Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salvos Rhoska
1538
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 18:23:01 -
[91] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. Obligatory citation needed.
I agree its nonsense that wardecs will be linked to Citadels.
But. Back to topic.
Increase security status loss modifier for HS illegal actions.
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 19:31:33 -
[92] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Hal Morsh wrote:
Deccers are complaining when their corp target scatters upon dec, and corp people are complaining that they are getting decced. How do you even fix this?
This. Its a compromise situation in which both parties concerns are in a dead-lock against each others, and largely equal each other out. Barring restricting CONCORD even further or raising wardec costs (which are high already), I dont see any rational solution to this while being fair to both sides. Especially since its crucial to maintain means of HS player aggression. NPC corps are the real obstacle, that handicaps altering the parameters of wardecs, and HS aggression. Alongside and concurrent to that, there is the CODE issue. Dramatic as it sounds, Im for allowing wardeccs on NPC corps, that extends only to its player members as capsuleers. Inorder to do that, however, Rookies must first be dissassociated into a wardec immune "New Capsuleer Training" corp, membership of which expires at end of trial, and forces them into a (wardeccable) NPC corp of their choice. After this, HS aggression in terms of CONCORD reaction, wardec costs and corp abandoning as a result, can be re-evaluated. That's just silly. You don't have to extend wardecs to NPC corps before examining concord reaction etc.
All your suggestion would do is cause millions of one man corps to be made as people will just shuffle through corps on their alts. I already do this to an extent with my HS "mains" when I'm too busy to fight a war with them. Wardec? Time to move to alt corp #10.
Meanwhile true newbies are going to be like "WTF man??" to the massive amount of wardecs that appear. You know very well there are many groups that would perma wardec NPC corps for the free kills. You also know that true newbies take a wide range of time to get the hang of the mechanics of the game. So even if you decided to make it friendly for true newbies there will still be people getting clubbed just because they don't have an experienced friend that plays eve who can tutor them in the ways of the mechanics.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. I'm going to need a citation on this. I'm pretty sure more than 10% of wardecs are related to towers and custom offices. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3317
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:06:43 -
[93] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. I'm going to need a citation on this. I'm pretty sure more than 10% of wardecs are related to towers and custom offices. Citation is actual war reports, the vast majority of wars involve no structure kills whatsoever. And if you're willing to screw around with Zkill you'll find a lot of highsec structure kills are POS modules rather than POCOs.
Wars involving POCO ownership are pretty common, but they're nowhere near 10% of wars it's probably closer to 3-5%. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
12293
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:08:51 -
[94] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. I'm going to need a citation on this. I'm pretty sure more than 10% of wardecs are related to towers and custom offices. Citation is actual war reports, the vast majority of wars involve no structure kills whatsoever. And if you're willing to screw around with Zkill you'll find a lot of highsec structure kills are POS modules rather than POCOs. Wars involving POCO ownership are pretty common, but they're nowhere near 10% of wars it's probably closer to 3-5%. confirming from both my own anecdotal experience and research
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
40443
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:09:49 -
[95] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. Obligatory citation needed. I agree its nonsense that wardecs will be linked to Citadels. But. Back to topic. Increase security status loss modifier for HS illegal actions. You're not on topic at all. What does illegal action in HS or your previous post about ganking have to do with this thread about Wardecs.
It's totally off topic.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ceryph Archai
Sukebe Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:26:27 -
[96] - Quote
What is one thing that everyone seems to forget that would totally lie within game lore and "mechanics"? CONCORD.
CONCORD is supposed to be an equalizing force when it comes to HiSec: the way people are harshly and quickly dealt with for disobeying the laws of HiSec. And another thing they already do is regulate wars; albeit they just record them in a book and say "Fight", but there is more they could be doing.
There is a totally plausible way to handle the WarDec madness that is gripping the galaxy and it would make sense and at the same time, stop the stupid WarDec spamming for no other reason than to be a ****. It would reduce the number of bogus wars for killboard padding and maybe even make War mean something when it is declared: limit how many wars can be declared at one time by a given entity.
