| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
620
   |
Posted - 2012.04.17 10:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:It's also pretty bizarre that no matter how militarily powerful a corporation or alliance is, it can't physically win a war declared against it
This is why people that don't play Eve shouldn't write articles about it, just because there aren't some in game objectives he assumes there is no way to win 
Declaring a war mutual, then camping the aggressor into station or hounding them into leaving corp or baiting them and destroying as many of their shiny high sec "pee vee pee" ships is winning. And under the new system, from what I've gathered you could then force terms of surrender that involve monetary compensation from the aggressor.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
621
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 13:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:As long as high sec wars puts nothing at stake for the aggressor, consequently making it impossible for a defender to gain something from a victory, they will continue to be a "pay-to-grief" tool.
You could always, you know, declare the war mutual. Then ransom the aggressor to end the war, or force them to disband their corporation.
YuuKnow wrote:The article has good points. One has to admit that the War Dec system is really just a griefer enabler. CCP originally wanted a PvE zone and a PvP zone. Then they decided to create a PvP/griefer tatic in the PvE zone, and now they realize their mistake and can't figure out a way to fix it.
yk
This, pretty much, although I see it from a different perspective. I'd argue that CCP's problems with high sec aren't due to introducing griefer tactics.
I think the issue was that they inadvertently created PvE and PvP zones, realized no one was leaving the comfort of the PvE zone, and war declarations were introduced as a fix to that issue. War decs were the solution, not the problem, they just haven't been perfected yet.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
621
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 14:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If the aggressors lose and they have to disband the corp they have to pay all of 1.6M to re-create a new one. It's not a massive amount...
And you just forced them to end the dec, scrub their current kill board history and begin yet another brand new corporation. That kind of reputation tends to follow people around, and it's not unknown for corps to fall apart due to war decs and being forced to disband and reform.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Is this a loss? Are you going to ransom them all of 1.6M (beyond that, they just re-create the corp)?
In the mean time, did they manage to disrupt your 300M a day operation? Yes. See where the tiny asymmetry is?
Lol, 300m a day operation.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
622
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 15:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Killboard is an out of game feature that is mostly watched by other PvPers for e-peen slapping. You can see in this very thread an example of joining and leaving a corp dozens of times, this is how important will be to stay in same corp or disband it.
Also, killboards can be managed to be retained across corporations since it's just a website, a visitor won't see what went behind it.
No, the kill mail system is an in game feature that relies on 3rd party boards to function. Just because a single aspect of it is provided by a 3rd party doesn't render it irrelevant.
When recruiting corporations will use their kill boards, if you force them to reset their corporation and subsequently their kill board you will be setting them back considerably. As for kill boards being managed across multiple corporations, no. That is not how they work.
And yes, if you look at people's corp history corp hopping happens extensively. This is usually to avoid war decs. For example this character hopped in and out of the last alliance I was in a few times, because I dropped corp whenever I was transporting anything expensive.
Simi Kusoni wrote:A small indy corp won't pull much more than that. It's why attackers ask for 500M to 2B ransoms and not 2 trillions.
If you honestly believe a small industrial corp pulls a total of 300m a day then you've been doing something drastically wrong in Eve. Maybe some very bad one man operations pull that little, but for most players 300m is the equivalent of two, maybe three hours gameplay.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
623
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 17:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Making a PHP script that parses the API and replaces the corp names before storing them in the database does not seem impossible.
No, but it isn't something that happens.
If you were to do that, and create a kill board filled with altered or fake kill mails, the discrepancy would show during comparisons to battle clinic or eve kill. You would be mocked to the ends of the Earth, and your recruitment thread would probably get trolled into oblivion.
Especially if it become apparent that the reason you were faking kill mails was because you had to reform your corp after someone declared a war mutual and tried to hold you hostage. 
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Not all farm incursions.
Also look at the average money per player data that CCP posted. It's much less overabundant than you say.
Incursions, now officially the only income source in Eve. Lol.
Anyway, CCP statistics are pretty much useless, especially when you don't bother to link them. I mean, what is it, average isk per hour? How is that calculated? I have three alts, does that mean CCP count me as making <100m an hour when I'm doing PvE because it's done per account? Is it based on the amount of ISK in my wallet? In which case stats would show 75% of players are **** poor, coz I keep all my money on one toon.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
623
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 17:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Where the hell are you mining in highsec?
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:are you mining in highsec?
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:are you mining
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:mining
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
623
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 17:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:There's plenty of 2-5 men small merc / harass / station games corps, it'll be hard to go check them out, and it's not like they had a big name to defend to begin with.
If you are honestly having trouble with a 2-5 man corporation you deserve to be forced to dissolve your corporation.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Average ISK in wallet
Well, there is your problem with those stats. Let's have a look at one example:
Average for characters on active accounts: 372tn ISK / 745,000 = 499 million ISK
Now work out the effect of alts on this calculation.
*EDIT: Also, cool, if I sell some assets I'm nearly in the top 100 :D Thought the average would be higher than that.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
624
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 18:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:YOURE the one talking abouit indy corps and you berate me for asking about mining. nice job invalidating your own argument and showing youre just looking to troll.
Yes, because you assumed my comments on income were based on a single person, or small number of people, mining.
MINING.
Lol. As I said in my original comment, a "300m a day operation" for a small industrial corp is pretty terrible. There is a reason industrial is not synonymous with mining.
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:I see you editted your quote too
You mean the edit where I clearly typed "EDIT", and showed my addition?
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
624
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 18:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jim Luc wrote:Xorv wrote:The article and it's ideas for Wardecs are terrible. The worst part is the structure idea, making you have to defend a static location gives all the power to blobs and is yet another blow to small gangs and guerrilla warfare. So make it multiple locations located in the defender's systems? The attacker should have something valuable that can be lost, not just paying a bribe so concord looks the other way... Risk vs reward, amiright?
How do you define the "defender's systems"? My corp at the moment is an alt corp based in syndicate, could I now war dec a high sec care bear alliance and they'd have to come into syndicate with a structure grinding force to fight back against me?
That would certainly be entertaining at the very least.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
627
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sri Nova wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:
How do you define the "defender's systems"? My corp at the moment is an alt corp based in syndicate, could I now war dec a high sec care bear alliance and they'd have to come into syndicate with a structure grinding force to fight back against me?
That would certainly be entertaining at the very least.
If the warring parties were banned from NPC stations. Then waging war from syndicate into high sec would place a huge amount of stress on your war party. This is why warring parties should be banned from NPC stations, it gives immediate need to get the war over and done with. While creating a need for logistics so they can run the war, with the bonus of putting both parties at risk .
Well, I honestly can't argue with that well thought out and completely impossible to exploit idea.
--Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK-- |
| |
|