EVE Search - Wardec thoughts

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Wardec thoughts

» 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)
Broodin Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.01 02:50:31 - [1] - Quote Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40383	Posted - 2015.10.01 02:57:13 - [2] - Quote Broodin wrote: Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. There is an opt out. Your current Corp for example cannot be wardecced. You pay high tax for that safety, can't own structures and have little in the way of common/shared goals with your Corp mates, but that's the trade off for safety. As to an ability for small corps to shield themselves - Eve is not meant to be safe, certainly not at the Corp asset level. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4684	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:02:35 - [3] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: There is an opt out. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Xert Trassien Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:11:04 - [4] - Quote The current war dec system sucks the way it is. What is the point of decking a corp at all when by the time the war goes active the corp has disbanded and made a new corp.. There should be a system in place to at least stop ppl just dropping corp to avoid decs. After all eve is based more as a pvp game yes ?
Hole Checker Unstable Anomaly 27	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:14:36 - [5] - Quote Most people that war dec high sec corps will dock up at the first sign of any trouble but if u get war decced get everybody to form a fleet of cheap t1 frigs and head to jita or whatever station they are camping Because they will be camping a station somewhere almost guaranteed 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
Hole Checker Unstable Anomaly 27	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:17:43 - [6] - Quote Xert Trassien wrote: The current war dec system sucks the way it is. What is the point of decking a corp at all when by the time the war goes active the corp has disbanded and made a new corp.. There should be a system in place to at least stop ppl just dropping corp to avoid decs. After all eve is based more as a pvp game yes ? Lol killing mission runners and industrials is not exactly engaging pvp I would actually consider people doing the decs to be the bigger carebears by being involved in the most risk adverse gameplay in the game
No Lube ForU Down Right Dirty 18	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:25:48 - [7] - Quote Agree that the way wars decs need to be changed. But if they drop cop just bank them lol
Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 925	Posted - 2015.10.01 03:35:57 - [8] - Quote Hole Checker wrote: Xert Trassien wrote: The current war dec system sucks the way it is. What is the point of decking a corp at all when by the time the war goes active the corp has disbanded and made a new corp.. There should be a system in place to at least stop ppl just dropping corp to avoid decs. After all eve is based more as a pvp game yes ? Lol killing mission runners and industrials is not exactly engaging pvp I would actually consider people doing the decs to be the bigger carebears by being involved in the most risk adverse gameplay in the game Show us on the corp history doll where the wardeccers killed your tax-siphoning corp. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Hole Checker Unstable Anomaly 27	Posted - 2015.10.01 04:15:25 - [9] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Hole Checker wrote: Xert Trassien wrote: The current war dec system sucks the way it is. What is the point of decking a corp at all when by the time the war goes active the corp has disbanded and made a new corp.. There should be a system in place to at least stop ppl just dropping corp to avoid decs. After all eve is based more as a pvp game yes ? Lol killing mission runners and industrials is not exactly engaging pvp I would actually consider people doing the decs to be the bigger carebears by being involved in the most risk adverse gameplay in the game Show us on the corp history doll where the wardeccers killed your tax-siphoning corp. No where actually I'm not even upset about it I was just stating a fact I'm in null where you don't need wardecs I also have a alt corp in highsec that makes billions and doesn't have to undock so I could careless about wardecs there either
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1693	Posted - 2015.10.01 06:50:04 - [10] - Quote Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. The corporation is the competitive unit in Eve. Forming or joining a corporation provides you with rewards, chiefly the taxes and the ability to anchor structures, that come with the risk that another corporation may object to that and declare attack you. Eve is a full-time PvP sandbox after all, so you are not entitled to safety anywhere by design. Corporations and wars are optional however. You are never forced to join a corporation or defend it and can drop from a corporation at any time. If you don't want to deal with wars, then you are intended to stay in or return to the NPC Corp. Eve isn't fair. Larger and stronger players and organizations get to push others around. That's just life in the sandbox.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6850	Posted - 2015.10.01 07:33:16 - [11] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Eve isn't fair. Larger and stronger players and organizations get to push others around. That's just life in the sandbox. Funny how you say this, yet when there's a suggestion that those "larger and stronger players" should have some of their activities made a bit riskier, they flip out and start screaming about "the carebears". Let's face it, if you're a wardeccer you're about as risk averse as a career highsec miner, and should be treated as such (gankers are about the same tbh). I've got no problem with PvP existing throughout the game, but come on man, pretending that wardeccers who spend all of their time hiding behind concord and going after easy kills are a shining example of that is laughable. All that wardecs do is mean that corporations that don't focus entirely on shooting other players can't feasibly exist in highsec, so people who are joining the game arrive in a place where there's less options to get into a group and play socially, and people wonder why retention sucks. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Oxide Ammar 216	Posted - 2015.10.01 08:04:16 - [12] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. The corporation is the competitive unit in Eve. Forming or joining a corporation provides you with rewards, chiefly the taxes and the ability to anchor structures, that come with the risk that another corporation may object to that and declare attack you. Eve is a full-time PvP sandbox after all, so you are not entitled to safety anywhere by design. Corporations and wars are optional however. You are never forced to join a corporation or defend it and can drop from a corporation at any time. If you don't want to deal with wars, then you are intended to stay in or return to the NPC Corp. Eve isn't fair. Larger and stronger players and organizations get to push others around. That's just life in the sandbox. This guy never stop amusing me when he post how harsh and cruel EVE suppose to be, It's like he reads from the back description of retail box of EVE Online or something..LOL Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2554	Posted - 2015.10.01 08:38:41 - [13] - Quote Stop whining, CCP have already made it so people can't duck wardecs by Citadels having to be in space at least 24h. The 'Elite PvP' crowd have won and can now force every small corp to not have structures if they wish.
Mephiztopheleze Republic University Minmatar Republic 188	Posted - 2015.10.01 10:04:13 - [14] - Quote Hole Checker wrote: Lol killing mission runners and industrials is not exactly engaging pvp it can, however, be incredibly lucrative. The term 'Dining on juicy fat PvE Wildebeest' comes to mind. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 409	Posted - 2015.10.01 10:29:39 - [15] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Eve isn't fair. Larger and stronger players and organizations get to push others around. That's just life in the sandbox. Funny how you say this, yet when there's a suggestion that those "larger and stronger players" should have some of their activities made a bit riskier, they flip out and start screaming about "the carebears". Let's face it, if you're a wardeccer you're about as risk averse as a career highsec miner, and should be treated as such (gankers are about the same tbh). I've got no problem with PvP existing throughout the game, but come on man, pretending that wardeccers who spend all of their time hiding behind concord and going after easy kills are a shining example of that is laughable. All that wardecs do is mean that corporations that don't focus entirely on shooting other players can't feasibly exist in highsec, so people who are joining the game arrive in a place where there's less options to get into a group and play socially, and people wonder why retention sucks. Exactly growth is hindered by existing hisec groups. Mercenaries and gankers keep beginners from growing and the biggest joke, uh, i mean argument of course, :P is, that EvE is harsh and newbs have to endure the griefing of the other hisec carebears, uh i mean dwellers. Mercs and some gankers act and talk like they are the elite of New Eden, when themself do not leave hisec often. Instead of fighting other mercenaries and hisec gankers, they go for the miners and haulers. tl;dr everyone not leaving hisec is risk averse, but very very prominent are code and mercenaries. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
No Lube ForU Down Right Dirty 18	Posted - 2015.10.01 11:05:40 - [16] - Quote Lol mercs. You mean the players who sit on the undock or camp the pipes ? My mains corp and alliance got decced by the 3 biggest mercs in eve. Not once did they come to low or null for us. I thought if ya paid a real merc they would actually hunt you down ? o/
Haramir Haleths Nutella Bande 32	Posted - 2015.10.01 12:57:35 - [17] - Quote quite simple, CCP likes griefing game play. They support gankers and griefers. Thats the real niche on the game market.
Syeed Ameer Ali Evil Murder Society 23	Posted - 2015.10.01 13:03:39 - [18] - Quote I like wardecs. everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com
Broodin Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.01 13:51:47 - [19] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Eve isn't fair. Larger and stronger players and organizations get to push others around. That's just life in the sandbox. Funny how you say this, yet when there's a suggestion that those "larger and stronger players" should have some of their activities made a bit riskier, they flip out and start screaming about "the carebears". Let's face it, if you're a wardeccer you're about as risk averse as a career highsec miner, and should be treated as such (gankers are about the same tbh). I've got no problem with PvP existing throughout the game, but come on man, pretending that wardeccers who spend all of their time hiding behind concord and going after easy kills are a shining example of that is laughable. All that wardecs do is mean that corporations that don't focus entirely on shooting other players can't feasibly exist in highsec, so people who are joining the game arrive in a place where there's less options to get into a group and play socially, and people wonder why retention sucks. Exactly growth is hindered by existing hisec groups. Mercenaries and gankers keep beginners from growing and the biggest joke, uh, i mean argument of course, :P is, that EvE is harsh and newbs have to endure the griefing of the other hisec carebears, uh i mean dwellers. Mercs and some gankers act and talk like they are the elite of New Eden, when themself do not leave hisec often. Instead of fighting other mercenaries and hisec gankers, they go for the miners and haulers. tl;dr everyone not leaving hisec is risk averse, but very very prominent are code and mercenaries. This is the basis for my thoughts in summary. For those who claim to love the pvp why is there an aversion to letting sproutling corps get a foothold and grow if only to provide a larger spectrum of targets later on. Ultimately yes ccp and the community love the pvp sandbox but it is not absolute, hence the existence of concord. Ingraining a way for corps to safely get a foothold and develop some structure and teamwork before being engaged by larger and more established groups doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 196	Posted - 2015.10.01 14:04:25 - [20] - Quote There is a portion of self declared pvp players whose kill-mails are "ships without guns" , "MTUs", and wars against Coprs they outnumber by a large number. That sums up Eve pvp atm, that is what is left. Its called emergent gameplay.