If you are in an alliance, the alliance has to declare war as a whole and is limited to X wars. If you are not in an alliance, the corporation obviously declares war and is limited to X wars that are less than an alliance.
This would mean you can't just have a ton of wars going for the sake of having wars. Real wars would have to be picked judisciously and maybe even be a mechanism to control HiSec legitimately when you want another HiSec corp to remove themselves from an area you like to operate in.
But WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. If you want to attack people for the sake of doing it, then go roam LoSec or better yet, Nullsec where you don't even have to declare war and where war is expected.
CONCORD exists for a reason and it needs to step up and do its job and stop just taking money and turning a blind eye. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
40443
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:44:37 -
[97] - Quote
Ceryph Archai wrote:CONCORD is supposed to be an equalizing force when it comes to HiSec: the way people are harshly and quickly dealt with for er yet, Nullsec where you don't even have to declare war and where war is expected.
CONCORD exists for a reason and it needs to step up and do its job and stop just taking money and turning a blind eye. To look at it from the flip side, it can be easily argued that wardecs are the equalising force in highsec, not CONCORD.
Wardecs only have to exist in the first place because CONCORD exists. They provide for legal aggression against mechanics that otherwise provide an infinitely powerful authority to punish aggressive actions.
If CONCORD didn't exist, wardecs could be completely removed from the game.
So CONCORD does exist for a reason (and rightly so) and wardecs are the step up to balance the work CONCORD performs.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:58:10 -
[98] - Quote
I like that. In RL you would not declare war with everyone at one time. One wardecc would consume a certain amount of resources which would not be available on a war on a different border. The possibility of having 200 wardeccs at one time is absurd. War is about territory and resources. In hisec you can't have territory. War in EvE happens in nullsec.
Wardeccs should be more like: 1=1 costs if both groups are quite even. A larger group attacking a smaller group makes it by a very big factor more expensiv and harder. Maybe if the difference is to big, the smaller group gets buffed too, so its more difficult to get overpowered.
During a war, it should be not possible to get new members, so that a corp can not rise from 10 to 200 members after declaration.
Maybe a target should be declared by the attacker on declaration. - Killing a POS - Kills for Revenge (just a number of Kills to be had) - other ideas welcome.
The risk of acceptance should be raised. If the decced party accepts the dec, for the aggressor the risk of loosing stuff should be raised immensly.
All this, to make the outcome most uncertain for the attacker.
@codies and break a wish friends: please stay on topic, your ad hominem attacks don't work.
Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
|
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:13:34 -
[99] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Kinete Jenius wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind. I'm going to need a citation on this. I'm pretty sure more than 10% of wardecs are related to towers and custom offices. Citation is actual war reports, the vast majority of wars involve no structure kills whatsoever. And if you're willing to screw around with Zkill you'll find a lot of highsec structure kills are POS modules rather than POCOs. Wars involving POCO ownership are pretty common, but they're nowhere near 10% of wars it's probably closer to 3-5%. POS modules are part of the tower structure in my view.
So where is this information compiled at then?
How did you filter the kills that were tower or POCO related but didn't have a tower on the KM?
I know merc groups love to randomly dec people when business is slow but I doubt that is 97% of wardecs... |
Austneal
Nero Fazione End of Life
76
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:33:48 -
[100] - Quote
Ceryph Archai wrote:WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. Why? What is "better" in this game than doing something you find fun? There are people that enjoy highsec wardecs, and would rather do that than live in lowsec.
It seems to me that you are villainizing these guys because they "shouldn't" be allowed to do *this* or *that* because it dissatisfies you. |
|
BirdStrike
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:44:56 -
[101] - Quote
I do remember once when a supposedly 'leet' peeveepee outfit went round deccing obviously carebear happyclappy corps for cheap thrills. The CB corp couldn't afford a merc outfit and refused to disband or stop their picnic partys so decided to MTFU and fight back. The leet peeveepee brigade had their asses royally handed to them on a plate and ended up camped into a station. The CB's were so proud of themselves they upped and moved to lowsec.
Its a rare thing, but sometimes these things backfire spectacuarly and when they do the tears rain from the heavens in abundance.
Given how short of pew pew eve is these days, an active wardec with targets is probably the best recruitment incentive you could have.
I've only been back in EVE a week after a 5 year absence, and its sad to see everyone just wanting dev nerf hammer solutions to every nail.
These are the sort of players who complain that DayZ needs a food delivery service.
|
Amber Starview
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:10:00 -
[102] - Quote
make it s option for players under 3months old to not be included in wardecs ....let them learn the game at least
Wardecs do suck as it's pretty much just trade hub camping BS instead of a tactical battle through intelligence ,firepower and knowledge turns into insta undock online .
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
40445
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:16:01 -
[103] - Quote
Amber Starview wrote:make it s option for players under 3months old to not be included in wardecs ....let them learn the game at least
Wardecs do suck as it's pretty much just trade hub camping BS instead of a tactical battle through intelligence ,firepower and knowledge turns into insta undock online .
All players start in an NPC Corp and are immune from wardecs the moment they begin in the game.
If they move to a player Corp, it's up to the other players in that Corp to teach and support them. That's part of what makes Eve what it is.
It's just that Eve is full of poorly led Corps where the CEO doesn't know how to manage a wardec effectively, so the whole Corp suffers as a result.
That's not the fault of the mechanics or the wardeccers. If a Corp takes a new player under their wing, then thry should provide effective support and assistance and learning how to manage wardecs is every bit a part of that.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
54
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:58:00 -
[104] - Quote
There should either be a hard cap on how many wardecs a corp or alliance can declare at one time or set a limit of 5 or 10, then the cost of each additional wardec rises exponentially. There are groups out there with 50+ current wars, which is a bit absurd. Wardecs are a necessary part of high sec, but should have some tighter rules for the aggressing party to discourage continuous griefing against a certain corp or alliance.
Setting a limit for the number of wars at one time and increasing the cost of a continuous war (after a month or so) would add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well. Only war declarations would count against that number, if merc corp ABC gets wardec by merc corp XYZ that would not count against ABC totals.
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
150
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 23:45:15 -
[105] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Setting a limit for the number of wars at one time and increasing the cost of a continuous war (after a month or so) would add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well. Only war declarations would count against that number, if merc corp ABC gets wardec by merc corp XYZ that would not count against ABC totals. By "add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well" you are really saying, place more restrictions on merc corps and reduce the need for strategic decisions of carebear corps (do they ever make any now?).
That's what a lot of change suggestions always boil down to underneath: reduce risk in highsec by restricting wars more and affecting the options of wardec corps.
No one ever proposes changes to increase the risk, not even the wardec Corp members that post here do. They just try to defend the status quo more than anything.
But changes to wardecs will hopefully come. There's lots that can be done. But that doesn't mean the balance of risk needs to change in the slightest. Highsec is already extremely safe. No need to make it more so. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14622
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 23:52:17 -
[106] - Quote
Ima GoodGirl wrote: By "add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well" you are really saying, place more restrictions on merc corps and reduce the need for strategic decisions of carebear corps (do they ever make any now?).
Of course that's what he means.
"more effort for thee but not for me"
~Every Carebear.
"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.
|
Aquilan Aideron
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 03:29:42 -
[107] - Quote
Cant decide whether the devs refusal to put some effort into wardecs/highsec ganking makes them look bad or extra bad. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1849
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:31:50 -
[108] - Quote
creating a corp is the same as waving a flag that says "come at me bro, we are a business ready to compete in New Eden." It's not the same as some mmos where it means you get a fancy cape and a guild bank with a private chat and a circle-jerk cave.
now if only eve had a working stock market and I could buy all your shares, take everything in your corp, and pound you with litigation if you do anything to stop me.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
12314
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:16:33 -
[109] - Quote
Aquilan Aideron wrote:Cant decide whether the devs refusal to put somue effort into wardecs/highsec ganking makes them look bad or extra bad. Wars are a corporation/alliance mechanic, to overhaul wars you need to overhaul Corp and Alliance mechanisms and that's a massive job.
