Do you misquote people intentionally or do you just have difficulty following English? Understandable if it's not your first language.

I was speaking about 0.0 alliances who rely on alts in "safe" space to prop up their terrible empire. Which accounts for a large portion of that 72% you're talking about.

Do you misquote people intentionally or do you just have difficulty following English? Understandable if it's not your first language.

I was speaking about 0.0 alliances who rely on alts in "safe" space to prop up their terrible empire. Which accounts for a large portion of that 72% you're talking about.

Why are people in 0.0 alliances if they require a safe haven to recover from their losses?

Instead of facing the obvious, there is an uncomfortable expectation that the game needs to be changed to accomodate these people, who're quite literally doing it all wrong.

Dear CCP, I don't happen to have arms or legs. I'm typing this through tactical headbutting and a special attachment. Obviously you need to rewrite your entire game for me, if you can pop me an email when you're done it'd be much appreciated, TIA.

Thunk you can't argue with stupid, save yourself the trouble and just let them talk among themselves in the dieing embers of a 50 page thread. I'm just glad some of these posters aren't arguing for things I support, their own words are enough to sink any argument they make, straw men made flesh!

Btw I'm not "pro-carebear" as it might appear. I'm simply saying that it's a bit strange that CCP isn't acting in their own interests, which is alienating people who just want relatively safe and steady growth. Carebears are casual players ,they are not on the forums and will not defend their interests. There are groups of friends who just like to run some hisec missions or do some safe mining for steady growth. Forcing those groups of friends to drop out of their corps is unproductive and silly. They might fight a bit but they'll definitely lose to professional griefers. They might quit or drop to NPC corps and just be annoyed about not being able to play "together". Mission accomplished I guess? (player annoyance)

Having said this i'd be perfectly happy if CCP completely messed up the game to below critical sub mass cuz then I can quit along with others and play more BF3 :) So hmm, i guess i should stop making useful suggestions then :)

You guys do realize that the game will not be sustainable just by hardcore PVP players? I bet there's just not enough subs coming from those to cover CCP's operating expenses. So yeah by all means go ahead and convince CCP to suicide EVE. Go individual wardecs, free unlimited ganking, we should even have a module for auto-lock and fire on red targets, so that griefers can just leave 20-30 tornados outside of station in afk mode and chill while their 3-man mining corp target tries to undock. Hells, turn all of EVE into 0.0 so that newbies and players who just lost their first battlecruiser they've been saving for for a week have absolutely no chance to recover. Finally, add a super-titan - a ship that can destroy NPC stations and with them all players in there wiping out their SP permanently. This is not a game for sissies, this is for real hardcore players. Carebearing sissies who need to dock in safety of hisec have no place in Xorv's "sandbox PVP" vision. So step up to your own high standards, you want safety of docking in station? That's weak. Penalties in "real pvp" should be real. When you die that should mean you are dead.

If by saying this you were talking about "0.0 alliances who rely on alts in safe space to prop their empire", i apologize for not being able to read your mind over the internet.

For those in Null who do not have such areas, they have alts in NPC corps in high sec.

It was the post I was answering that I expected you to read, the one that said:



I'm sure now I've explained this to you, you can see perfectly what I meant about misquoting out of context or just not being able to comprehend. This is the problem when you leap into a thread reading only the last couple of posts. No need to apologise to me personally, just bear this in mind in future. If you aren't able to follow all the details whether through mental disadvantage or simply English not being your native language then it maybe beneficial to post less and read more.

Actually you were answering to my quote directly, context had nothing to do with this particular exchange.

A quote where you were replying to a someone saying that if 0.0 alliances are 'goofing off in highsec then they aren't being challenged enough'. I know. It's so hard to keep ones attention fixed when these threads go over into another page isn't it?

I didn't read the rest of your post as I saw a lot of question marks and figured it'd be a massive waste of my time answering so many questions.

Regardless at least I hope you are not emotionally abusive at home to your wife and kids? You seem like the OCD controlling type who also tries his hardest to hurt other people with vitriolic remarks.

Ad hominem #1. Dream Five's credibility -= 1

I was simply genuinely concerned about emotional well being of people close to you.

But do they understand that the rest of the motivation for wardecs in hisec is poorly rationalized at fundamental level (forcing hisec players without POSes who do not want to fight into leaving player corps)?

This expansion will ruin the wardec system altogether.

I hope in 2-3 months time we will see statistics on how the wardecs went down to 1/5 of the average amount.

Then it will be interesting to discuss how this could have happened and how this was not supposed to happen on an expansion that was "focused" on warfare.

There are plenty of ways to avoid a wardec NOW. You can join/leave corporations, you can dock up, you can log off, you can go to wh-space, you can go to 0.0, you can fight, you can surrender, you can hire mercs and on and on. The only limit is your creativity.

Now all this is gone and enforced by a useless system that makes sure a war follows you and is expensive as hell if you want to have a little fun, while it grants the big guys immunity by making it unaffordable.

So i predict the expansion to further warfare will fail and kill most of empire warfare.

Should be obvious to anyone.

/agreed

However, I would still like to state that CCP needs to stop focusing on making high sec more dangerous and start focusing on how to make those quite reasonably safe null zones more treacherous...
Like I've said, it's null sec.. There should be on going battles all the time for everyone. CCP needs to find a way to force the alliance to actually have to defend their territories instead of just setting up a border fence and calling it good.

I don't know how they'd do that, but i'm not a game designer so I shouldn't have to figure it out for them.

However, I kinda get the feeling that CCP is protecting and easying the null sec way of life because it's their way of life.

CCP needs to split up those of them that play Eve into 4 equal sized groups. 1 for high sec life, one for low, 1 for null, and 1 group for wh space. This way they could perhaps have equal representation by the different player bases of Eve and we can all get equal opportunity. Since the players of CCP seem to be more focused on the null sec way of life, then they tend to make their own lives better and seemingly punish those that don't share their way of life.
Hence the former wardec system in which alliances would have been overly protected through cost of war, while the average sized 20-50 man high sec corps become very lucrative targets.


CCP, stop messing up the war dec system just because inferno is about war. Wars exist in two other areas as well. Low sec and null sec. TBH, null needs the most tweaking in the war department cause there's not enough of it between the major alliances.

P.S. - why does the thread on POS's get a crap ton of CCP comments, some of which actually stating things besides we';re here and we're working on it while all the other threads including this one which was created by CCP go unattended by CCP and even if they do drop in, it's just to say they're dropping in.

Seriously, between this thread and this - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=104991 - we could really use a CCP comment that either gives info on your plans or at least sets CCP's view on them.

We understand that if you give us info it's subject to change at any time. All you have to do is put that disclaimer at the top.
At least seeing ya'lls ideas behind this would help y'all to get some feedback from the player base.

Kind of annoying that y'all always sit back and release the info to the live server without getting feed by on the suggested changes before they're implemented which leads to rage in game and on the forums because it's being exploited for the bad implementation it was.
Let us know what your current plans are and we'll discuss them. Sure, we're not going to agree, but that's Eve. However, if you give us the current plans then maybe you'll find a better balanced solution before it's implemented and leads to mass rage quits of high sec players.

Let me start by saying that I love the game of EVE. There are so many options and styles of play - posibilities are endless.

Being a hisec industrialist I've previously objected to odds not being even when getting decked - PvP is not my style of play, I dont like it, I dont want it.
I'm fitted for industry, NOT for PvP, and this is the whole core of the problem.

Me with my 5 industrial accounts cannot enjoy having a corp.
And with these new changes, it will be pure stupidity for me to create a corp.

It is a god idea to streamline the war decking system, and I'm all for new and improved stuff, but what I dont like is to be forced into a style of play I dont want and have no interrest in.

The previous 2 times I created my own small corp, I got decked and had to dismantle the corp again. I have no chance of wining, dont want to PVP, and just have to be a sitting duck - where is the fun in that?

I have previously suggested the idea of a "Small Corp Protection Act", allowing for small corps with a limited number of members to enjoy their style of play in our world of EVE, and choose NOT to participate in the war decking system if they dont want to (Checkable option in the corp settings).
What this number should be is not up to me to deside, but somewhere around 8-10 members sounds reasonable to me.

Of cause a "soft" carebear suggestion as this, is way out of line and basis for massive denigration, but it is still my oppinion.

As it stands now, I've choosen to cancel 3 of my 5 accounts . This in my oppinion is NOT a good sollution for the world of EVE (all of us) either, but the style of play I've enjoyed for allmost 6 years now, unfortunately is not "allowed" any more.


In general I would like to say to CCP that all expansions, new content and especially possibilities are most welcome, and keeps EVE being the best game to be part of, just dont force people into a style of play they dont want.

I really hope You will consider some form of "Small Corp Protection Act" allowing players for themselves to deside how they want to be a part of EVE.

This post could most fitting me signed with:
5 -> 2

Let me start by saying that I love the game of EVE. There are so many options and styles of play - posibilities are endless.

Except thats precisely what you don't like or want in the game. You want to do what you want with absolute impunity or interference from others.

If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly.

This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec.

Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities?
A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.

I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.

Amen!!!

Create an Indy Wardec function that will force PvP'ers to mine for week lol - that is indeed the equivalent!

I heard once that WoW had fishing. There you go.

How exactly wardecs destroy the enjoyment of others?

Being wardecced or wardeccing yourself allows you to fight in the Empire, with all the convenient stations to dock and rep, without the nasty bubbles and caps/supercaps, with the abundance of supplies and replacement ships.

Don't you enjoy fighting with other people?

Indeed, PvP is nothing but a huge waste of my time.

PvP'ers can rage against it all they want - I'm NOT playing their game.
If CCP tries to force me, they'll lose my business.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure the majority of EVE players would agree (a bit of an assumption but a pretty safe one when you consider how few of them live in losec and nullsec).

Get rid of the silly Wardec mechanic ... there are already plenty of ways to get cheap griefer thrills from ganking or more legitimate lo or null sec activities.

CCP doesn't like all those little corps that bore new players out of that game. And I wont blame them. If you can't adapt to the new system or can't find a way to make ISK proper (a few billion a week ain't that hard in highsec) you don't deserve a medal.

Dear hi-sec industrialists, miners, mission/incursion runners, traders, etc.

You are not supposed to leave yourself defenseless in this game. Hire someone to protect you. Train some combat skills. Get combat pilots in your corps. Learn to defend yourself.