OverlordY Interspan 32	Posted - 2015.10.01 14:56:54 - [21] - Quote The war system is a badly abused mechanic, even more so that most other things in eve... Having played this game since just after beta, over 12 years ago , iv seen how much the dec system is abused. Bored griefer? - Look down local and find a mining corp, WAR DEC it and LOL at the easy kills.. Seen someone you don't like? - WAR DEC - Grief them till they quit EVE Fun this isn't it.... Want a better looking killboard? - Check local chat for a indy corp - WAR DEC - and lol at those expensive ships you managed to 10v1.. Might actually lose this 1v1? - Bring in your neutral NPC corp remote repair ship and win the battle.. And it won't show on the mail so you will look super awesome..... Someone had the balls to TALK in local? WAR DEC ... It has to end , it's driving people away.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1703	Posted - 2015.10.01 15:13:16 - [22] - Quote Broodin wrote: This is the basis for my thoughts in summary. For those who claim to love the pvp why is there an aversion to letting sproutling corps get a foothold and grow if only to provide a larger spectrum of targets later on. Ultimately yes ccp and the community love the pvp sandbox but it is not absolute, hence the existence of concord. Ingraining a way for corps to safely get a foothold and develop some structure and teamwork before being engaged by larger and more established groups doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Wardecs are not going anywhere. CCP is clearly maintaining them as the only way to attack a structure in highsec. If you want to use a structure you will have to defend them from wardecs. Simple as that. Now that said, I am all for new social mechanisms where those who don't actually want to compete, or who are just starting out to join a corporation-like social group. You should be able to tune your risk in this game and if you just want to dip your toes in the sandbox, it should be possible. In fact, I think it likely CCP will release such a mechanism. Such a mechanism will allow friends just to form a social group, or give a new corporation a chance to grow while still respecting risk vs. reward. But wardecs against proper player corps with in-space assets? They are here to stay.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1653	Posted - 2015.10.01 15:24:16 - [23] - Quote No Lube ForU wrote: Lol mercs. You mean the players who sit on the undock or camp the pipes ? My mains corp and alliance got decced by the 3 biggest mercs in eve. Not once did they come to low or null for us. I thought if ya paid a real merc they would actually hunt you down ? o/ You don't go to the hub or pipes. 90% of people, however, do. Given the choice between maybe killing a few guys for one client and none for anyone else, or killing many for many clients and none for only one, it makes sense to camp. HTH.
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 681	Posted - 2015.10.01 15:31:24 - [24] - Quote And all this comes to an issue I am pushing for. Make war decs system based. Base cost for lowsec so players can pirate hunt without the hit. Then highsec you select systems, regions and constellations with price based on per system services and occupancy. Can war dec still, lower cost for new players to establish small corp wars, much higher cost to do a full highsec grief. Want an rvb fight? If made mutual, dec goes global and is base cost to maintain. Ta da! Win for everybody except people who only want to grief. Bad for business that is. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 753	Posted - 2015.10.01 17:39:40 - [25] - Quote Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. War decs are horribly broken. It is so easy to dodge a war dec that the only people who fight them are those who are ignorant of the means to avoid the dec (generally newer players) and those who are looking for pvp. In other words, participating in a war dec is almost wholly a consensual act. BTW its big alliances that suffer the most under war decs since it is not easy for them to dodge the decs in the usual manner (dropping corp, staying docked while playing on an alt, etc. . . ). BTW if you really want to grief a corp that has war dec you - create a safe spot then go all cloaky afk on them. They will see you in system and see that you are online but will be unable to locate you. It drives them crazy. I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 753	Posted - 2015.10.01 17:42:56 - [26] - Quote OverlordY wrote: The war system is a badly abused mechanic, even more so that most other things in eve... Having played this game since just after beta, over 12 years ago , iv seen how much the dec system is abused. Bored griefer? - Look down local and find a mining corp, WAR DEC it and LOL at the easy kills.. Seen someone you don't like? - WAR DEC - Grief them till they quit EVE Fun this isn't it.... Want a better looking killboard? - Check local chat for a indy corp - WAR DEC - and lol at those expensive ships you managed to 10v1.. Might actually lose this 1v1? - Bring in your neutral NPC corp remote repair ship and win the battle.. And it won't show on the mail so you will look super awesome..... Someone had the balls to TALK in local? WAR DEC ... It has to end , it's driving people away. Hardly. Its more like - see a likely corp for a war dec, spend 200mil isk, for the privilege of shooting them, then watch them go afk for a week, or watch them all quit corp and join an npc corp (only to join their old corp after a week), or watch them tear down their pos in the 24 hr before the dec goes online, etc. . . In short war decs are consensual. I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
OverlordY Interspan 32	Posted - 2015.10.01 17:57:05 - [27] - Quote 200 mill? Its 50 mill to dec. That is pocket change for even newish players.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4106	Posted - 2015.10.01 18:19:49 - [28] - Quote Progressively reduce highsec to 50 systems or less. A 'training wheels' area (nerf rewards, eliminate incursions, etc.). Keep suicide ganking as today. Allow sov-holding alliances to create pockets of highsec (CONCORD) in null. Freely set taxes, compete against other alliances to attract miners, industrialists, mission runners, etc. Suicide ganking still possible ofc. Now, instead of attacking highsec players (the 'civilians'), you are free to attack the sov-holding alliance that 'harbors' them (the 'government' and 'military'). Then just eliminate wardecs, they'd be useless. EVE fixed. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 755	Posted - 2015.10.01 19:40:37 - [29] - Quote OverlordY wrote: 200 mill? Its 50 mill to dec. That is pocket change for even newish players. I'm pretty sure they changed it so it scales - the bigger the target the higher the dec fees. I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 410	Posted - 2015.10.01 19:48:49 - [30] - Quote just take a certain group of wusses and look at it: the whple alliance does not own a structure... just allow wars between entities that owns structures. imagine how it would be if codies had own poses... mercs would be payed to take jimmy and his braindead cronies stations down. the risk of a ganker? certainly not the ship, which is written of to be destroyed by concorde, the moment it gets fitted. so codies for eg have nothing to loose, so there is no risk anywhere, except for the risk to fail completly. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40399	Posted - 2015.10.01 19:52:15 - [31] - Quote Vol Arm'OOO wrote: OverlordY wrote: 200 mill? Its 50 mill to dec. That is pocket change for even newish players. I'm pretty sure they changed it so it scales - the bigger the target the higher the dec fees. Yes, though the vast majority of Wardecs are 50 million: Eve Wiki wrote: It costs 50 million isk, plus an additional cost for each member in the target corporation/alliance above 51. It will now start to increase with the 51st member and reach the ceiling of 500 million ISK at 2000 members. That doesn't mean wardec fees are small overall though. The most active group currently, P I R A T, have about 200 concurrent wars and declare war on small and large groups, so they pay on the order of 10 Billion ISK per week in fees. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 410	Posted - 2015.10.01 19:59:35 - [32] - Quote 10 bil for 200 wars? best example for wardecc abuse. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Paranoid Loyd 7066	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:02:09 - [33] - Quote Sigh, three days and we already have to get back on this merry-go-round? "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5417	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:07:43 - [34] - Quote In my experience as a CEO, if you are getting lots of wardecs, it is because you or your members are doing stupid stuff that invites wardecs.
Milleonia Brundor Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:50:09 - [35] - Quote OverlordY wrote: The war system is a badly abused mechanic, even more so that most other things in eve... Having played this game since just after beta, over 12 years ago , iv seen how much the dec system is abused. Bored griefer? - Look down local and find a mining corp, WAR DEC it and LOL at the easy kills.. Seen someone you don't like? - WAR DEC - Grief them till they quit EVE Fun this isn't it.... Want a better looking killboard? - Check local chat for a indy corp - WAR DEC - and lol at those expensive ships you managed to 10v1.. Might actually lose this 1v1? - Bring in your neutral NPC corp remote repair ship and win the battle.. And it won't show on the mail so you will look super awesome..... Someone had the balls to TALK in local? WAR DEC ... It has to end , it's driving people away. you're wrong, go biomass.
Marech Bhayanaka Misfits United I N G L O R I O U S 57	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:18:17 - [36] - Quote Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. Take your 5 billion isk and hire a mercenary oufit to do some damage to the war deccers. Thery are looking for soft targets. Don't be one. Marech.
Marech Bhayanaka Misfits United I N G L O R I O U S 57	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:21:13 - [37] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Sigh, three days and we already have to get back on this merry-go-round? No, you do not have to. It appears though that you have chosen to. Marech.
Broodin Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:21:25 - [38] - Quote Some are taking this out of context. The pvp sandbox works fine, the gankings while somtimes irritating are an integral part of the game. My only quip about the system as a whole is that the wardec system is imbalanced toward favoring the large. Given that most here, and I am quickly adapting, greatly enjoy things is not in question and I am not suggesting that wardecs be done away with. What I am suggesting is that the system for wardecs could be adapted to make small social groups have a fair chance to exist even if there are tight limitations on member numbers or restrictions on structures put in place. Most of the responses seem to lean on either going to null sec or quitting the game, thats not the way to look at new players who, even in groups, lack the skills and experience to survive an attack from a skilled player in a level 2 destroyer let alone a wardec from an established corp. Creating the option of building a lower tier corp, more aimed at new players and social functionality rather than hardcore pvp is not unreasonable. Look at it this way, a good number of those who are new to the game may start out in a corp like this rather than the spam and troll filled npc corps, but many will move toward the higher end corps once they have some skill points and flying time logged. Groups of players will likely move past the starter corp phase, giving root and a foundation for newcomers to challenge the status quo and create epic battles. Even for the people that never leave the carebear corps, it creates more life and a larger target pool for you gank lovers and a good source of potential recruits for the tier 1 corps. Ultimately making the game more accessible to rookies without watering down the actual game content benefits everyone, even if you live in null and never see any of them, ccp would have a larger pool of subscribers to R+D the parts of the game you personally love.
Salvos Rhoska 1536	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:25:58 - [39] - Quote Protip: Compare/analog it to Trollceptor nerf. Profit. PvE v PvP Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk! Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6856	Posted - 2015.10.02 07:02:21 - [40] - Quote No Lube ForU wrote: Lol mercs. You mean the players who sit on the undock or camp the pipes ? My mains corp and alliance got decced by the 3 biggest mercs in eve. Not once did they come to low or null for us. I thought if ya paid a real merc they would actually hunt you down ? o/ This is kinda the point. You know what you are doing so they don;t attack you. People who are newer, less experienced or just bad are their targets, because thy are just as risk averse as those they cry about. It would be great if people pushed themselves for a challenge, but it just doesn't happen, so they same groups of people mass farm noobs day in and day out to give them something to pat themselves on the back for. This is where CCP needs to step in and force risk/reward. Black Pedro wrote: Wardecs are not going anywhere. CCP is clearly maintaining them as the only way to attack a structure in highsec. If you want to use a structure you will have to defend them from wardecs. Simple as that. Now that said, I am all for new social mechanisms where those who don't actually want to compete, or who are just starting out to join a corporation-like social group. You should be able to tune your risk in this game and if you just want to dip your toes in the sandbox, it should be possible. In fact, I think it likely CCP will release such a mechanism. Such a mechanism will allow friends just to form a social group, or give a new corporation a chance to grow while still respecting risk vs. reward. But wardecs against proper player corps with in-space assets? They are here to stay. Agree on all points. I imagine this is how CCP will play it long term. Effectively breaking down corporations into tiers so that there's levels of risk rather than the all or nothing plunge there is now. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aquilan Aideron The Scope Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2015.10.02 11:00:01 - [41] - Quote Can you tell how CCP hates new and small entities?
Nadja Hawk Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.10.02 11:08:36 - [42] - Quote Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. lots of ways to counter a wardec 1. ride out the storm in station 2. fight back 3. pay someone to fight for you 4. pay the corp that wardec you 5. move to another corp 6. go back to wow
The Asteroid Alts Online 13	Posted - 2015.10.02 11:10:41 - [43] - Quote 7. Make an alt and shiptoast for a week
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3261	Posted - 2015.10.02 11:38:07 - [44] - Quote Guys I've ever declared a war or been in a corp that either fights defensively in wars declared against or declares wars themselves but wars definitely need to be nerfed.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 293	Posted - 2015.10.02 12:17:07 - [45] - Quote It needs to be altered, badly. I would like it to be more difficult to wardec someone. Maybe along the lines of if you gank someone in ANY system, the guy(s) killed get the right to wardec the offenders corp(s). Obviously not if it was a mutually agreed duel. But just declaring random wardecs wouldn't be possible any longer. In fact make it harsher, make it that nobody in a npc corp could attack anyone else not in an npc corp and vice versa. If you want pvp, join a player corp. Put a longer cool down on leaving a player corp as well so someone cant join, kill someone and jump back to a npc corp..A week maybe. Just a few thoughts, I'll think more over beers this afternoon :)
Odie McCracken Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 63	Posted - 2015.10.02 12:26:03 - [46] - Quote Aquilan Aideron wrote: Can you tell how CCP hates new and small entities? Not really, can you elaborate?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3262	Posted - 2015.10.02 12:30:24 - [47] - Quote Odie McCracken wrote: Aquilan Aideron wrote: Can you tell how CCP hates new and small entities? Not really, can you elaborate? They've made it cost and risk prohibitive for them to run their own wardec corps.
Syeed Ameer Ali Evil Murder Society 27	Posted - 2015.10.02 13:06:26 - [48] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Guys I've ever declared a war or been in a corp that either fights defensively in wars declared against or declares wars themselves but wars definitely need to be nerfed. I was like "wat that's incoherent", then I realized that was your point. I like you Vimsy. everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3265	Posted - 2015.10.02 13:25:39 - [49] - Quote It's the exact position of literally everyone that thinks wars need some kind of nerf. They universally have no experience of the war declaration system other than being a totally passive non-participant. Yet somehow they feel qualified to talk about what is or isn't broken about it. They don't seem concerned or even aware of the ways that the system is actually mechanically broken. Like how when a corp or alliance you're at war with disbands you're stuck with a bill in your wallet for a war against the entity that no longer exists that stays there forever unless you pay it. They don't care about it actually working or being balanced, they just want it nerfed as much as possible, preferably to the point where nobody uses the mechanic at all. It's ridiculously transparent.
Kinete Jenius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 82	Posted - 2015.10.02 13:39:32 - [50] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: It's the exact position of literally everyone that thinks wars need some kind of nerf. They universally have no experience of the war declaration system other than being a totally passive non-participant. Yet somehow they feel qualified to talk about what is or isn't broken about it. They don't seem concerned or even aware of the ways that the system is actually mechanically broken. Like how when a corp or alliance you're at war with disbands you're stuck with a bill in your wallet for a war against the entity that no longer exists that stays there forever unless you pay it. They don't care about it actually working or being balanced, they just want it nerfed as much as possible, preferably to the point where nobody uses the mechanic at all. It's ridiculously transparent. That's your fault for wardecing people who have nothing to defend. If you actually decced an alliance that had assets and could defend themselves you wouldn't have that issue. Besides you should consider it a win if an alliance disbands. That's like a billion isk wasted on their part and untold millions in individual corps. So you're coming out ahead in the isk war. Instead you wardec miners and newebies that you know you can club easily. Your targets know they have no chance against your group so they dodge the war. Then you come here and complain how it's too easy to dodge a wardecs. You could also HTFU and just gank them. AFterall you're looking for PVP right? Well having KRs out there will get you more PVP for free.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3272	Posted - 2015.10.02 13:58:21 - [51] - Quote It's difficult to describe how dumb that post is. Corps rolling to avoid a war is actually pretty uncommon in my experience. Corps and alliances disbanding as the result of a protracted war where they experience a lot of losses is extremely common and is in fact the classic "win" condition and a common objective of a war. Not to mention that people drop and disband alt and holding corps from alliances all the time. You clearly have a preconception about highsec PVP groups that isn't accurate and the fact that you don't care about actual bugs in mechanics because you personally dislike a certain type of gameplay illustrates my point perfectly. You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14558	Posted - 2015.10.02 14:03:31 - [52] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. And after all this time, hopefully CCP knows better than to listen to people who just want to heap punitive mechanics on other people's playstyles, rather than actually put effort into the game themselves. "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.
Valkin Mordirc 1518	Posted - 2015.10.02 14:13:25 - [53] - Quote That time of the year again is it? Though I suppose GD hasn't had a massive nerf wardec thread in awhile. Just one more nerf and it all be balanced. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Kinete Jenius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 82	Posted - 2015.10.02 14:45:53 - [54] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: It's difficult to describe how dumb that post is. Corps rolling to avoid a war is actually pretty uncommon in my experience. Corps and alliances disbanding as the result of a protracted war where they experience a lot of losses is extremely common and is in fact the classic "win" condition and a common objective of a war. Not to mention that people drop and disband alt and holding corps from alliances all the time. You clearly have a preconception about highsec PVP groups that isn't accurate and the fact that you don't care about actual bugs in mechanics because you personally dislike a certain type of gameplay illustrates my point perfectly. You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. Your entire post is nothing more then a contradiction. You start off this post declaring that war dodging is pretty uncommon then you state it's actually common in the next paragraph. Of course in your earlier post you were complaining about all the dodging going on. I am fine with the current wardec mechanic. I'm not fine with people like you who can't be bothered to expend any effort in the choices of their wardec targets coming here and complaining that some of their targets choose to dodge the war. You are you actually referring to my post with your highsec pvp comment? If so that's hilarious.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3279	Posted - 2015.10.02 14:50:46 - [55] - Quote I'm sorry that you don't know anything about wars and can't tell the difference between a corp rolling to avoid a war and a corp disbanding because they got their pooholes smashed and subsequently failcascaded. I assume it's my fault you can't make that distinction, much it's a same way that the bills are bugged?
Kinete Jenius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 82	Posted - 2015.10.02 14:56:32 - [56] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: I'm sorry that you don't know anything about wars and can't tell the difference between a corp rolling to avoid a war and a corp disbanding because they got their pooholes smashed and subsequently failcascaded. I assume it's my fault you can't make that distinction, much it's a same way that the bills are bugged? Well you could use normal English to convey your thoughts instead of using shorthand that I haven't seen used since beta. When you said rolling I assumed you meant they rolled into another corp. Apparently you being the creative little special snowflake you are have decided to assign a different meaning to it. If you do mean rolling into another corp then my statement still stands. Spend a little of your precious time to target corps with something to defend and you won't have that issue.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3286	Posted - 2015.10.02 15:37:54 - [57] - Quote The fact that you need to have basic information about how people behave during wars spoon fed to you is a pretty clear indicator that you're not qualified to be part of the discussion.
Syeed Ameer Ali Evil Murder Society 27	Posted - 2015.10.02 15:51:21 - [58] - Quote Kinete Jenius wrote: I do fully admit to having preconceptions about highsec pvp as I've personally destroyed hundreds of billions if not trillions of isk in highsec solo over the years. If this is true then post with your main or gtfo. If it's false then you are full of ****. Either way it means your opinions are invalid. everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com
Kinete Jenius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 82	Posted - 2015.10.02 17:13:14 - [59] - Quote Syeed Ameer Ali wrote: Kinete Jenius wrote: I do fully admit to having preconceptions about highsec pvp as I've personally destroyed hundreds of billions if not trillions of isk in highsec solo over the years. If this is true then post with your main or gtfo. If it's false then you are full of **. Either way it means your opinions are invalid. I have 24 active characters half of which are dedicated gank alts. My main from beta is gone. The last time I had a "main" was over 8 years ago. Vimsy Vortis wrote:** The fact that you need to have basic information about how people behave during wars spoon fed to you is a pretty clear indicator that you're not qualified to be part of the discussion. AKA : You've got nothing so the best you can do is try to derail the conversation with a personal attack that has no relevance to the thread.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3287	Posted - 2015.10.02 17:28:41 - [60] - Quote It's not my fault you decided to make idiotic arguments about game mechanics without having any actual knowledge of the subject matter.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 411	Posted - 2015.10.02 17:53:17 - [61] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. And after all this time, hopefully CCP knows better than to listen to people who just want to heap punitive mechanics on other people's playstyles, rather than actually put effort into the game themselves. Oooooh, codie playstyle is punished when broken and massivly abused game mechanics are repaired! CCP should better be repair the game instead... Anywhere else but not your gamestyle... ho ho ho, how sweet. To bad , even in an evil dark harsh EvE universe, baby seal clubbers are wusses and whiners. Especially, when they condemn baby seals as the worst enemy that can happen to their world. Man i am really laughing hard right know. I beg you calmly: Oh and please keep the doll and show us where the babyseals bit you! Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14565	Posted - 2015.10.02 19:43:18 - [62] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Oooooh, codie playstyle is punished when broken and massivly abused game mechanics are repaired! There's nothing broken about ganking, and the only thing "abused" about the wardec mechanic is the dec dodge exploit. And pouring out poorly worded essays of tears on the forums doesn't change those facts, either. Cry more. "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.
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 8700	Posted - 2015.10.02 19:51:08 - [63] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. And after all this time, hopefully CCP knows better than to listen to people who just want to heap punitive mechanics on other people's playstyles, rather than actually put effort into the game themselves. Oooooh, codie playstyle is punished when broken and massivly abused game mechanics are repaired! CCP should better be repair the game instead... Anywhere else but not your gamestyle... ho ho ho, how sweet. To bad , even in an evil dark harsh EvE universe, baby seal clubbers are wusses and whiners. Especially, when they condemn baby seals as the worst enemy that can happen to their world. Man i am really laughing hard right know. I beg you calmly: Oh and please keep the doll and show us where the babyseals bit you! Post with your main, or kindly disembark [b]---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
Kinete Jenius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 83	Posted - 2015.10.02 21:11:53 - [64] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: It's not my fault you decided to make idiotic arguments about game mechanics without having any actual knowledge of the subject matter. Telling you to spend a little time to make sure the corp you want to dec has stuff to defend or has a history of defending before declaring war is good advice. Telling you to just gank the person if they are dodging wars is also a valid form of advice which I also follow myself. The security loss is tiny if you don't pod. If you pod it's a bit worse but still easy to recover from. Coming here and QQing because your target corp disbanded after you declared war without bothering to do any research on your target isn't productive. HTFU and dec those that have something to defend or the capability to defend themselves. Otherwise just gank them and enjoy the free PVP that results from a KR.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 411	Posted - 2015.10.04 05:37:06 - [65] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: Post with your main, or kindly disembark This IS my main Mr. Bumblefck-face.(@ISD: if this expression is a problem, maybe the name itself is?) If you can't say anything worthwile, it is you who should be quite. You should realize, this is GD not kindergarden, ugh i mean "Crime and Cunishment". Every single one of my alts is my Main! Don't like it? Good! You angry you can not group up with buddies and the likes of you, that you can not harras me out of EvE? I would assume so. Just look at my likes: i get them for my arguments and not for being in a certain interest group. Can you say the same for yours? no! Kaarous Aldurald wrote: La Rynx wrote: Oooooh, codie playstyle is punished when broken and massivly abused game mechanics are repaired! There's nothing broken about ganking, and the only thing "abused" about the wardec mechanic is the dec dodge exploit. And pouring out poorly worded essays of tears on the forums doesn't change those facts, either. Cry more. You wish. The only one angry is you! And to abbreviate it: - I am calm. (amused about your lack of arguments in fact) - please show me on this doll where my arguments hurt you. - yoin a propper NPC corp before you discuss here. - longer argumentations may be hard tocomprehend for you, i am sorry, i can not help you. - post more other off topic ad hominem rambles because you have no good arguments. Lots of stuff in EvE are broken, quirky or unfinished or badly implemented. Take your HISEC ganking which leaves no risk to the ganker-carebear. Its just about timers and the most simple tactics to do so. Its way more work to be prepare gainst it. Especially if the attacking alliance even has any pos(!) and hides behind game mechanics. And ppl like you dare to blame other ppl for not leaving station. But what you do want to realize is, that over you anger, you have tears in your eyes, because your playstyle might be in danger and you might be afraid to adapt. All those arguments codies and their like give, come back right in their face. tsh... - Wardeccs need changes. - Ganking needs changes. - Hisec needs changes. - EvE needs changes. CCP is aware of that. For those massive wardeccers, the risks taken are obviously not enough. This shows one big problem: Loosing isk does not matter. It obviosly ain't no risk, since ppl have enough of isk. So more things have to be added. Add more danger to wardeccs. In war the attacker should have reduced no income. Maybe they should even have to put up a war-chest to bring up and to cover all cost. The war-chest can not be worth more than the entity that will be aggressed has. The bigger the aggressor, the more "war-taxes" should be risen. To avoid abuse, those costs can not be given to the other group, it has to go to CCP / NPC groups. corps and alliances without assets like POS can not declare war, so have literally nothing they have to defend. If you have nothing to defend, it is not a war, it just aggresion. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Pryce Caesar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 19	Posted - 2015.10.04 06:33:48 - [66] - Quote Broodin wrote: Just as a musing from a newer player to eve, why does the wardec system function as it does? Most of the wardecs I have seen are oversized corps and alliances decing smaller corps and the system seems horribly imbalanced in favor of the megacorps and griefing alliances. Curious as to why there isn't either an opt out or even a 5 billion/month limit 100 member/corp neutrality license that smaller corps can get to shield themselves from being bullied by larger corps. It is mainly for the High-Sec pirates, in my experience. Pirate corps or alliances in High-Sec do it to the big alliances of Null-Sec all the time just so they can shoot any unsuspecting corps members that fly into their space (or the trade hubs in general).
Kestielh Mechielv 21st Mordu's Legion 0	Posted - 2015.10.04 16:22:34 - [67] - Quote lol we don't care. Anyway Eve is dying, slowly but surely.. Just check through players stats activities since 1 year and half...Its pitiful to see how it crashed. This is what happen when you give candies only to a group of person instead of everyone! Am still lucky to have alts to do anything on this game. Wardec system is useless as ****? wanna War dec me? Lolll lets play on a different character from another alt account and enjoy your Eve Offline! Eve is real
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14603	Posted - 2015.10.04 16:30:16 - [68] - Quote La Rynx wrote: The only one angry is you! The page and a half of ranting doggerel you posted suggests otherwise. In fact, it suggests rather the opposite of what you intend. But then, SJWs always project. "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.
Hal Morsh Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 416	Posted - 2015.10.05 01:41:37 - [69] - Quote The problem is the people who actually want fights are in nullsec. Highsec you get risk averse turds in blobs spamming wardecs on anything and everything to then camp a tradehub. Everyone else either not trained for any sort of PVP or not capable. Lowsec you get blobs of Russian alts, who really don't want any kind of fights. They just want you to die and will only log off their 10 alts if you bring more than yourself to a fight. CCP can't do much but keep mixing things up, the game has been getting better. Or has it been dying? I don't really frikin know. 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? Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 27	Posted - 2015.10.05 03:36:30 - [70] - Quote In this kind of game, size wins. Bigger fleet wins. More firepower wins. Firepower gets killmails. And, in order to grow past a certain point, you have to eliminate threats, either by diplomacy or superior firepower. So, you always end up with this: Big mercs won't shoot each other because they know they can get hurt, or it's not profitable. It's a lot more profitable to gank freighters, and a whole lot more profitable if these freighters happen to not be behind CONCORD protection so you don't need a whole bunch of disposable ships. Oh, and you lose a lot less if these freighters aren't the escorted variety. So: wardeccing miners and traders and taking/wrecking their stuff is strategically correct play under current mechanics: you risk little because these tend not to have serious assets exposed to enemy fire (something CODE. players like to mention in C+P). In the other direction, a small trader corp getting decced is playing correctly by sending all their squishy freighter and barge pilots into NPCorps. Presenting an easier target than you need to is stupid strategy. The best defense is free CONCORD protection. What's more, most of these miners and traders sell the mercs everything they need on the open market. There was a topic in F+I about putting a trade hub in null with CONCORDish mechanics so people would be able to trade. Danika Princip kept complaining about how people would use this trade hub to stage attacks on goons if it happened to be in goon space, and the goons wouldn't be able to do anything about it. This is precisely the condition which lets mercs wreck small trader and miner corps with near impunity, and not need an economy (pos, customs, barges/freighters of their own) exposed to enemy attack. tl;dr Trade hubs in hisec mean wardeccers don't need to expose any shiny squishy assets to their war targets because they just buy whatever they need to gank with at the local hub, and wardecced corps' most correct play is to not fight a stronger foe if they can help it. A signature :o
Divine Entervention Rational Chaos Inc. Phoebe Freeport Republic 657	Posted - 2015.10.05 03:59:35 - [71] - Quote OP, you bring up incredibly valid points. You ought to know that everyone who disagrees with your stance is actually part of these griefing corporations in one way or another, and defend their existence so they can continue to drive new players out of the game. Interacting with these people will bring you nothing but misery because they are miserable people. Good luck and stay off the forums, for your own sake. #thebest
Demerius Xenocratus Rapid Withdrawal 676	Posted - 2015.10.05 05:35:49 - [72] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. And after all this time, hopefully CCP knows better than to listen to people who just want to heap punitive mechanics on other people's playstyles, rather than actually put effort into the game themselves. Effort of course just means buying more alts to circumvent pesky things like wardecs, sec status and standings. Let's pretend for a moment we aren't all completely ignorant of how the metagame works.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2531	Posted - 2015.10.05 15:43:31 - [73] - Quote Hole Checker wrote: .. Lol killing mission runners and industrials is not exactly engaging pvp ... Nothing to see here, move along. Would you like to know more?
Salvos Rhoska 1538	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:10:09 - [74] - Quote 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. PvE v PvP Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk! Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3312	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:36:26 - [75] - Quote Effort is probably meant to infer the various ways in which you can not present yourself as a huge defenseless pi+¦atas and to work to make player versus player conflicts engaging and fun for yourself and your corpmates. This is of course the idealistic view based on the best way to play the game, what you described is what carebears actually do based on their idea of how they should play the game.
Salvos Rhoska 1538	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:47:23 - [76] - Quote As to CODE (and unrelated to wardecs), the methods they utilize demonstrate an irrationality in HS mechanics. Imagine the following: - I drive around in a city center, on a bicycle, armed with a pistol (with my buddies sometimes). I shoot anyone I want in the head, loot their property, and wait for police to come and kill me. Then I ressurect, and do it all over again. Whats the point in HS ruleset, and CONCORD, if I can do this repeatedly for substantial gains, with no meaningful sanction nor loss? Its inane to argue that CONCORD constitutes a risk, because its inane in the first place to blow up a ship if it costs you more than you gain. There is nothing wrong with suicide ganking, in and of itself. There is something wrong in the easy repetition of this for commensurate profits. It obviates the function of CONCORD and HS ruleset. I move for a more dramatic drop modifier in security status on illegal aggression in HS. This still allows for illegal HS aggression meta, but commensurately, rationally, increases the risk/reward quotient as measured against having to regain that standing again on a given character so as to do so again without becoming a target to evrryone else as well as system security NPCs. PvE v PvP Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk! Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
Bellatrix Invicta New Order Logistics CODE. 616	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:51:46 - [77] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: You don't care about the war declaration system working properly or being balanced. You just want it nerfed to punish the people who use it. And after all this time, hopefully CCP knows better than to listen to people who just want to heap punitive mechanics on other people's playstyles, rather than actually put effort into the game themselves. Oooooh, codie playstyle is punished when broken and massivly abused game mechanics are repaired! CCP should better be repair the game instead... Anywhere else but not your gamestyle... ho ho ho, how sweet. To bad , even in an evil dark harsh EvE universe, baby seal clubbers are wusses and whiners. Especially, when they condemn baby seals as the worst enemy that can happen to their world. Man i am really laughing hard right know. I beg you calmly: Oh and please keep the doll and show us where the babyseals bit you! Spoken just like a clubbed baby seal. If you think you've won, think again. The CODE always wins.
Bellatrix Invicta New Order Logistics CODE. 616	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:54:39 - [78] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: As to CODE (and unrelated to wardecs), the methods they utilize demonstrate an irrationality in HS mechanics. Imagine the following: - I drive around in a city center, on a bicycle, armed with a pistol (with my buddies sometimes). I shoot anyone I want in the head, loot their property, and wait for police to come and kill me. Then I ressurect, and do it all over again. Whats the point in HS ruleset, and CONCORD, if I can do this repeatedly for substantial gains, with no meaningful sanction nor loss? Its inane to argue that CONCORD constitutes a risk, because its inane in the first place to blow up a ship if it costs you more than you gain. There is nothing wrong with suicide ganking, in and of itself. There is something wrong in the easy repetition of this for commensurate profits. It obviates the function of CONCORD and HS ruleset. I move for a more dramatic drop modifier in security status on illegal aggression in HS. This still allows for illegal HS aggression meta, but commensurately, rationally, increases the risk/reward quotient as measured against having to regain that standing again on a given character so as to do so again without becoming a target to evrryone else as well as system security NPCs. RL comparisons against a video game. Mmmm, tasty. If you think you've won, think again. The CODE always wins.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3312	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:55:49 - [79] - Quote I didn't realize baby seals talk like gibbering imbeciles.
Bellatrix Invicta New Order Logistics CODE. 616	Posted - 2015.10.05 16:58:27 - [80] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: I didn't realize baby seals talk like gibbering imbeciles. Only after being clubbed. Beforehand it's all like Flipper and ***. Squeaks and chirps. If you think you've won, think again. The CODE always* wins.
Salvos Rhoska 1538	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:05:02 - [81] - Quote Bellatrix Invicta wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: As to CODE (and unrelated to wardecs), the methods they utilize demonstrate an irrationality in HS mechanics. Imagine the following: - I drive around in a city center, on a bicycle, armed with a pistol (with my buddies sometimes). I shoot anyone I want in the head, loot their property, and wait for police to come and kill me. Then I ressurect, and do it all over again. Whats the point in HS ruleset, and CONCORD, if I can do this repeatedly for substantial gains, with no meaningful sanction nor loss? Its inane to argue that CONCORD constitutes a risk, because its inane in the first place to blow up a ship if it costs you more than you gain. There is nothing wrong with suicide ganking, in and of itself. There is something wrong in the easy repetition of this for commensurate profits. It obviates the function of CONCORD and HS ruleset. I move for a more dramatic drop modifier in security status on illegal aggression in HS. This still allows for illegal HS aggression meta, but commensurately, rationally, increases the risk/reward quotient as measured against having to regain that standing again on a given character so as to do so again without becoming a target to evrryone else as well as system security NPCs. RL comparisons against a video game. Mmmm, tasty. The RL comparison is to demonstrate the irrationality of a perpetually respawning criminal aggressor in the HS environment. Increasing the sec status drop modifier corrects this, and creates more content for other players to aggress criminals (rather than NPC PVE elements), as well as rationalising the risk/reward of criminals as weighed against criminals recouping that sec status loss so as to do so again. It makes perfect, complete, sense. By all means, try to gank in a player environment while you are red. That creates more content for everyone. PvE v PvP Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk! Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 12284	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:12:51 - [82] - Quote Still entirely inappropriate , regardless of why you use analogies with irl the ethics and morality have as much bearing in-game as my left arse cheek. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3313	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:17:12 - [83] - Quote Applying conventional ethics to an environment where everyone is immortal would futile even if it was real. Eve being such an environment and also being totally fictional makes concepts of morality completely inapplicable.
Salvos Rhoska 1538	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:31:28 - [84] - Quote Has nothing to do with conventional ethics, nor applying those to EVE. That was just a means of comparison to demonstrate an irrationality in the system, in its mechanics, in its own context. There is not sufficient risk in HS ganking. The missing element, is a more dramatic Sec Status drop after illegal actions. This rationalizes ganking, without removing its meta, in terms of risk/rewards. As well as returning action reciprocal to it back to player hands (as aggressing reds), rather than the incipient NPC PVE of CONCORD and fsction police. Dramatically increase the sec status modifier on illegal action. Its the perfect bullet. PvE v PvP Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk! Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1475	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:34:47 - [85] - Quote CCP is probably going to tie the wardec system to the new citadel structures. For example, you can only wardec or suffer a wardec if your corporation/alliance has a citadel (homebase). To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender , or either corp citadel destroyed. The Tears Must Flow
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 12285	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:39:50 - [86] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: CCP is probably going to tie the wardec system to the new citadel structures. For example, you can only wardec or suffer a wardec if your corporation/alliance has a citadel (homebase). To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender , or either corp citadel destroyed. Unlikely, wars are a Corp based activitie not a structure based one. Tie those together and thousands of corps and alliances without any assets in space become functionaly immune from wars meaning the only way to inflict any meaningful losses upon them will be through ganking...you don't want this. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40442	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:40:40 - [87] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: CCP is probably going to tie the wardec system to the new citadel structures. For example, you can only wardec or suffer a wardec if your corporation/alliance has a citadel (homebase). To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender , or either corp citadel destroyed. What's the rationality for making this statement? As in, how do you know this? Seems more just an opinion than a statement based on anything CCP has indicated. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 12285	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:45:14 - [88] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Vaju Enki wrote: CCP is probably going to tie the wardec system to the new citadel structures. For example, you can only wardec or suffer a wardec if your corporation/alliance has a citadel (homebase). To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender , or either corp citadel destroyed. What's the rationality for making this statement? As in, how do you know this? Seems more just an opinion than a statement based on anything CCP has indicated. It is, ccp have said wars get looked at when Corp and alliance mechanics get looked at, they're intrinsically linked after all. The only thing the new structures will add are multi billion assets worth defending, a reason for actually staying in Corp and fighting, essentially something aggressors have been crying out for for as long as I have been playing I.e. a conflict driver. Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1475	Posted - 2015.10.05 17:50:51 - [89] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Vaju Enki wrote: CCP is probably going to tie the wardec system to the new citadel structures. For example, you can only wardec or suffer a wardec if your corporation/alliance has a citadel (homebase). To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender , or either corp citadel destroyed. What's the rationality for making this statement? As in, how do you know this? Seems more just an opinion than a statement based on anything CCP has indicated. It's just my opinion on what is probably going to happen. The Tears Must Flow
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3315	Posted - 2015.10.05 18:17:48 - [90] - Quote Which is absurd because 90% of the wars in the game have nothing to do with structures of any kind.
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
Cidanel Afuran Chickenhawk. 293	Posted - 2015.10.06 17:38:09 - [121] - Quote Chainsaw Plankton wrote: 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. I don't necessarily agree. If you are smart about the systems you live in you can survive pretty peacefully with a smaller corp. If you run out of a backwater system and use an NPC alt for hauling, you generally won't get decced. The average new player probably doesn't know that though And if you do get wardecced, just jump 30 jumps away from the wardec corp's home system and AFK cloak at a safe spot for a few days. Nothing is more annoying than hunting a target across half the universe only to not see him in station and not be able to find him in space.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3325	Posted - 2015.10.06 18:19:13 - [122] - Quote If you move 30 jumps away you get to test the often touted carebear rhetoric about everyone who ever declared a war being permanently glued to a trade hub undock. Realistically if you do move and you're not at war with P I R A T or whatever the current hub camper respawn is they'll still show up at some point. However they're likely to bring much lighter ships and fewer assets like boosts and logistics, which makes armed resistance more viable. And of course if they are in fact only interested in hub camping they pose no threat whatsoever.
Cidanel Afuran Chickenhawk. 293	Posted - 2015.10.06 18:26:08 - [123] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: If you move 30 jumps away you get to test the often touted carebear rhetoric about everyone who ever declared a war being permanently glued to a trade hub undock. Realistically if you do move and you're not at war with P I R A T or whatever the current hub camper respawn is they'll still show up at some point. However they're likely to bring much lighter ships and fewer assets like boosts and logistics, which makes armed resistance more viable. And of course if they are in fact only interested in hub camping they pose no threat whatsoever. 90% of the time they just move to easier targets closer to home.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3328	Posted - 2015.10.06 18:47:41 - [124] - Quote It kind of depends on the number of active wars they have and how many guys you have active and in space in the same area. If you have a bunch of 5.0 sec status dudes in space 23/7 sooner or later someone is going to send an alt to see what's up. Obviously if it turns out those guys 30 jumps out are mining in ventures there's probably not going to be any follow up. But if they're in marauders there probably will be. Of course if they're a large group with 30,000 war targets they probably don't even run locates on anyone who isn't a contract target. The specifics will always vary obviously since each aggressor and defender are different and the motivations and objectives are infinitely variable. That's why I like wars, every one is different and there's so much nuance to it!
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 412	Posted - 2015.10.06 19:46:48 - [125] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: It kind of depends on the number of active wars they have and how many guys you have active and in space in the same area. If you have a bunch of 5.0 sec status dudes in space 23/7 sooner or later someone is going to send an alt to see what's up. Obviously if it turns out those guys 30 jumps out are mining in ventures there's probably not going to be any follow up. But if they're in marauders there probably will be. Of course if they're a large group with 30,000 war targets they probably don't even run locates on anyone who isn't a contract target. The specifics will always vary obviously since each aggressor and defender are different and the motivations and objectives are infinitely variable. That's why I like wars, every one is different and there's so much nuance to it! Sure, 30,000 wartargets in eve... Seems to me you are not in sync with the actual playercount. Your imagination and the actual situation in new eden have almost nothing in common. Those things almost never happen. Also this story where the wardeccer got smacked by his victims: How old is this story? PIRAT shows how massive this system is abused. And as posted in this thread, its abused for quite some time now. Changes are coming and ccp says nothing is unthinkable. Maybe some wishes of those wannabe hisec pvplers will come true, but they will still not like the result. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Austneal Nero Fazione End of Life 80	Posted - 2015.10.06 19:57:20 - [126] - 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. Your entire comment assumes that highsec is supposed to be a PvP-free or "safe" zone, which CCP has said multiple times that it's not. High Security space is only that: High Security. Not "Total Security" Also, what would limiting the number of wars per alliance / corp really do? Do you think that an alliance of 5 corps is just going to go "Oh no, we can only dec X number of people at a time"? Or do you think it's more likely that if they REALLY want more than X number of active decs, that they would just gather everyone into a public channel and dissolve the alliance to dec everyone separately? I do agree that the war mechanics need to be looked at. However, a hard limit enforcement is (if not a bit anti-sandbox) only a band-aid solution.
Cara Forelli Green Skull LLC Bad Intention 1268	Posted - 2015.10.06 20:08:10 - [127] - Quote Broodin wrote: new players who, even in groups, lack the skills and experience to survive an attack from a skilled player in a level 2 destroyer... It was a t1 frigate. I'm not a monster. And you did attempt to blob me. Adventures New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: *House Forelli* Titan's Lament
Cidanel Afuran Chickenhawk. 296	Posted - 2015.10.06 20:15:48 - [128] - Quote Ceryph Archai wrote: 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. As someone who spends a good chunk of time PvE-ing, if you are getting caught during a war, you're doing something wrong. For the duration of the war haul your ships with someone in an NPC corp and travel in a pod/interceptor. Find a low-use system and set up shop there during the war. With a decently set up overview and d-scanning you should never be on grid when the aggressor lands. I would also suggest moving to null. Nullsec is infinitely safer than HS for the PvE-er assuming they are in a sov holding alliance.
Cartaris Caldari Provisions Caldari State 34	Posted - 2015.10.06 20:26:15 - [129] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Also this story where the wardeccer got smacked by his victims: How old is this story? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=253092 I wrote that awhile back, but its not ancient. I'm not an amazing storyteller, but it's there if you want a read.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1856	Posted - 2015.10.06 20:30:19 - [130] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: Chainsaw Plankton wrote: 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. I don't necessarily agree. If you are smart about the systems you live in you can survive pretty peacefully with a smaller corp. If you run out of a backwater system and use an NPC alt for hauling, you generally won't get decced. The average new player probably doesn't know that though And if you do get wardecced, just jump 30 jumps away from the wardec corp's home system and AFK cloak at a safe spot for a few days. Nothing is more annoying than hunting a target across half the universe only to not see him in station and not be able to find him in space. bleh, too many similar topics/responses. I wrote something about wars not being all that hard to avoid in another post. You still have that flag flying, but by avoiding jita 4-4 undock and the public recruitment channel people probably don't care enough (or even see it for that matter) to wardec. anyways I've been on pretty much every side of a wardec and in hindsight any way I look at it now it was mostly a stupid waste of time. @ChainsawPlankto
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 413	Posted - 2015.10.07 06:30:56 - [131] - Quote Cartaris wrote: La Rynx wrote: Also this story where the wardeccer got smacked by his victims: How old is this story? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=253092 I wrote that awhile back, but its not ancient. I'm not an amazing storyteller, but it's there if you want a read. This described situation is not, whats being talked about. Bad luck for aggressors, that the corps had experienced ingame friends who helped out. nice Sytem worked like intended. We are talking about hisec groups like pirat or mercs like break a wish. Clearly 200 parallel wars show that something is not allright. Mercs are no help at all. Some think it is evil and funny to take the isk for assistance, but not do their work. In RL those companies break up in no time, cause no one hires them. In eve they just go to forum c&p and beg for work. Wardeccs don't have to go, they have to be refined. IMO CCP wants a cool evil universe, not so much pathetic baby seal clubbers and juvenile kindergarden bullis. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40459	Posted - 2015.10.07 07:31:56 - [132] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: Of course if they're a large group with 30,000 war targets they probably don't even run locates on anyone who isn't a contract target. Sure, 30,000 wartargets in eve... Seems to me you are not in sync with the actual playercount. Your imagination and the actual situation in new eden have almost nothing in common. What is the actual player count? I thought we didn't have that number accurately anymore. It's not as though they all have to be logged in at the same time to count as a war target. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 413	Posted - 2015.10.07 08:05:43 - [133] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: [quote=La Rynx]It's not as though they all have to be logged in at the same time to count as a war target. You got me there! I was only taking the logged in players into account. However, there is not much different since those unlogged players are not really a wartarget. How this unlogged players create "nuances" or even content, escapes me. Wimsi did sound like she was talking about logged players as for fictional absent players are not worth talking about. The number 30,000 is to big. Face it. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40460	Posted - 2015.10.07 08:53:05 - [134] - Quote La Rynx wrote: The number 30,000 is to big. Face it. I don't know. I don't really think about that sort of thing much, but Vimsy would certainly know. Just taking a quick look at P I R A T, who currently have 206 active wars. Just three of their current wars are against NC. (2187 members), TISHU (623 members) and P-A-T-R-I-O-T-S (759 members). It's possible to argue all day on whether all of those members are war targets or not, but a straight counting of numbers for just 3 of their wars totals 3569 potential targets. I'm not sure what the 203 other wars would add up to. 30,000 seems quite possible I guess. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3334	Posted - 2015.10.07 11:14:13 - [135] - Quote 30,000 was kind of an exaggeration, but not a huge one and I wasnt referring to concurrently logged in players. Specifically I was talking about trade hub camping groups that declare war on nullsec alliances, they routinely have literally 10,000+ targets, so there's no chance of them adding and locating every single target. Not that we don't currently have 7,000 war targets right now ourselves.
BirdStrike State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.10.07 11:32:15 - [136] - Quote Well a simple solution to prevent wardec spamming would be to make wardecs a skill based system the same as corporation management. The CEO can only hold one war dec per skill point and a bunch of related skills that determine concords fee, duration, sec status of systems they can fight in etc. Then require a minimum number of kills within the wardec timeframe or the war is considered lost. Then like t3's you should be docked a skill point for each war you declare and lose, and have a cool down time say of 7 days between war decs. Also the wardec should be required to place a bond with concord of a non trivial amount, if they lose then the target gets the bonded amount as reperations / war prizes, which would give a fiscal incentive for the target to fight the aggressor. If you disband a corp under active war dec you should lose all your corporate management skills and be unable to form ir join a new non npc corp for a minimum cooldown period. CCP likes to talk about consequences, there should be consequences for war deccers, and having it a skill based requirement that forces investment in leadership skills, and limits the amount of wars you can have would prevent a lot of the casual griefer mechanics while still enabling a legitimate playstyle. You do need wardecs, lets face it a lot of hisec activity is nullsec/lowsec players using security to support their activity, but it should still be limited the way corporate management is.
Storm Aumer Vega Farscape 0	Posted - 2015.10.07 12:14:09 - [137] - Quote Xert Trassien wrote: The current war dec system sucks the way it is. What is the point of decking a corp at all when by the time the war goes active the corp has disbanded and made a new corp.. There should be a system in place to at least stop ppl just dropping corp to avoid decs. After all eve is based more as a pvp game yes ? they dont have to logg in at al to the game during war.Thers not in ccp's interes to stop people from playing iven if that means people living a war deced corperation .Thers shud rater be a limit to howe many open/pending wars a corperation/alliance kan have,its not good for the game when som alliance's have more active wars than they have people in theyr alliance like 106 people 140 active wars,as you kan see those are the problem not so mutch the war dec consept. Shit hapens,mowe on......Luky maby your good then......Playe as you like and not as others tell you to.....It dont hurt to be nice....
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3334	Posted - 2015.10.07 13:10:01 - [138] - Quote If you can effectively prosecute 140 wars at the same time with 106 members why should you be prevented from doing so by an arbitrary mechanical limitation? From a sandbox perspective the only limit should be their ability to pay the bill and fight the targets. Given that they end up outnumbered by multiple hundreds to one they should be constantly overwhelmed by the defenders. But the defenders instead take no action whatsoever and die en-masse in trade hubs. The large number of wars is a symptom of how incredibly passive defenders tend to be when faced with wars, even ones with massive military superiority would rather take billions of isk in losses and whine about bad game design than take any action themselves. Defenders do nothing which allows aggressors to act with absolute impunity.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14637	Posted - 2015.10.07 13:34:35 - [139] - Quote BirdStrike wrote: Well a simple solution to prevent wardec spamming You only need a "solution" for things that are problems. This is not only not a problem, it's working exactly as intended. "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.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 414	Posted - 2015.10.07 14:48:03 - [140] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: ...bla... this: Vimsy Vortis wrote: 30,000 was kind of an exaggeration Further "dancing" around those numbers doesn't get you anywhere. Wimsi, Skippy and codie, as you can see a lot of people do not share you oppinion and see the need for discussion for possible changes. CCP is already working on hisec changes, to create more competition there. The "sandbox" argument was heavily abused too, so it is quite dead argument. Gamesettings and functions get changed when needed. Just check the Jump-Fatigue, which was working as intended too, but it was changed to work even better. And that is what this discussion is about. Make "wardeccs" better and more meaningfull. Not just spray them around to finally get some scraps. Sandbox arguments from wimsi and aldous "works as intended" arguments ignore what many people already discussed in this thread. Basically Andou says nothing more than "change is bad" and repeats that he does not like it and he does not think much of people who discuss it... surprise... Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40462	Posted - 2015.10.07 14:55:11 - [141] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Wimsi, Skippy and codie, as you can see a lot of people do not share you oppinion and see the need for discussion for possible changes. Just out of curiosity, what opinion of mine are you referring to here? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14639	Posted - 2015.10.07 14:59:59 - [142] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: La Rynx wrote: Wimsi, Skippy and codie, as you can see a lot of people do not share you oppinion and see the need for discussion for possible changes. Just out of curiosity, what opinion of mine are you referring to here? Come now, you know who you're replying to. If you have an opinion that PvP belongs in highsec in any capacity, or that no one has the right to be left alone in a sandbox PvP game, then you give him the badfeelz. "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.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25240	Posted - 2015.10.07 15:13:14 - [143] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Make "wardeccs" better and more meaningfull. Not just spray them around to finally get some scraps. It's not the problem you think it is that is the cause of wardec spam. Wardecs are spammed because at least 50% of the targets will turtle up or drop corp, wardec corps spam wardecs so that they have targets to keep their membership entertained and playing Eve. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14639	Posted - 2015.10.07 15:17:55 - [144] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: La Rynx wrote: Make "wardeccs" better and more meaningfull. Not just spray them around to finally get some scraps. It's not the problem you think it is that is the cause of wardec spam. Wardecs are spammed because at least 50% of the targets will turtle up or drop corp, wardec corps spam wardecs so that they have targets to keep their membership entertained and playing Eve. 50/50 that Trollboy there actually knows this, and that fits his precise intent with his snide "suggestions". You gotta understand, whether it's ignorance or malice, they want to kill the game either way, and both are equally damnable. "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 3342	Posted - 2015.10.07 15:23:09 - [145] - Quote You can either spam and hope for the best or declare war on nullsec corps and camp trade hubs. CCP Continuously nerfing highsec PVP in response to carebear whining has conditioned people into whining on the forums to get what they want in game, rather than actually playing the game.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 414	Posted - 2015.10.07 16:52:44 - [146] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Just out of curiosity, what opinion of mine are you referring to here? Oh sorry you do not have an oppinion, you are just trolling? Sorry. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: La Rynx wrote: Make "wardeccs" better and more meaningfull. Not just spray them around to finally get some scraps. It's not the problem you think it is that is the cause of wardec spam. Wardecs are spammed because at least 50% of the targets will turtle up or drop corp, wardec corps spam wardecs so that they have targets to keep their membership entertained and playing Eve. Of course and if i put stabs on my travel fit i am avoiding PvP too. Been there done that. It is not only about wardecc spamming, also its about equality. Rise the risk for both sides, especially those ppl crying about other players (easier opponents) than just accept that and hunt other targets. How comes that those crybabies do not shoot it out between those other crybabies that want "to kill something". If someone avoids the fight, he is afraid it might be surethat he will loose. That is something almost all eve players do! And thats not risk averse, its smart. I do not engage solely a 100man fleet. Thats not risk averse. Its just not being stu-pid. If you want fights, go nullsec. Roams happen always and i have been victim to them more than once. It is risk averse and pathetic to fight smaller, weaker entities, because you do not dare to do what you tell others to do. It is pathetic to pound on your chest when you are only kill caspules, exhumers and haulers. It is PvP, but it is not elite. Compared what others do, it is just pathetic. And yes "trollboy 1" knows this. But "mr trollboy 2" at least i am not crying "noooooo" all the times. You know: How many Eve players does it take to change a light bulb? Kaarous: "Change? Noooooooooo!!!11!!1!!!". At least i try to discuss productiv. You whinning (really it is) is whining none the less, even if the tears you cry are angry tears. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 414	Posted - 2015.10.07 16:57:40 - [147] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: CCP Continuously nerfing highsec PVP in response to carebear whining has conditioned people into whining on the forums to get what they want in game, rather than actually playing the game. You realise that hisec mercs are also pathetic carebears? Would you follow CCPs blogs, you could see some changes on the horizon with those citadels. And if i got them right, there will be changes for wardeccs to. Better be prepared. I will watch from nullsec and comment. Vimsy Vortis wrote: You can either spam and hope for the best or declare war on nullsec corps and camp trade hubs. NO! You can always get to nullsec and get YOUR asss wiped! Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Austneal Nero Fazione End of Life 85	Posted - 2015.10.07 17:06:12 - [148] - Quote La Rynx wrote: You realise that hisec mercs are also pathetic carebears? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Carebear I don't think "Carebear" is the word you want here.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 414	Posted - 2015.10.07 17:11:22 - [149] - Quote Austneal wrote: La Rynx wrote: You realise that hisec mercs are also pathetic carebears? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Carebear I don't think "Carebear" is the word you want here. Wrong, that is absolutly what i had in mind. Ppl stating otherwise just do not look into the mirror. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: they want to kill the game either way, and both are equally damnable. Man, you really lost it for good. EvE is changing all the time. Your comfortable times in hisec might come to an end. You know what you just wrote? "Eve is dying" Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3345	Posted - 2015.10.07 17:17:08 - [150] - Quote They can continue to do the same thing they've been doing for years and nerf highsec aggression yet again but doing so won't fix any kind of perceived problem because it doesn't address or even attempt to identify the causes. Nerfing aggression is a blunt instrument that tries (and usually fails, see the rise of CODE. and the current large highsec merc alliances that we get to enjoy as a result as past nerfs) to address the most superficial symptoms. As long as changes are unintelligent knee-jerk responses to whining without any attempt to find out what player need the "problem" behavior is satisfying the problem won't be solved, it'll stay the same or get worse, but will manifest in a different way. If hitting something with a hammer ten times doesn't fix it hitting it an eleventh or twelfth time won't fix it either.
Austneal Nero Fazione End of Life 85	Posted - 2015.10.07 17:22:05 - [151] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Austneal wrote: La Rynx wrote: You realise that hisec mercs are also pathetic carebears? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Carebear I don't think "Carebear" is the word you want here. Wrong, that is absolutly what i had in mind. Ppl stating otherwise just do not look into the mirror. Would you mind explaining how mercs who are deccing too many people at once would fall under: Quote: players who prefer to refrain from PvP combat. I'm not understanding
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14641	Posted - 2015.10.07 18:40:22 - [152] - Quote Austneal wrote: La Rynx wrote: You realise that hisec mercs are also pathetic carebears? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Carebear I don't think "Carebear" is the word you want here. It very obviously does not apply, but in the depths of that poster's pit of intellectual dishonesty, they have to try and apply some negative label. It's a fairly typical SJW tactic. They always project, without fail. "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.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25241	Posted - 2015.10.07 20:01:17 - [153] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Of course and if i put stabs on my travel fit i am avoiding PvP too. Been there done that. Yes, yes you are; however putting stabs on your travel fit means A: you're not turtled up, and B: If you've fitted stabs because you're decced you haven't removed yourself from the pool of targets. Quote: If you want fights, go nullsec. Why? Hisec is just as much a PvP area as lowsec, nullsec and whspace Quote: It is risk averse and pathetic to fight smaller, weaker entities, because you do not dare to do what you tell others to do. Except the smaller, weaker enemies generally outnumber the predators, both in the real world and Eve. Quote: It is pathetic to pound on your chest when you are only kill caspules, exhumers and haulers. It is pathetic that some of the players behind those capsules, exhumers and haulers think that they should be safe from interference from others in a game where interfering with others is considered to be a cornerstone and fundamental aspect of the game. Quote: It is PvP, but it is not elite. Compared what others do, it is just pathetic. At least you admit that it is actually PvP. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40466	Posted - 2015.10.07 21:02:18 - [154] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Just out of curiosity, what opinion of mine are you referring to here? Oh sorry you do not have an oppinion, you are just trolling? Sorry. Nah, I enjoy the discussions too much to troll (generally), But I'm interested to know what opinion of mine on wardecs is it you were referring to that is disagreed on by a lot of people? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Paul Pohl State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:10:27 - [155] - Quote hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14654	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:21:55 - [156] - Quote Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. "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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40468	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:36:48 - [157] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. Yeah totally agree. Wardeccers are PvPers in general, not PvEers so removing their access to mission agents doesn't change their play one bit. This would be a punitive measure against PvE based Corps, encouraging those characters to stay in or drop to an NPC Corp. probably not a great outcome. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Paul Pohl State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:42:59 - [158] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. dude? golly! anywho... the point is this - would you want to be part of a corp who was spamming wardecs if a) you actually had to fight the war and b) were deprived of the major source of income in high-sec? clearly you wouldn't
Paul Pohl State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:54:09 - [159] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. Yeah totally agree. Wardeccers are PvPers in general, not PvEers so removing their access to mission agents doesn't change their play one bit. This would be a punitive measure against PvE based Corps, encouraging those characters to stay in or drop to an NPC Corp. probably not a great outcome. supposedly they stay in or drop out to NPC corps anyway and you assume that the PVE corps is the defender
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40468	Posted - 2015.10.08 01:57:52 - [160] - Quote Paul Pohl wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. Yeah totally agree. Wardeccers are PvPers in general, not PvEers so removing their access to mission agents doesn't change their play one bit. This would be a punitive measure against PvE based Corps, encouraging those characters to stay in or drop to an NPC Corp. probably not a great outcome. supposedly they stay in or drop out to NPC corps anyway and you assume that the PVE corps is the defender The stats show that far more was are declared by pvp/wardec corps than by PvE corps. Not opinion or assumption. Thats just fact. Not everyone drops to NPC Corps, but this would be a change that certainly punishes PvE Corps while not affecting PvP Corps at all. What would be the benefit of this change? Maybe I'm just missing something obvious. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3352	Posted - 2015.10.08 02:34:40 - [161] - Quote It would literally just be another disincentive for "normal" highsec corps to use the war declaration mechanic. Wars by "normal" corps against their rivals are already exceedingly rare (largely because the ally system leaves them open to unilateral escalation from anyone, nearly instantly, for free). It's not a change that would benefit anyone in any way.
Demerius Xenocratus Rapid Withdrawal 678	Posted - 2015.10.08 04:25:59 - [162] - Quote Bads kill farming against worse bads in highsec. Learn to play the game of alts and never worry about wars again. If you get decc'ed just switch characters for a week and laugh at them (on the decc'ed toon only of course).
Paul Pohl State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.10.08 07:35:28 - [163] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paul Pohl wrote: hi I'd suggest that those corps involved in war should not have access to agents for PVE missions - the aggressors from the time of the dec and the defender from when the war starts Dude, even I think that's a bad idea. It would just make people dec dodge more, or just not log in. Yeah totally agree. Wardeccers are PvPers in general, not PvEers so removing their access to mission agents doesn't change their play one bit. This would be a punitive measure against PvE based Corps, encouraging those characters to stay in or drop to an NPC Corp. probably not a great outcome. supposedly they stay in or drop out to NPC corps anyway and you assume that the PVE corps is the defender The stats show that far more was are declared by pvp/wardec corps than by PvE corps. Not opinion or assumption. Thats just fact. Not everyone drops to NPC Corps, but this would be a change that certainly punishes PvE Corps while not affecting PvP Corps at all. What would be the benefit of this change? Maybe I'm just missing something obvious. the principle benefit is that it cuts off a source of income to those involved in wars in high-sec - unless things have changed radically since last I played 'pvp corps' (we'll assume they are the attacker) spend their time running missions while waiting for the defender to come out of station it would also focus corps on fighting the war
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3352	Posted - 2015.10.08 11:09:41 - [164] - Quote Let's completely ignore that unless you are from bizarro world the highsec pvp community don't generally run missions at all. Why would you want to remove a source of income for someone because they're at war? Exactly how would that improve gameplay for anyone?
Syeed Ameer Ali Evil Murder Society 56	Posted - 2015.10.08 12:42:58 - [165] - Quote Paul Pohl wrote: the principle benefit is that it cuts off a source of income to those involved in wars in high-sec - unless things have changed radically since last I played 'pvp corps' (we'll assume they are the attacker) spend their time running missions while waiting for the defender to come out of station it would also focus corps on fighting the war Either the last time you played was way before my time and things have indeed changed, or you just don't know what you're talking about. People who declare wars tend to do so specifically because they don't have any interest in shooting NPCs. About once every six months I hold my nose and run a few missions on my scout alt in hopes of someday getting access to a reasonable number of locator agents, but it is excruciatingly boring for me and I can only stand to do it for an hour or two. Mission running is not a common activity for wardec corps. Banning missions in war would only hurt the defenders in the vast majority of cases. While this might be funny for a little while due to the forum tears it would inspire, it would also give wardecced carebears one less reason to undock, which seems counterproductive. everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

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