Higsec ganking "issues" is in reality just you being a sissy , htfu and/or cop on and it ceases to be an issue.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Jhon Kirk
Tempest Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 13:24:02 -
[110] - Quote
Hole Checker wrote: They will either dock or you can catch them by surprise and kill something
Also if your just in a 1 or 2 man corp just stay away from the major tradehubs unless you scout gates they wont actively hunt you usually unless you really pissed someone off they will just wait to blap a industrial or a mission ship undocking
There's no point in runner, especially when you have Locator Agents |
|
Jhon Kirk
Tempest Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 13:36:13 -
[111] - Quote
Ima GoodGirl wrote:Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Setting a limit for the number of wars at one time and increasing the cost of a continuous war (after a month or so) would add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well. Only war declarations would count against that number, if merc corp ABC gets wardec by merc corp XYZ that would not count against ABC totals. By "add some strategy for merc corp ABC as well" you are really saying, place more restrictions on merc corps and reduce the need for strategic decisions of carebear corps (do they ever make any now?). That's what a lot of change suggestions always boil down to underneath: reduce risk in highsec by restricting wars more and affecting the options of wardec corps. No one ever proposes changes to increase the risk, not even the wardec Corp members that post here do. They just try to defend the status quo more than anything. But changes to wardecs will hopefully come. There's lots that can be done. But that doesn't mean the balance of risk needs to change in the slightest. Highsec is already extremely safe. No need to make it more so.
Personally, I think the Increase of isk need to add wardecs on top of your current one is a good point, But also adding a limit would be a good thing, this will make people think, " Will i get more out of Corp ABC or Corp XYZ". Instead of being able to go down a list of corps and doing 10 - 20 wardecs at the same time. |
Ceryph Archai
Sukebe Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:22:23 -
[112] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Wardecs only have to exist in the first place because CONCORD exists.
You're looking at this from a game mechanic perspective. I'm looking at this from a lore perspective. |
Ceryph Archai
Sukebe Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:25:56 -
[113] - Quote
Austneal wrote:Ceryph Archai wrote:WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. Why? What is "better" in this game than doing something you find fun? There are people that enjoy highsec wardecs, and would rather do that than live in lowsec. It seems to me that you are villainizing these guys because they "shouldn't" be allowed to do *this* or *that* because it dissatisfies you.
There are people that like to mine and make money. Why shouldn't they be able to do that without having to PvP? The only way to be successful when PIRAT is making war decs on everyone is to fight back. So, your method requires people who *don't* want to PvP be forced to, my way allows them to have limited engagements if they don't **** someone off because my method limits how many people can be wardecced. I'm not saying no war decs at all, but the whole of hisec shouldn't be under war alert just because people don't want to go to lowsec to fight.
So we are supposed to force the people in hisec to fight but not force the people who want to war in hisec, to losec where these actions are permitted.
Your arguments are one-sided and you only apply your logic to the people you want to. Even if HiSec wars were entirely banned, there are still places to go for PvP content. That's where your logic falls apart. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
12315
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:41:50 -
[114] - Quote
Ceryph Archai wrote:Austneal wrote:Ceryph Archai wrote:WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. Why? What is "better" in this game than doing something you find fun? There are people that enjoy highsec wardecs, and would rather do that than live in lowsec. It seems to me that you are villainizing these guys because they "shouldn't" be allowed to do *this* or *that* because it dissatisfies you. There are people that like to mine and make money. Why shouldn't they be able to do that without having to PvP? The only way to be successful when PIRAT is making war decs on everyone is to fight back. So, your method requires people who *don't* want to PvP be forced to, my way allows them to have limited engagements if they don't **** someone off because my method limits how many people can be wardecced. I'm not saying no war decs at all, but the whole of hisec shouldn't be under war alert just because people don't want to go to lowsec to fight. So we are supposed to force the people in hisec to fight but not force the people who want to war in hisec, to losec where these actions are permitted. Your arguments are one-sided and you only apply your logic to the people you want to. Even if HiSec wars were entirely banned, there are still places to go for PvP content. That's where your logic falls apart. If you don't want to fight there's plenty of space in npc corps for you but if you' want to have your own you have to live with the threat of war.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3322
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:55:04 -
[115] - Quote
Nobody has the right to engage in any activity free of interference from other players because everyone has the right to interact with other players however they want.
