Jacob cirth
Ion Corp.
Citex Alliance
17
   |
Posted - 2012.03.06 08:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:EVE is never safe and we stand by that. I am not a game designer, so I have no true say in this, but I can honestly say that I do not think we will ever allow people to opt out of non-consensual danger and PVP. HOWEVER, it cannot be denied that the wardec system as it currently exists is a tool that is very often used for behavior that I, personally, would call griefing. Attacking a small, easy target for minimal cost is something for a small time criminal, not a PVP stud. Which means, in my personal opinion (in other words, this is not CCP gospel, nor a game design dogma), that paying cheap to gain an easy, semi-defenseless target should be able to be countered by equally cheap measures. EVE is harsh and often unfair, but that does not mean we cannot have some semblance of balance. When there is no balance to be had, the weight should fall in favor of the people wanting a good time. Besides, you can still suicide gank your target if you truly want that target dead. It is not like they are truly safe.
Wow, all respect I had for you as a professional just evaporated. It CAN, and MUST be denied that it is used for behavior that is called griefing. EVE is a game where the world is harsh, and the people harsher. This is the main attraction of the game and the reason I play. "Griefers" are merely playing the game as intended. The fact you as a senior GM, and thus, a senior representative of CCP in the eyes of us players, can say something like this publicly and admit that this is how you see things shows us that CCP have still not figured out their own game.
The fact of the matter is, when a player joins a player corporation, they have volunteered themselves to the possibility of PVP and wars. If they do not want it, they may leave the corporation. That was a cheap, and easy way to avoid the consequences of joining a corporation. That was balance. Now, the balance is heavily against an aggressor, regardless of the circumstances (which, by the way, are irrelevant).
As a professional, you must look at the situation and determine that a player is violating the purpose of a mechanic. In this instance, that answer is CLEARLY yes, and the person using the dec shield is in violation. The aggressors picked a valid target (any corporation or alliance. Remember, they signed up for this upon joining), paid the fees, accepted the risk of combat and opened the war. The defenders used a quirk in the mechanic to end the war prematurely, and unintentionally.
The only professional answer you can give is that the dec shield is exploiting the mechanic, yet the answer I see is essentially you picking and choosing winners with your opinion. I find it a shame that the GM group has devolved to this point, and even more so that CCP has allowed this to happen. The dec mechanics were fine, are fine, and will remain fine as-is. The game has thrived on the theme of harshness, and many, many customers were attracted to it through the tales of war, even in highsec (and in some cases, especially in highsec).
|