of resources, territory, numbers and economic influence in order to expand your size, power, and wealth.
Webvan All Kill No Skill 12068	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:41:59 - [38] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: Tippia, that statement assumes that the vast majority of EVE players are here solely for the PvP and that simply is not true. Having played a dozen or more MMO's, there are at least 7 major things to do in these games with PvP being one of them. So which one of those games - which likely has pvp as just some silly afterthought - were you suggesting EVE become like? Is that WoW perhaps? Utara Ataru wrote: This is no small problem here folks and its getting worse. IF CCP doesn't address this issue, the unemployment rate in Iceland will go up very soon and new content changes within EVE will grind to a halt, I've seen it happen again and again in other games. Which games? WoW perhaps? All the ragequitters due to not being able to mount some griffon on an expansion or something. You peddle fear and intimidation from behind your protected NPC corp. I'm in it for the money Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Remiel Pollard Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 6720	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:45:36 - [39] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: Now before you label me a "carebear" and flame me for the next 2 days, understand that I have characters in null sec and in WH's, ... I've played in all of them, on this toon, and I have seen all kinds of risk aversion going on in all kinds of space. Wardecs aren't going anywhere. Maybe they need an overhaul, maybe I can be convinced of that with the right argument, but just because you spend time in low, nul, or wh, does not mean you're not a carebear. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 2341	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:47:29 - [40] - Quote "The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. Pitting a faction cruiser against a mining barge is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of PvP. But back to your requested list in EVE: 1) Mining 2) manufacturing (which now requires a POS to be cost effective which requires a corp which can then be war dec'd, making the POS vulnerable to attack) 3) missions 4) incursions 5) explorations 6) empire building at the corp / alliance level and 7) pvp - where both sides have combat ships - in low / null / wh & war decs." Interesting. You seem to have mistaken Player Versus Player for Player Violencing Player. They're not the same thing. Also, pretty much everything on your list is PVP. Fair fights rarely happen in EVE, usually due to accident or being prearranged for giggles. Do not expect fairness, expect people to utilize the tools available to all of us to their very best advantage. That being said, you have to also realize that High Sec wars are big business, especially in the mercenary community. What you are proposing would put hundreds, if not thousands of bloodthirsty guns for hire out of work and close down a multi-billion ISK a month industry. You can imagine that's not going to go over any better than suggesting wormholes are unnecessary and should be done away with. I think you might have some adapting to do; try to find your fun within the confines of what is EVE, rather than trying to reshape EVE to fit your ideals... it'll hurt less. Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Remiel Pollard Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 6722	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:48:25 - [41] - Quote Tippia wrote: Utara Ataru wrote: The universally accepted definition of PvP involves direct combat with ships in EVE or avatars in other games. The universally accepted definition of PvP means you're competing against other players, as opposed to game constructs. Fairness is not a factor. Unless you're saying that either the faction cruiser or the mining barge in question is not controlled by a player, it would be pretty nonsensical (not to mention outright false) to not call it PvP. All of the things you listed involve competition against other players, i.e. PvP (and as an added bonus, fairness is not a factor in any of them). Also, I might add, the 'universally' accepted definition of PVP does not apply to EVE Online due to it being a stand-alone (ie not universally standard model) MMO. EVE isn't like anything else, so expecting it to be like something else in regards to rules and definitions is like expecting a Ferrari F360 to go unnoticed at a Renault Clio club. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Webvan All Kill No Skill 12068	Posted - 2015.08.04 01:15:38 - [42] - Quote Tippia wrote: It's the classic GÇö oft-attempted and always failed GÇö case of trying to replace an actual customer base with a hypothetical one. It's never a good trade because it relies entirely on trying to elicit interest among those who have long since determined that they're not interested. It's ok if some players don't like your game. Tastes vary, and you can't satisfy them all GÇö trying to cater to everyone inevitably means pleasing no-one, and trying to capture every customer will just as inevitably mean you end up with no customers. My favorite rally cry for years to wake up drifting developers. Always the best example being SWG from which I came to this game full-time from. The game had a good open world PvP system, a reason most of their existing player-base, their vets, played the game. They eventually stuffed it into some WoW style battleground. They changed the game to cater to new players they didn't even have, even deleted all our player faction bases, all to just get new players, different players. The game literally became a ghost town over night, literally, with the surprise patch called NGE. Lingered for years with few players stuffed into a couple half-full servers, then was shut down. It took the developers many years to admit they screwed up, sort of half-hearted apology. Even SOE eventually fell apart, sold off, due to their bad decisions and mismanagement of their games. Yes, if you change your game to make it a game for everyone, you only make a game for no one. I'm in it for the money Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13921	Posted - 2015.08.04 01:24:38 - [43] - Quote Utara Ataru wrote: Pitting a faction cruiser against a mining barge is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of PvP. I don't give a Fedo's ass about your skewed definition of PvP. Player versus player. Unless CCP has finally taken my advice and disqualified miners and haulers from counting as real players, the definition still fits. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2910	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:08:15 - [44] - Quote Pitting the Third Reich against Poland is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of warfare.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 422	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:33:27 - [45] - Quote Deleting the wardec mechanic will remove a huge percentage of risk in empire space. But more importantly it will make it impossible to remove player structures from hisec. Unless you make shooting all player structures akin to shooting an MTU, with a suspect timer. Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. What if the defenders could automatically end the war by achieving some kind of fairly difficult objective? It might give them hope to stick it out. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13922	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:40:51 - [46] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. One wonders then if the surrender option would be used more if dec dodging weren't around. And honestly, I view that mentality as an extension of the problems created by dec dodging. Because people have the option to just flip their corp and not have to deal with the wars, it means that groups never have to learn to actually fight. This just serves to perpetuate the disease of helplessness. If dec dodging were not a palatable option, then a lot of the bad, unbalanced "indy" corps would disappear, yes. But in their place would rise more balanced corps that gasp actually have players with skillpoints put in combat ships. That can only be a good thing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Carrie-Anne Moss Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 382	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:43:14 - [47] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Deleting the wardec mechanic will remove a huge percentage of risk in empire space. But more importantly it will make it impossible to remove player structures from hisec. Unless you make shooting all player structures akin to shooting an MTU, with a suspect timer. Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. What if the defenders could automatically end the war by achieving some kind of fairly difficult objective? It might give them hope to stick it out. CSM YOU FIGURED IT OUT! YEARS OF WARDEC TERRIBLINESS YOU JUST FOUND SOLUTION O M G!! MAKE DEFENDER ORBIT A BEACON FREAKING ENTOSISING IT ON THE ATTACKERS HQ SYSTEM!
Crimson Nirnroots Compliant Munitions 37	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:44:04 - [48] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: These things are not mutually exclusive Carebear is an attitude, not a play-style. A true industrialist in Eve sees war and other conflict as an opportunity, not a hindrance. These two quotes are going into the slideshow ;) I think who joins EvE does so for the genre, not for anything specific. I think what defines them is discovered through time while the explore everything there is to do in New Eden. That said, I think most players who stay for any length of time do so because what they enjoy here fits in well with the competitive PvP environment EvE is designed around. If not, like Tippia said I don't think they really enjoy the game for what it is and offers. That said I don't think WarDec's are perfect. I have read some really good ideas surrounding conditional Surrender mechanics, and would not be adverse to seeing more topics about them, in the appropriate forums. My point being some change can be good, as so long as it makes sense in the PvP competitions of New Eden. Antimatter, now with more Nirnroots.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1534	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:48:51 - [49] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Deleting the wardec mechanic will remove a huge percentage of risk in empire space. But more importantly it will make it impossible to remove player structures from hisec. Unless you make shooting all player structures akin to shooting an MTU, with a suspect timer. Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. What if the defenders could automatically end the war by achieving some kind of fairly difficult objective? It might give them hope to stick it out. There is still the issue of the defender believing they can actually achieve that objective and deciding it worthwhile, meaning even with it some won't gain the will to participate, but it seems like a step in the right direction. When the goal for a defender is to not be in a war, how do you create a system that makes them want to volunteer to be in one? Also Kaarous, no, surrender would not be used by those with something worth losing even when unable to dodge. That's what alts are for. SP has nothing to do with it either. I have plenty of that in the right places and still see no sensible reason to fight a war.
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 2343	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:52:18 - [50] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Deleting the wardec mechanic will remove a huge percentage of risk in empire space. But more importantly it will make it impossible to remove player structures from hisec. Unless you make shooting all player structures akin to shooting an MTU, with a suspect timer. Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. What if the defenders could automatically end the war by achieving some kind of fairly difficult objective? It might give them hope to stick it out. Actually, I kind of like the idea of giving the aggressor the ability to set conditions when issuing a war declaration. Make it something like a contract that's directly tied to the war defining terms for cessation of hostilities... ie, items/isk paid vs time aggressor may not re-dec defender if they fulfill their end of the deal. Not suggesting making it mandatory, mind you. I just like the idea of it being an option. Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Aoife Fraoch Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 96	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:53:41 - [51] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Pitting the Third Reich against Poland is hardly a fair fight and as such, doesn't meet my definition of warfare. Nice Godwin. War decs do need to stay. After all, it is one of the few ways for one group to impose its will on another. That and combat keeps the economy moving. They do need some changes though, personally I think more needs to be done to get defenders to actually defend. Mostly I think this should be done by giving them stuff that is actually worth defending, such as longevity bonuses for a corp or more cool stuff in space.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2914	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:08:02 - [52] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. What if the defenders could automatically end the war by achieving some kind of fairly difficult objective? It might give them hope to stick it out. The lack of meaningless structure shooting and point capturing is one of the major strengths of the war declaration system compared to things like sovereignty and faction warfare. The objectives, victory conditions are entirely subjective and player defined, which is better because it is sandboxy, a structured system with predetermined in and lose conditions based on totally arbitrary things like point capturing or structure shooting is entirely unappealing and frankly defies the point. A way to improve the system would to make the surrender mechanic not totally ********. It should be replaced with a negotiation system that actually has some functionality and that both sides can table variable term treaties. The one issue I continuously come across is that defenders are often totally unwilling to communicate with the aggressor in any way, but are allegedly totally desperate to end the war? I want to be able to send them something that says "This is exactly what needs to happen to make the war go away and not happen again for X amount of time, do you agree y/n" and then for them to be able to send a counter offer if they want. This should include things like transferring structure ownership between corps, isk transactions, kicking members from corps and corps from alliances. Whenever someone with appropriate roles hits the "yes, we agree" button it should all happen automatically. The surrender mechanic being the only way for a war to end early was a bad choice in my opinion because virtually no aggressor is ever going to offer to surrender, just because it's called a surrender. Once upon a time it was entirely common for defenders to win a decisive victory early on in a war or to manage a particularly spectacular show of force and for the aggressor to retract the war as a knee jerk reaction. Now they have to surrender if they want that to happen, so rather than do that they just stick it out for a week and see how it goes. Iterating on the existing mechanics to make them more useful to all of the involved parties is a better solution than jamming in random mechanics and seeing if they work.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3559	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:37:23 - [53] - Quote CCP has already mentioned two possible changes: Corp lite and social groups. Corp lite is a corp that cannot be involved in a war. Nor can it hold a POS or a customs office, or be in an alliance. POSes and customs offices are a reason to have wars. Social groups are little more than special interest chat channels. They already exist. All that is needed is a in-game way to advertize them, and search for ones that interest you. As for the economy, my guess is very little destruction occurs from wars against corps who just turtle. If they don't undock, or drop to an npc corp, they don't explode, and there is no drive to the economy. Sure, there will be a few clueless who get caught, but I doubt its much of a drive to the economy. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Webvan All Kill No Skill 12071	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:46:53 - [54] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Still, the current system doesn't work because IMO it is not conditional. It has no real end point or goal, especially for the defending side. That's because unlike a real wardec nobody views surrender as a real option, just fight or disband, or wait them out. Sure it does, and it's called "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate" and is fully user defined within emergent game play by the players of the sandbox. For instance: If a group of industrialist wish to have their own special corp just for industrialists, I don't see why they should be treated as special snowflakes compared to how anyone else deals with it. Perhaps it's just a bad idea these restricting themselves to such corps when there is nothing stopping them form working with normal corps that do a wide variety of game related activities including industry to support their needs. It only doesn't work because too many choose to leave themselves open and defenseless to such attack, then come and whine as if somehow they should be treated special within a system of consequences for ones own choices. I'm in it for the money Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 2343	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:56:02 - [55] - Quote Sort of yes, sort of no. If a corp just turtles up then the aggressors are preventing them from hauling product or harvesting resources. Sometimes loss isn't measured just by ISK destroyed as much as ISK denied. Sometimes just preventing a corp from being in a specific area for a period of time can be the objective of the war. Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 24511	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:56:28 - [56] - Quote Webvan wrote: If a group of industrialist wish to have their own special corp just for industrialists, I don't see why they should be treated as special snowflakes compared to how anyone else deals with it. Perhaps it's just a bad idea these restricting themselves to such corps when there is nothing stopping them from working with normal corps that do a wide variety of game related activities including industry to support their needs. It only doesn't work because too many choose to leave themselves open and defenseless to such attack, then come and whine as if somehow they should be treated special within a system of consequences for ones own actions. You're talking about people taking responsibility for their decisions and choices, which simply doesn't fly for some people; normally those that refuse to accept the concept that their decisions and choices can and often do affect other players. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Webvan All Kill No Skill 12071	Posted - 2015.08.04 04:08:20 - [57] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You're talking about people taking responsibility for their decisions and choices, which simply doesn't fly for some people; normally those that refuse to accept the concept that their decisions and choices can and often do affect other players. Yeah I edited that word out, actually before seeing your post. Like minded in that, it's their "choice" and what it all amounts to. Yep, absolutely, some people don't like that, it's not comfortable. I've actually have had to adapt to irl as best I can, it can be annoying and so very unfair. What doesn't kill you makes ya stronger. I'm in it for the money Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2916	Posted - 2015.08.04 04:26:20 - [58] - Quote Omar Alharazaad wrote: Sort of yes, sort of no. If a corp just turtles up then the aggressors are preventing them from hauling product or harvesting resources. Sometimes loss isn't measured just by ISK destroyed as much as ISK denied. Sometimes just preventing a corp from being in a specific area for a period of time can be the objective of the war. This is always a funny one because often you don't actually have to do anything to get people to totally cease their normal behavior. They don't even need to see a hostile in local before they go into total shutdown, the mere threat of someone shooting them causes such an extreme response that they totally suspend their normal activity either because they are completely unwilling to risk being engaged in PVP under any circumstance or that they believe that denying content will result in a war being shorter. This would maybe make sense if they had planned alternative activity to do during this time, but typically they don't and just either don't log in or log in and sit in station the entire time. With there being no retract war button anymore wars are always going to last at least a week, and given that a corp that doesn't undock at all is literally zero threat corps that do this a really just shooting themselves in the foot. The aggressors almost certainly have other content and the practice becomes increasingly harmful to the defender the longer they have to maintain it. Often times when you get a contract from some random PVE oriented group against another PVE oriented group that's the end result. The target stays docked up for so long that they suffer member loss and a subsequent failure cascade because they decided that denying their aggressor "content" was more important than providing their members with content leading to a total victory for the aggressor without them ever actually shooting anything.
Yozul Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation 0	Posted - 2015.08.04 04:31:47 - [59] - Quote I think that the real problem is that corps that don't center around violence don't really have any good violence free ways of defending themselves. If a corp wants to declare wars on every industrial group in the universe simultaneously they should be committing economic suicide, but the game as it is now doesn't really allow for that. I don't know off the top of my head any good way to prevent people from getting around that kind of thing with a 0 skill point purchasing alt, but can't help but feel like maybe that's a good direction to look anyway.
Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 748	Posted - 2015.08.04 04:34:04 - [60] - Quote Man this thread is just so sad to read. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.