EVE is a single continuous sandbox, not multiple individual sandboxes.
This is literally the selling point of the game and it's core principle. Undermining it will only ever result in disaster. |
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
54
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:16:58 -
[116] - Quote
Actually I proposed to separate the 4 factions with areas of low sec so that there is no high sec path between Amarr-Jita or Jita-Rens, for example. I think high sec could lose 200-300 systems and hardly anyone would notice. Oooops! my bad, your HIGH SEC pvpers, low sec and null sec would be too scary for you.
I could care less if high sec is safe. However, a merc corp should have to do more than wardec 30 corps and sit on the Jita and Amarr undock. Less wars mean you would have to research your enemy a bit more, but still giving you those easy carebear kills you enjoy. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1292
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:31:11 -
[117] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:I could care less
No, no, NO.
Its COULDN'T care less, not COULD. That sentance means exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say.
"Could care less" means you care quite a lot (or at the very least care some), since you could care less than you currently do. "Couldn't care less" means that there is absolutely no way that you could care any less than you currently do, which is what you are trying to say.
Goddammit. I can tolerate you dropping letters in Aluminium, and maybe colour on a good day, but this, you don't get away with this.This is exactly the line on how much you are allowed to **** all over our language .
|
Austneal
Nero Fazione End of Life
79
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 15:47:43 -
[118] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:I could care less No, no, NO. Its COULDN'T care less, not COULD. That sentance means exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say. "Could care less" means you care quite a lot (or at the very least care some), since you could care less than you currently do. "Couldn't care less" means that there is absolutely no way that you could care any less than you currently do, which is what you are trying to say. Goddammit. I can tolerate you dropping letters in Aluminium, and maybe colour on a good day, but this, you don't get away with this.This is exactly the line on how much you are allowed to **** all over our language .
*Sentence |
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 17:24:13 -
[119] - Quote
Ceryph Archai wrote:Austneal wrote:Ceryph Archai wrote:WarDecs should not be for harassing people just because you have nothing better to do. Why? What is "better" in this game than doing something you find fun? There are people that enjoy highsec wardecs, and would rather do that than live in lowsec. It seems to me that you are villainizing these guys because they "shouldn't" be allowed to do *this* or *that* because it dissatisfies you. There are people that like to mine and make money. Why shouldn't they be able to do that without having to PvP? The only way to be successful when PIRAT is making war decs on everyone is to fight back. So, your method requires people who *don't* want to PvP be forced to, my way allows them to have limited engagements if they don't **** someone off because my method limits how many people can be wardecced. I'm not saying no war decs at all, but the whole of hisec shouldn't be under war alert just because people don't want to go to lowsec to fight. So we are supposed to force the people in hisec to fight but not force the people who want to war in hisec, to losec where these actions are permitted. Your arguments are one-sided and you only apply your logic to the people you want to. Even if HiSec wars were entirely banned, there are still places to go for PvP content. That's where your logic falls apart. I fought back against a P I R A T "random" wardec once on one of my gank alts. After killing a couple of them they showed up the next day with 11 people including logistics and out of corp OGB to fight one character. I just left that character docked up and went about doing stuff in null on the other gank alts instead.
I could only imagine how much that would suck for a small time corp trying to find it's legs. Because fighting back against that is just a way to hand P I R A T some kill mails. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3650
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 17:31:37 -
[120] - Quote
This is a old issue. From some long ago CSM minutes:
CCP Solomon wrote:Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.
Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |