Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 12:50:54 -
[1] - Quote
Hi
War declaration is a mechanism allowing for PvP interaction in empire space without facing CONCORD punishment or security status penalties. It allows you to hassle or get even with someone. You can even hire mercenaries to do the dirty job for you and they can use the wardec mechanism. And that's fine, it's part of the game, part of what makes it fun.
War declaration mechanism is abused. For some corps/alliance is it simply a way to circumvent the hi-sec security mechanisms, basically turning it into a big, highly populated null-sec zone.
Here are some real-time examples:
PIRAT alliance - 162 active wars and 53 pending wars Guardians of the Galaxy - 110 active wars Public Enemy - 12 active and 31 pending wars
There are others like Bad Neighbours, Forsaken Asylum, Marmite Collective and such. I'm positive there are more examples of this behavior.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature. I think it's wrong and needs to be dealt with.
My suggestion is to limit the allowed number of CONCURRENT war declarations or active wars for a corp/alliance to a single digit number, like 3 or 5.
Thank you |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 12:55:25 -
[2] - Quote
I'd also like to add that this behavior is very similar to ganking except for the penalty of losing a ship that comes with the latter.
Based on the killboard analysis, a large percentage of kills is around trade hubs and targeting industrial ships often.
This just adds to the problem, IMHO. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2292
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 12:55:53 -
[3] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Hi
War declaration is a mechanism allowing for PvP interaction in empire space without facing CONCORD punishment or security status penalties. It allows you to hassle or get even with someone. You can even hire mercenaries to do the dirty job for you and they can use the wardec mechanism. And that's fine, it's part of the game, part of what makes it fun.
War declaration mechanism is abused. For some corps/alliance is it simply a way to circumvent the hi-sec security mechanisms, basically turning it into a big, highly populated null-sec zone.
Here are some real-time examples:
PIRAT alliance - 162 active wars and 53 pending wars Guardians of the Galaxy - 110 active wars Public Enemy - 12 active and 31 pending wars
There are others like Bad Neighbours, Forsaken Asylum, Marmite Collective and such. I'm positive there are more examples of this behavior.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature. I think it's wrong and needs to be dealt with.
My suggestion is to limit the allowed number of CONCURRENT war declarations or active wars for a corp/alliance to a single digit number, like 3 or 5.
Thank you
There is no problem with the number of concurrent war a corp/alliance can currently have. More concurrent wardec means more people who can shoot you back. It balances itself as long as the opposition try to do something about it. If every corp currently decced by PIRAT actually tried to do something, there might be a change in their behaviour but right now, I'm guessing they do nothing about it so PIRAT and co. keeps on trucking. |

Syeed Ameer Ali
Evil Murder Society
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:10:06 -
[4] - Quote
Nah wardecs are awesome. The more the better.
Lower wardecs costs I say, so everyone can have more concurrent wardecs.
everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com
|

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3264
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:12:29 -
[5] - Quote
Also note that a new war is created every time a corp drops out of an alliance, when a corp at war joins an alliance or when an alliance at war disbands.
Large numbers of these "incidental" wars are a necessary result of how wars work. The trend of wardec corps being large and having large numbers of wars is a result of carebears calling for nerfs to wars and CCP blindly giving in without considering the consequences.
This is literally the result of carebears getting what they want. You wanted wars to be more expensive and to have more consequences for the aggressor and for the defender to have the ability to escalate unilaterally at no cost or risk to themselves and you got it. The result is highsec PVPers joining together to spread the massively increased costs around and to pool combat resources mitigate the risk of retaliation via the ally system.
You've people made your bed in Inferno, now you are laying in it rather than taking responsibility and admitting that maybe the changes that led to the problem were wrong you blindly call for more of the same nerfs.
It's hilarious. |

Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1708
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:19:18 -
[6] - Quote
Another wardec thread? I guess it has been a couple days.
Mercenaries are suppose to be a thing. How could a mercenary group operate if they could only have a single digit number of clients at a time? Especially in a world where the majority of wars end up with the target just evading the whole time?
So, -1. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:20:36 -
[7] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: You've people made your bed in Inferno, now you are laying in it rather than taking responsibility and admitting that maybe the changes that led to the problem were wrong you blindly call for more of the same nerfs. It's hilarious.
"I" haven't made anything. I've been in the game for less then 6 months and this is my first feature request of any kind. So don't generalize or jump into conclusions about things that aren't true.
I'm standing by my request. The people that are eager for PvP should be eager to jump into FW lowsec and show their skills there. The funny thing is I rarely see it on the killboards for people of the above mentioned alliances.
|

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2292
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:23:06 -
[8] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: You've people made your bed in Inferno, now you are laying in it rather than taking responsibility and admitting that maybe the changes that led to the problem were wrong you blindly call for more of the same nerfs. It's hilarious.
"I" haven't made anything. I've been in the game for less then 6 months and this is my first feature request of any kind. So don't generalize or jump into conclusions about things that aren't true. I'm standing by my request. The people that are eager for PvP should be eager to jump into FW lowsec and show their skills there. The funny thing is I rarely see it on the killboards for people of the above mentioned alliances.
The people who are eager to not engage in PvP should be eager to dock up and wait because nowhere is it written that PvP is not to be done in HS. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:26:34 -
[9] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Another wardec thread? I guess it has been a couple days.
Mercenaries are suppose to be a thing. How could a mercenary group operate if they could only have a single digit number of clients at a time? Especially in a world where the majority of wars end up with the target just evading the whole time?
So, -1.
100+ concurrent wardecs has nothing to do with mercenary clients and everything with bypassing CONCORD for easy kills. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3265
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:30:30 -
[10] - Quote
Exactly how would you know anything about why a mercenary group you aren't in and have no relation to has as many wars as it does?
Every single one of P I R A Ts wars could be a mercenary contract for all you know. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:31:40 -
[11] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:[quote=David Asanari][quote=Vimsy Vortis] The people who are eager to not engage in PvP should be eager to dock up and wait because nowhere is it written that PvP is not to be done in HS.
PvP can be done is Hi-sec. There are duels and ganking for this. But constantly wardeccing everything in sight is not it.
Wardecs are fine. Wardec abuse is not. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3265
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:39:45 -
[12] - Quote
Carebears get bored and quit the game so routinely that of course it's a different set of people every few years. They just consistentpy push the same short sighted ideas. The crap you're dealing with now is the result of your predecessors doing exactly what you're doing now. And when you've quit the game because carebearing got boring the next generation of carebears will complain about the crap you left them with. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:49:40 -
[13] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Carebears get bored and quit the game so routinely that of course it's a different set of people every few years. They just consistentpy push the same short sighted ideas. The crap you're dealing with now is the result of your predecessors doing exactly what you're doing now. And when you've quit the game because carebearing got boring the next generation of carebears will complain about the crap you left them with.
Once again stop assuming and generalizing as you're apparently very bad at it. Abusive wardeccing is just as much a carebearing. When you shoot down industrials in hi-sec like there is no tomorrow, it is in no way more "honorable" then shooting NPCs.
I'm in a small corp with an average online attendance of 4-5 people, most of them new to the game. There is no way we can stand up and fight against gangs that include: A Sleipnir. two Loki's, a Svipul and a Stilleto.
We are talking about alliances consisting of several hundreds members constantly wardeccing corps of all sizes to increase the chance of having a valid easy target in hi-sec. All these wardecs come with an "opt-out" option of paying some 400k-500k to end the war. So it's not about mercenary contracts, it's simply an abuse of game mechanics. |

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14558
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:51:21 -
[14] - Quote
David Asanari wrote: I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature.
That people would use it as they saw fit?
You bet it was. It was intended to do only one thing. Remove the loathsome presence of Concord in highsec between two parties for a fee.
It does precisely that.
"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.
|

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 13:58:53 -
[15] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:David Asanari wrote: I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature.
That people would use it as they saw fit? You bet it was. It was intended to do only one thing. Remove the loathsome presence of Concord in highsec between two parties for a fee. It does precisely that.
No, that's not what it does. In the abusive cases it removes the presence of Concord entirely for the corp/alliance. |

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2292
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:01:47 -
[16] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:David Asanari wrote: I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature.
That people would use it as they saw fit? You bet it was. It was intended to do only one thing. Remove the loathsome presence of Concord in highsec between two parties for a fee. It does precisely that. No, that's not what it does. In the abusive cases it removes the presence of Concord entirely for the corp/alliance.
I'm pretty sure you can't prevent CONCORD from destroying you while illegally destroying a ship from an NPC corp so your argument is invalid. There is also no abusive usage of the wardec system btw. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:03:59 -
[17] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: And when you've quit the game because carebearing got boring the next generation of carebears will complain about the crap you left them with.
I don't intend to quit the game. I can always join an NPC corp to avoid that.
But, I want to be in a player corp, as this is what MMO games are for. I found a good group of people to join in order to do what I currently want to do. And yes, abusive wardeccing is bothering me.
So you are not forcing me out of the game, you are forcing me to stay in an NPC corp, ruining the idea behind MMO games.
|

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:09:02 -
[18] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:David Asanari wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:David Asanari wrote: I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature.
That people would use it as they saw fit? You bet it was. It was intended to do only one thing. Remove the loathsome presence of Concord in highsec between two parties for a fee. It does precisely that. No, that's not what it does. In the abusive cases it removes the presence of Concord entirely for the corp/alliance. I'm pretty sure you can't prevent CONCORD from destroying you while illegally destroying a ship from an NPC corp so your argument is invalid. There is also no abusive usage of the wardec system btw.
Stop twisting my words as you see fit. I wasn't talking about NPC corp ships. I provided several examples of abusive wardeccing and explained the problems with it. |

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14558
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:10:57 -
[19] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:David Asanari wrote: I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original idea behind this feature.
That people would use it as they saw fit? You bet it was. It was intended to do only one thing. Remove the loathsome presence of Concord in highsec between two parties for a fee. It does precisely that. No, that's not what it does. In the abusive cases it removes the presence of Concord entirely for the corp/alliance.
It's intended to do that. That's the whole point of the mechanic, to get rid of Concord.
"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.
|

Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1709
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:11:51 -
[20] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Another wardec thread? I guess it has been a couple days.
Mercenaries are suppose to be a thing. How could a mercenary group operate if they could only have a single digit number of clients at a time? Especially in a world where the majority of wars end up with the target just evading the whole time?
So, -1. 100+ concurrent wardecs has nothing to do with mercenary clients and everything with bypassing CONCORD for easy kills. Ah, the easy kill meme.
I can't speak for every wardec, but many of those declarations are made on behalf of clients. Clients who have often have very good reasons to want to inflict damage or harm on a rival corporation. Regardless, a hard cap on wardecs would put a pure, mercenary corp out of business.
It would remove a profession from the sandbox, limit destruction, hamper the development of player-driven stories, and make highsec a more boring place all for, well, no reason at all that you have given.
"Easy kills" isn't really a thing. it is just an excuse for people who don't like losing at a PvP game.
As has been said a thousand times before, If you do not want to deal with wars then stay out of player corporations where you are intended to have to deal with wars. Wars and player corporations are completely optional for you, the player. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3274
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:11:56 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Unifex restated the purpose of the war declaration system just prior to the release of inferno.
The purpose is "to allow somebody who's in a player corporation to declare war against any other player corporation for any reason they can think of."
There is no abuse happening. People are using the mechanic how they want to use it and it was designed to be used for whatever reason players want to use it.
Don't try and hide the fact that you want it to be changed because you personally dislike how other players use mechanics behind the idea that it is being used in a way not in line with some mystical idea of how CCP want it to be used. CCP want you to use mechanics however you want to use them. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:19:03 -
[22] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCP Unifex restated the purpose of the war declaration system just prior to the release of inferno.
The purpose is "to allow somebody who's in a player corporation to declare war against any other player corporation for any reason they can think of."
There is no abuse happening. People are using the mechanic how they want to use it and it was designed to be used for whatever reason players want to use it.
Don't try and hide the fact that you want it to be changed because you personally dislike how other players use mechanics behind the idea that it is being used in a way not in line with some mystical idea of how CCP want it to be used. CCP want you to use mechanics however you want to use them.
I have the same right to request a change in a feature that's bothering me, lie the people who were bothered by drones and Ishtar, for example and asked for a nerf. I didn't like it, but it was nerfed for the balance of the game. It's being abused the same way that gankers abuse the fact that CONCORD doesn't pod, for example.
E-mails were intended for people to communicate with each other. And then people started abusing it and spam is illegal or limited in many cases now. Same thing about wardecs. A perfectly good game mechanic that is abused and needs to be controlled. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3274
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:27:19 -
[23] - Quote
When on the payroll of the wonderful Sengier we had to declare and maintain 10+ wars a week and ally in to 2-5 others just to shut him up. And that was a single client.
I'd legitimately expect 30% of P I R A T and Marmites wars to be that kind of crap. |

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14558
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:40:50 -
[24] - Quote
David Asanari wrote: I have the same right to request a change in a feature that's bothering me, lie the people who were bothered by drones and Ishtar, for example and asked for a nerf. I didn't like it, but it was nerfed for the balance of the game.
The Ishtar was a legitimate issue. Yours is not.
You have no right to do anything.
Quote: It's being abused the same way that gankers abuse the fact that CONCORD doesn't pod, for example.
And of course like all carebears you're anti PvP in general.
Go play Star Trek Online or something else that doesn't have PvP. EVE is a PvP game, and that means PvP belongs anywhere and everywhere.
"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
3277
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:45:47 -
[25] - Quote
It's good that we could get to the root of it.
You could have just said you were against PVP in highsec in general and feel entitled to have CCP take punitive measures against players that engage in gameplay you disapprove of. |

Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2786
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:55:01 -
[26] - Quote
Id prefer as little restriction as possible. The idea, as kaarous mentioned, is to use it how you want as many times as you want.
Dont like someone making lots of decs? Teach them a lesson and wardec them!
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|

Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1713
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 14:55:59 -
[27] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:I have the same right to request a change in a feature that's bothering me, lie the people who were bothered by drones and Ishtar, for example and asked for a nerf. I didn't like it, but it was nerfed for the balance of the game. You can beg CCP for anything you'd like. But generally, you will find your proposal to have a better chance if you present a compelling case on why a change would make the game better. So far, the closest I have seen is that you don't like people to use wardecs to extort other corporations for some reason. Why is that not appropriate gameplay for a dark, dystopian sandbox game? I guess removing wardecs would make your game better, or at least easier, but how does that make for better game for everyone?
David Asanari wrote:It's being abused the same way that gankers abuse the fact that CONCORD doesn't pod, for example. That's a pretty strange example. How would podding gankers do anything? It would just slightly increase the cost of a gank, not stop any criminal from attacking a target in highsec.
David Asanari wrote:E-mails were intended for people to communicate with each other. And then people started abusing it and spam is illegal or limited in many cases now. Same thing about wardecs. A perfectly good game mechanic that is abused and needs to be controlled. Wardecs were intended for player corporations to engage in limited PvP in highsec. That's all. It provides PvP with a limited set of targets with 24h notice.
How is a certain level of PvP in highsec too much for a PvP game? What is the correct number? Half of what it is now? 10% of the amount of current highsec PvP? And how did you arrive at this number?
The bottom line is that you are here proposing an "idea" whose sole purpose is to isolate you from other players in the PvP sandbox. If you want a way to engage socially without the risks of wardecs, then propose something like a "corp-lite" which will allow you and a few friends to do stuff together without worrying about wardecs. But do not come here and throw out ideas to literally rewrite the rules of the game in your favour apparently only so that your game will be easier and not expect to meet some resistance. |

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 15:05:36 -
[28] - Quote
Using the e-mail analogy, this thread is basically a group of "spammers" disliking the idea of restrictions on spam.
Telling me that I "have no right to ask" and their freedom of hi-sec PVP. I'm wondering when people will start quoting the US constitution. What a load of child responses on two pages.
Hi-sec wardeccers and CODE gankers are the ultimate carebears of this game. And every time there is proposal to nerf their hi-sec carebearing profit they begin to cry out about PvP freedom. These activities have as much to do with PvP as a high school shooting.
|

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14560
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 15:10:41 -
[29] - Quote
David Asanari wrote:Using the e-mail analogy, this thread is basically a group of "spammers" disliking the idea of restrictions on spam.
Actually, it's a group of people who don't want you to use a false flag to justify censoring us.
Quote: Hi-sec wardeccers and CODE gankers are the ultimate carebears of this game.
No, that's still you, who want all your risk taken away because you can't be asked to be at your keyboard.
Quote: These activities have as much to do with PvP as a high school shooting.
Reported. That's too far, even for carebear slime like you.
"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.
|

David Asanari
WH of rage
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 15:14:15 -
[30] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote: Hi-sec wardeccers and CODE gankers are the ultimate carebears of this game.
No, that's still you, who want all your risk taken away because you can't be asked to be at your keyboard.
Ah, I like how people use their favourite cliches when they don't have a counter argument.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:These activities have as much to do with PvP as a high school shooting.
Reported. That's too far, even for carebear slime like you.
Reported what? I used a very bad thing as an example in a negative analogy. What's wrong with that? You on the other hand called me a "slime". I'd say that's an insult.
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |