These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec mechanics -- Well needed changes

Author
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#21 - 2014-02-27 10:04:13 UTC
Sweeping analogies aside I think my idea is pretty good. Perhaps iterate with performing criminal acts allows the victim corp to wardec exclusively. Otherwise I suppose suicide gankers could have an advantage they don't deserve.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#22 - 2014-02-27 11:34:16 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Sweeping analogies aside I think my idea is pretty good. Perhaps iterate with performing criminal acts allows the victim corp to wardec exclusively. Otherwise I suppose suicide gankers could have an advantage they don't deserve.


That's why I liked it.
Except you're denying mining boosts but waver a lot to do the same to peeveepee boosts.
Now tell me, since mining been a dead business since odyssey (can't resist "Fozzie happens" joke), both in hi and null (and never really lived in low anyway), what makes said "carebears" not forget mining altogether and use the boosts to boost their L4-bearing? If you want to take boosts, take em all or take none - since only noobs who can't run L4 yet mine nowadays, you're ending up hurting them newbies you set on protecting from grief with that, I see a contradiction in terms commonly referred to as hypocrisy.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#23 - 2014-02-27 11:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
It's not hypocrisy. In your scenario the near total lack of mining would drive mineral prices through the stratosphere... and since people only mine to make a relatively safe dollar... the market is self regulating in that manner.

The game needs more ships dying. It was mentioned in the CSM minutes from like 2011, way back then they said not enough ships are dying and not enough minerals are exiting the game through explosions.

So my proposal works on two levels, stripping back the raw mineral generation from those not committed enough to expose themselves to wardecs in exchange for mining boosts while still allowing ad hoc fleets forming in null/FW/wherever to maintain the competitive edge.

I'm confused by your comment that mining is dead, which is total farce because nearly every highsec belt in my region has someone mining it. For what purpose I cannot say since there is such a huge surplus already but it's their choice. I just want them to face a little more meaningful risk for the rewards they get.

EDIT I shall add here that I am writing a little manifesto of sorts on lowsec, since that is where I've lived most of my EVE career and have I think a decent impression of its numerous shortfalls. For the sake of mining there it's enough to mention the lack of border control.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-02-27 11:55:54 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Wardecs exist to allow people to attack static assets in hisec space e.g. POS or POCO without getting concorded. If you just want to shoot other spaceships, go to lowsec.



No they do nto exist because of that. Wardec system exist sicne before you could even put POS in high sec.

War decs exist so peopel can kill each other in high sec.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#25 - 2014-02-27 12:00:55 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
It's not hypocrisy. In your scenario the near total lack of mining would drive mineral prices through the stratosphere... and since people only mine to make a relatively safe dollar... the market is self regulating in that manner.

The game needs more ships dying. It was mentioned in the CSM minutes from like 2011, way back then they said not enough ships are dying and not enough minerals are exiting the game through explosions.

So my proposal works on two levels, stripping back the raw mineral generation from those not committed enough to expose themselves to wardecs in exchange for mining boosts while still allowing ad hoc fleets forming in null/FW/wherever to maintain the competitive edge.

I'm confused by your comment that mining is dead, which is total farce because nearly every highsec belt in my region has someone mining it. For what purpose I cannot say since there is such a huge surplus already but it's their choice. I just want them to face a little more meaningful risk for the rewards they get.

EDIT I shall add here that I am writing a little manifesto of sorts on lowsec, since that is where I've lived most of my EVE career and have I think a decent impression of its numerous shortfalls. For the sake of mining there it's enough to mention the lack of border control.

You mean from before they removed gun mining, drone poo etc. Minerals have jumped massively in price indicating substantial increase in demand. Indicating more destruction (or stockpiling) is happening.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#26 - 2014-02-27 12:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
It's not hypocrisy. In your scenario the near total lack of mining would drive mineral prices through the stratosphere... and since people only mine to make a relatively safe dollar... the market is self regulating in that manner.

Mining for profit is pwned, dead, and forgotten. It's the saddest profit even in hisec, losing to missions (starting from L3), exploration, and every non-moronic form of trading.
(EDIT: Not only combat missions, but also hauling mission. And, screwedly enough, it's on par with mining missions.)
The only thing which seriously mines for profit is bot miners.
And I will leak one of my trade secrets here. Mineral prices depend just about 20% on mining amount, and 80% on how much it costs to haul them. The entire mineral price snafu is based on the simple principle of "should I haul or mine" decision. It will take a crap ton of freighters to haul everything miners had stored up from before odyssey. Every time hauling becomes better than mining, people haul, prices close in on each other, profit from hauling drops - people mine again until price spreads back.
So, buffing or nerfing mining links will have delayed, noticeable (albeit barely) impact on the market, but will drive down income of the mining newbies by 50%. Thus I call hypocricy.

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
The game needs more ships dying. It was mentioned in the CSM minutes from like 2011, way back then they said not enough ships are dying and not enough minerals are exiting the game through explosions.

So my proposal works on two levels, stripping back the raw mineral generation from those not committed enough to expose themselves to wardecs in exchange for mining boosts while still allowing ad hoc fleets forming in null/FW/wherever to maintain the competitive edge.

Raw mineral generation does not go entirely from mining. Nerfing only mining would just shift the balance, hurt the miners (who already took a whole quiver of Fozzies to their knees in Odyssey), buff the other mineral-providing activities, and do nothing to the market.
In short, you're just hitting the newbies. Thus I call hypocrisy.

Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I'm confused by your comment that mining is dead, which is total farce because nearly every highsec belt in my region has someone mining it. For what purpose I cannot say since there is such a huge surplus already but it's their choice. I just want them to face a little more meaningful risk for the rewards they get.

EDIT I shall add here that I am writing a little manifesto of sorts on lowsec, since that is where I've lived most of my EVE career and have I think a decent impression of its numerous shortfalls. For the sake of mining there it's enough to mention the lack of border control.

People who mine in hisec are:
1) Newbies. Mining has low entry barrier, peeveepee has impregnable entry barrier of tens of millions of SP required to hold your own in a peeveepee ship, easy to tell why they chose mining as a starting profession.
2) Bots. Self-explanatory.
3) Indy alts with no other purpose at the moment. Can't train all indy skills on one account in a lifetime, but unlike other professions, this one can actually be split into specialties. But you don't need those specialized ones 23/7, so when you're on, but with nothing for them to do, why not mine with them... entry is low anyway.
People who do NOT mine:
1) Anyone else, including anyone aimed at profit and many pre-odyssey miners. Since mining profits for perfect miner in a perfect ship on a perfect hisec rock are like 27mil ISK/hour, not including time needed to haul, refine, and sell, which are necessary to claim the "reward" you're speaking about and range from time loss to extra costs, making overall "reward" example of sadness.

You claim those people, who harvest poor reward already, suffer from the imminent downfall on account of suicide gank (or mine in Procurer, which is like losing 40% of 27mil per hour, not including the associated hassles), need any MORE risk they already take? I call hypocrisy.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Mascha Tzash
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2014-02-27 12:19:34 UTC
So ppl are not playing OPs game as he/she means it "should be played" or "is meant to be played".

About that 48h period of players beeing free fodder for the aggressor after dropping corp... If you don't like certain players or want them to suffer, you are probably free to gank them out of the sky at anygiven time of the day (downtime not included). Mayhaps the "friend list" in combination with a locator agent might help finding out where these players are.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#28 - 2014-02-27 12:40:16 UTC
It's not hypocrisy when you aren't addressing the point of mineral over-supply and lack of risk. Which wardecs partially solve through embargo and combat.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#29 - 2014-02-27 13:41:25 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
It's not hypocrisy when you aren't addressing the point of mineral over-supply and lack of risk. Which wardecs partially solve through embargo and combat.


Gooby pls. I haven't used that sentence on this board yet, but everything was first time one day.
Mineral over-supply point aside (since supply and demand only form 20% of mineral prices anyway), you seem to think that war decs against mining corps actually have any combat. That is downright silly.
Miners have no chance of fighting back, they never had any. They know that, unlike peeveepeeers they aren't stupid, and until they drop corp nobody would undock. In the meantime their hauling will be done by out-of-corp alts, or red frog. When corp is dropped, only then they will undock... and go mine.
Embargo? Nonsense. Embargo red frog and npc corp alts, then we'll talk.
Combat? Nonsense. Nobody undocks while they're grief dec targets (which is the only smart choice, I do not account for stupid, which is the main reason of losses in eve in any profession).
Lack of risk? With that amount of suicide gankers roaming around, risk is pretty damn high enough already. If gankers do not bother, it's their stupid, it doesn't mean miner isn't at great risk.

War decs achieve none of the above, except suspended operation of mining corp (they still exist?), or indy/hauling corp (these still do).
Your propositions achieve nothing but further nerf to already dying profession, which barely has anyone but newbies in it. If it's oh-so-market-regulated and oh-so-oversupplied as you say, why not let market take care of their "reward" (quoted for sarcasm)?
I am forced to call hypocrisy again.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#30 - 2014-02-27 15:13:56 UTC
although basil is outright nuts and ive spent the better part of another thread showing him that defenders do have options and can defend themselves (look at my killboard).

leaving a corp should be a thing. as far as i can tell, the deliberate targeting of players is limited. dec whatever corp they try to join, suicide gank them, bump them, steal their mission objectives and steal loot from their missions. However, be careful that the repeated targeting doesnt become considered harassment.

or maybe thats only for bumping. who knows.

again, and always: you dec the corp, not the player.

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"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Koffin Nail
Vinnell Corporation
#31 - 2014-02-27 15:52:26 UTC
Merchant Ally wrote:


Actually the system is that you pay per head, it's a flat fee of 50m on corps/alliances of up to 50 members, then you have to pay more per person. If I'm paying per person and the person leaves corp, shouldn't I still be able to shoot him? I did pay per head after all.
.


'Tis called a sandbox. Your $15, you can do whatever you want. You want to pay $15 to grief newbies, that's your prerogative. You can't get mad because they don't want to play with you. They paid $15 to do what they want to do, and if it means not playing with you, so be it. There is 40,000 other players in the game every hour of every day you can go grief instead.
CCP isn't going to dictate how people are supposed to play in the sandbox, or force two kids to play with each other.
Merchant Ally
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-02-27 16:24:14 UTC
This post will be dedicated to the complete and total moron who is Basil.
Let's address a few of his more moronic points and make reasoned refutations, rather than blustering around from one thing to another sounding like my grandmother in the middle of a Valium binge:

-Defenders have no way of fighting back:
Of course they ******* do, wardecs are currently heavily balanced in favour of the defender, he can bring in allies, sure it might cost him some ISK ("ohnoes, spending ISK, I want to hoard all my monies and stay docked all week, dis gaem bes so unfairs") but if he shops around and hires the right mercs for the job (marmite might seem good on paper but with the number of active decs they have they will only pursue targets for a premium; better to go with a smaller, more focused corp). I've been part of wars where the aggressor corp dropped half it's ******* members and started throwing out surrender offers because people joined their wardec as allies. Wardecs are not at all balanced in favour of the person doing the wardeccing, every wardec leaves you exposed to massive retaliation from persons unknown and the only way you will know for sure is by wardeccing that corp. If you're too stupid to have allies, then that does not mean the world is out to get you, it means that you are stupid.

-
Quote:
People do suicide ganks with 100 to 1 profit and you complain you have to be rich to suicide gank?

Re-read the post I made you fool, you need to be rich if you want to suicide gank that one wartarget who dropped corp and isn't flying anything special, not if you want to suicide gank for profit. Stop dropping in HTFU everywhere since you clearly don't understand what it means, not only that, but it's highly ironic that you're doing it in one area while complaining that wardecs should be called 'grief decs' etc.

-
Quote:
The current balance is IMMENSELY in the favor of the griefer, bear has no options to avoid

We've already covered this, now you are just sounding like a butthurt little bear who got wardecced and lost his (expendable) spaceship (though these ships are never expendable to bears now, are they?) so you're posting about how everything is so unfair in an uncontrolled and unfocused manner (grandmother, valium, etc.) while dropping HTFU in here and there to make yourself look cool or make fun of feyd or some other entirely asinine ****.

-
Quote:
Mining in hisec is dead!!!!1111one

Clearly it isn't, since when killing mining wartargets I've landed on mining ops of 10-20 barges and exumers, with blackbird anti-ganker support and an orca for hauling. Mining is far from dead, considering the organisation and sheer numbers of miners in that belt it is also far from just for newbies. They weren't bots or multiboxers either since I got talking with the miner I killed (unlike most miners he was quite calm about everything, he was taking part in that corp's mining op, he joined them shortly after. The profit from mining only sucks if you suck at mining, you keep making statements that are so untrue that I must assume they are true to you, this is not because EVE is biased against you, it's because you suck at EVE.

-
Quote:
Miners have no chance of fighting back

Some of the best fights I've had have come from me deccing corps that were dedicated mining corps. They all hopped into frigates and cruisers and fought very well, getting a couple of kills and avoiding us while on their mining ops for the most part.

Please do respond with some reasoned refutations Basil, I eagerly await them.

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Oh good, another one of those terrible shiptoasting threads where people think that Star Citizen is anything like EVE and will suck up all of EVE's players even though it's heavily instanced and is incapable of offering the scale of combat that EVE can provide.

It's also amusing to see the whole "PvPers are the only ones who make CCP any money and so we're better" pony trotted out again.

The ignorance in this forum is worse than the crying - both carebear and gankbear alike.


Not like that heavily instanced PvE wouldn't appeal to any of the players of EVE, certainly not the ones who shoot red crosses all day then get all hot and bothered when someone comes along to disturb them. I certainly couldn't see them flocking to star citizen. Lots of PvP pilots I've personally nurtured came from those who shot red crosses all day, making it harder to kill these red cross killers makes it harder to show them what EVE can actually be like, meaning they will just run along to SC once it comes along.
We aren't really talking about huge null battles here either, most hisec wars consist of maybe 100 people total, with much less being active, so the scale of hisec wars and PvP in SC would be similar, if somewhat larger in EVE.

Also, could you please enlighten me as to what a gankbear is, it is a term that makes no sense, it's like saying "Ted Bundy was a warm hearted killer". Complete confliction of terms.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#33 - 2014-02-27 17:02:32 UTC

IMO, the wardec mechanics are probably in one of the more optimal states than they have ever been.

A.) The Attacker generally start with the advantage (or think they do).
B.) The Ally system allows the defender to gain the advantage, if they have friends.
C..) Being wardecced does not force you to be a griefer victim, but does force you to face risks. You can avoid those risks (drop corp, stay docked, whatever), but being confronted is a good thing.

What this game truly needs to improve highsec wardecs are more utilized structures that people want to defend, and people want to attack. POS's are a decent motivator for highsec wardecs (although they can be a bit too much). These conflict drivers might include:

Private Agents in Space. (Perhaps these agents offer 2 missions at a time, giving missioners more choice).
Private Belt scanning Arrays to spawn mining sites in a system. (Perhaps these are unscannable expedition sites with better ores).
POS's already handle S&I and MFG.

Need something for haulers.... but can't think of something that isn't too broken..
---- Warp boost array, that doubles the warp speed of all corporate ships in system?

To be honest, I think making system wide, corp only devices would be hard to implement. Perhaps this needs to go the other way:
--- Warp speed inhibitor: A device that halves the warp speed of ALL SHIPS in a system. Hauling groups would probably pay to have these removed, but they need to be balanced real well, or they will be spammed.

In short, I think wardecs are moreless in a good spot. What needs to happen, is more conflict driver's. Give the carebears something worth fighting for!
JetStream Drenard
Digital Ghosts
#34 - 2014-02-27 17:13:15 UTC
Let me wing it...

GankBear - noun: A person in eve who gets a warm hearted, fuzzy, cream your pants style of enjoyment out of killing carebears. These people can be easily recognized by biblical references and the sincere desire to rehabilitate ignorant high sec dwellers and teach them how fun PvP is.
usage: The more you cry the more their capacitor fills. They are often found around high carebear areas of activity such as mining and mission running. Although their chance of success in rehabilitation is slight, their reward is the sandbox style of gameplay that most suits them. Most would argue that they are keeping the CCP HTFU family values alive, while their victims usually just believe that they have been personally attacked by a unstoppable adversary.
Ant: The opposite of carebear.
JetStream Drenard
Digital Ghosts
#35 - 2014-02-27 17:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: JetStream Drenard
Maybe the best way to fix this whole war dec thing is to focus on the cause and not the effect. unfortunately requires some artifcial mechanics but all have a purpose of tutorial teachings.

make pvp an intrinsic part of the tutorials. edit: since it is sadly missing from tutorials and needs to be promoted just as heavily as industrial, exploration, and pve aspects are now in the current tutorials.

-tutorials would teach pvp tactics such as range control, weapon selection, and pvp planning. complete with pvp fit ships and how best to use them. This would start with npc as it does now, but with increasingly better AI, then following the next step. Npc's in all missions of the game would operate like real players and warp off to repair forcing you to point/scram them to finish mission. they would also better dictate range of their own and use common player tactics and mods to win, forcing you to treat them more like real players.

-make new bro only pvp pocket areas within starter systems that the tutorial makes them visit for x number of cumulative game hours and fight each other to learn. Maybe even require a certain number of kills & losses to graduate. unfortunately this would require some sort of artificial mechanisms to keep older players out of. these pocket areas would contain free pvp fit ships to not only encourage po' new bro's to use them but also to help teach them fitting options. and each would have lessons on strengths and weaknesses and general usage.

-make pvp noob friendly corps accessible in the tutorial phase of the game by CCP actively promoting them for new bro's to join and learn. Maybe even required to join one of these corps for a week or more before joining any other corp, sort of a tutorial graduation mechanic. an artificial mechanic, but one with a very specific purpose. An unintended side effect of this is near permanent war dec of these corporations so idea probably needs major tweaking or corporations that know volunteer for this assignment and are willing to work with it.

-make corporations impossible to found by new players to the game. once again an artificial mechanic, but an important way to prevent people from forming these carebear only mindsets from the first few weeks of the game. It would require a certain number of months in the game and/or certain level of pvp sp to found, and would have a recruitment period to gain a 10-25 members or so in a 30 day period each with individual (not cumulative) levels of game time and/or pvp related sp.

Now if in the end people still decide to carebear through high sec, at least they would have the fundamentals to not believe that they are powerless to do anything about war or pvp. This is the best I can come up with and maybe it deserves its own post to hash out details and establish effectiveness. It also needs to prove that it is good for the game and will increase subscriptions. Which I think it could if applied effectively.
Merchant Ally
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-02-27 19:47:12 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

What this game truly needs to improve highsec wardecs are more utilized structures that people want to defend, and people want to attack. POS's are a decent motivator for highsec wardecs (although they can be a bit too much). These conflict drivers might include:


Have you ever actually taken a POS down? In lowsec, with dreadnaughts in siege mode doing 10k+ DPS it takes hours.
In highsec where there are no dreadnaughts you will need 10-15 DPS fitted range fitted (to hit the tower, which is about 15-30k from the pos bubble) battleships. Since these battleships have to fit for range (no blaster gank megathrons) they either have to sacrifice DPS (meaning you will need 20 BS to be equivalent to 1 dread) or fit no tank at all opting for all damage mods, meaning that, unless they have 3-4 people in logi ships on standby, the POS will kill them in short order.
Taking down a POS in highsec is like destroying the great wall of China with a a hammer and chisel.

Hisec wars have almost always been about killing the members of the target corp and this target corp are already at an advantage with tools such as directional scan and local, a careful and observant bear will be damn difficult to catch if running missions at war. However when you wardec a corp and 90% of it's members leave before the war even goes active, it leaves you feeling sort of cheated, I paid to shoot these people, shouldn't I at least get a refund?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#37 - 2014-02-27 20:46:54 UTC
Merchant Ally wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

What this game truly needs to improve highsec wardecs are more utilized structures that people want to defend, and people want to attack. POS's are a decent motivator for highsec wardecs (although they can be a bit too much). These conflict drivers might include:


Have you ever actually taken a POS down? In lowsec, with dreadnaughts in siege mode doing 10k+ DPS it takes hours.
In highsec where there are no dreadnaughts you will need 10-15 DPS fitted range fitted (to hit the tower, which is about 15-30k from the pos bubble) battleships. Since these battleships have to fit for range (no blaster gank megathrons) they either have to sacrifice DPS (meaning you will need 20 BS to be equivalent to 1 dread) or fit no tank at all opting for all damage mods, meaning that, unless they have 3-4 people in logi ships on standby, the POS will kill them in short order.
Taking down a POS in highsec is like destroying the great wall of China with a a hammer and chisel.

Hisec wars have almost always been about killing the members of the target corp and this target corp are already at an advantage with tools such as directional scan and local, a careful and observant bear will be damn difficult to catch if running missions at war. However when you wardec a corp and 90% of it's members leave before the war even goes active, it leaves you feeling sort of cheated, I paid to shoot these people, shouldn't I at least get a refund?


Yes, I've attacked more than a few POS's and POCO's in my time. I know very well how much effort is involved.

1.) Most highsec POS owners don't understand how to equip their POS, so it isn't quite so terrible destroying their POS. It still takes a significant amount of effort (lots of people or lots of time).

2.) I'll admit I've only been a part of a dozen or two highsec wars. Usually these start to defend a friendly POS under siege, where we often counter attack the assets of our enemy. A few times they have been revenge attacks to kill pilots in highsec, but these are almost always simple ganks, with little actual fighting. This is point you seem to not understand....

Wardecing a corp should be about hindering that corp and attacking the corp assets. I understand your desire to gank blingy mission running ships flown by risk adverse players, but they should have just as much right to run away or hide or evade your aggression as you do in aggressing them. Deal with it. And yes, I've hunted targets in highsec, lowsec, nullsec, and WH space. If you think catching a highsec missioner is hard, try it in nullsec where your presence sticks out far more prominently.

Some highsec wardecs are about shooting each other, but the motivation to defend rather than evade you simply doesn't EXIST. That is what you need to change if you want actual fights (rather than ganks) in your wardecs.


Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#38 - 2014-02-27 21:40:21 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Some highsec wardecs are about shooting each other, but the motivation to defend rather than evade you simply doesn't EXIST.


I wonder how many times in how many forms have I tried to explain that...

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Merchant Ally
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2014-02-27 22:56:47 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Some highsec wardecs are about shooting each other, but the motivation to defend rather than evade you simply doesn't EXIST.


I wonder how many times in how many forms have I tried to explain that...

Well if you're not motivated to defend your stuff, can you just give it to me instead, before someone else takes it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#40 - 2014-02-27 23:50:26 UTC
Merchant Ally wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Some highsec wardecs are about shooting each other, but the motivation to defend rather than evade you simply doesn't EXIST.


I wonder how many times in how many forms have I tried to explain that...

Well if you're not motivated to defend your stuff, can you just give it to me instead, before someone else takes it.


Tell us, if I wardec you today, what stuff of yours can I "take"?

That's the point, you can evade me extremely easy, you can get all your "stuff" safe, thereby leaving nothing to take. If there is nothing of yours for me to take, what are you motivated to defend?