These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dodging Wardecs

First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#361 - 2014-09-10 22:26:47 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I'm saying is that the wardecc mechanics are working as designed.


Then it's time for you to defend that statement.

What makes you think that they intended wardecs to be avoided with a few million isk and a few minutes time? Why do you think this given the existence of the surrender mechanic?

"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.

ashley Eoner
#362 - 2014-09-10 22:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Veers Belvar wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing will change. Either the main will drop to NPC corp or will just play on other alts until the war is over. I don't think any game mechanic is going to be able to force PvE players into wars that they have no interest in fighting.

WEll there are mechanics that are possible to force PVE players into fighting the lazy carebear "pvpers" but those mechanics would kill the game via dropping the player base into a tiny group. Sure the game would soldier on for another few years with 2-8k people playing though.

Or they could stop being lazy carebears and gank the targets you want to kill. Of course that's a non starter because then they might suffer pvp sometime randomly in the next month and they can't have that. They only want PVP when they know they outnumber their target.


Or even better they could stop trying to pick on newbies and fight the veterans in null/low/wh space. You know that huge area that's supposed to be all about PVP and massive battles?? Oh wait they can't because they the "elite PVPers" decided they wanted their blue donut instead of the PVP they claim they want.



Ramona McCandless wrote:
It's so easy

Chuck wardecs

Chuck NPC corps

Chuck CONCORD

Allow Sov in Highsec.

Done.
Enjoy your niche game with maybe 2000 people online. Because on one is going to stick around for 24/7 curb stomping action.

On the other side almost no one will join and stay around in a game where you can't do anything unless you're part of the two or maybe three alliances that own everything. Sure some friends of the mega corps will join but your average newbie will just give up before the free trial is over.

Since what you're asking for is null sec everywhere It's probably more likely that everything will just form into huge blue donuts as history has shown. The reality is the so called elite pvpers of nullsec very much prefer a safe stable environment to play in and are risk adverse.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#363 - 2014-09-10 22:41:08 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing will change. Either the main will drop to NPC corp or will just play on other alts until the war is over. I don't think any game mechanic is going to be able to force PvE players into wars that they have no interest in fighting.

WEll there are mechanics that are possible to force PVE players into fighting the lazy carebear "pvpers" but those mechanics would kill the game via dropping the player base into a tiny group. Sure the game would soldier on for another few years with 2-8k people playing though.

Or they could stop being lazy carebears and gank the targets you want to kill. Of course that's a non starter because then they might suffer pvp sometime randomly in the next month and they can't have that. They only want PVP when they know they outnumber their target.


Or even better they could stop trying to pick on newbies and fight the veterans in null/low/wh space. You know that huge area that's supposed to be all about PVP and massive battles?? Oh wait they can't because they the "elite PVPers" decided they wanted their blue donut instead of the PVP they claim they want.



Ramona McCandless wrote:
It's so easy

Chuck wardecs

Chuck NPC corps

Chuck CONCORD

Allow Sov in Highsec.

Done.
Enjoy your niche game with maybe 2000 people online. Because on one is going to stick around for 24/7 curb stomping action.

On the other side almost no one will join and stay around in a game where you can't do anything unless you're part of the two or maybe three alliances that own everything. Sure some friends of the mega corps will join but your average newbie will just give up before the free trial is over.

Since what you're asking for is null sec everywhere It's probably more likely that everything will just form into huge blue donuts as history has shown. The reality is the so called elite pvpers of nullsec very much prefer a safe stable environment to play in and are risk adverse.


What's fascinating is that they already have the exact system they want - nullsec, it's just that no one wants to be there! So instead they have decided to come to where the people actually want to be - highsec, and turn it into nullsec! It's all pretty crazy.
Trixie Lawless
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2014-09-10 22:56:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Trixie Lawless
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question from a few pages ago, by the way.

If you are the camp claiming that wardecs are fine right now and this isn't an exploit, then I want you to tell me why you think CCP designed and intended for wardecs to have the effect of costing the defender a few million isk and a few minutes time.

Because I don't think that is their intent, to have wardecs be completely trivial. Since you do, I want you to defend that position.



I am not retyping everything my phone just erased. I condense it down.

The mechanics are fine now. Its hi sec for a reason. You want to be able to blow up anyone who crosses your path, null sec is that way ---->

You want to blow up a bunch of Indy toons in hi sec, grow a pair and gank them.

Mad because you waisted billion of isk on wardecs even though you know how the mechanics work... Learn to read details before selecting the corp.

How hard is it? Indy toons have to HTFU when they are ganked and put up with all the mocking and people telling them learn the game... Combat toons should have to do it too. Its called info, read it.
ashley Eoner
#365 - 2014-09-10 23:01:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Veers Belvar wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing will change. Either the main will drop to NPC corp or will just play on other alts until the war is over. I don't think any game mechanic is going to be able to force PvE players into wars that they have no interest in fighting.

WEll there are mechanics that are possible to force PVE players into fighting the lazy carebear "pvpers" but those mechanics would kill the game via dropping the player base into a tiny group. Sure the game would soldier on for another few years with 2-8k people playing though.

Or they could stop being lazy carebears and gank the targets you want to kill. Of course that's a non starter because then they might suffer pvp sometime randomly in the next month and they can't have that. They only want PVP when they know they outnumber their target.


Or even better they could stop trying to pick on newbies and fight the veterans in null/low/wh space. You know that huge area that's supposed to be all about PVP and massive battles?? Oh wait they can't because they the "elite PVPers" decided they wanted their blue donut instead of the PVP they claim they want.



Ramona McCandless wrote:
It's so easy

Chuck wardecs

Chuck NPC corps

Chuck CONCORD

Allow Sov in Highsec.

Done.
Enjoy your niche game with maybe 2000 people online. Because on one is going to stick around for 24/7 curb stomping action.

On the other side almost no one will join and stay around in a game where you can't do anything unless you're part of the two or maybe three alliances that own everything. Sure some friends of the mega corps will join but your average newbie will just give up before the free trial is over.

Since what you're asking for is null sec everywhere It's probably more likely that everything will just form into huge blue donuts as history has shown. The reality is the so called elite pvpers of nullsec very much prefer a safe stable environment to play in and are risk adverse.


What's fascinating is that they already have the exact system they want - nullsec, it's just that no one wants to be there! So instead they have decided to come to where the people actually want to be - highsec, and turn it into nullsec! It's all pretty crazy.
I'm completely confused as to why no one has pointed this out. I can only imagine that the people who play in nullsec are aware of this and thus are avoiding any mention of this fact.

The reality is there's a huge area of eve dedicated to the kind of PVP that these people claim they want.


As you said earlier Veers the people have voted and the results are clear as day in null and highsec.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#366 - 2014-09-10 23:02:01 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

What's fascinating is that they already have the exact system they want - nullsec, it's just that no one wants to be there! So instead they have decided to come to where the people actually want to be - highsec, and turn it into nullsec! It's all pretty crazy.


Oh Veers... Oh Veers

I don't know if I should tell you that you're wrong or give you a big hug and say "It'll be alright Veers... It's okay".

Yes Veers no one wants to be in nullsec... Highsec is where it's at.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#367 - 2014-09-10 23:08:33 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

What's fascinating is that they already have the exact system they want - nullsec, it's just that no one wants to be there! So instead they have decided to come to where the people actually want to be - highsec, and turn it into nullsec! It's all pretty crazy.


Oh Veers... Oh Veers

I don't know if I should tell you that you're wrong or give you a big hug and say "It'll be alright Veers... It's okay".

Yes Veers no one wants to be in nullsec... Highsec is where it's at.


What % of gameplay takes place in highsec these days? 75%? 90%? Go check the eve map average pilots in space stat. Or just do what I have done and roam through nullsec....empty system after empty system, like a ghost town many times. Last time I was there we hard to arrange a fleet fight, because we couldn't find anyone else to engage. In highsec I see ships everywhere, local is jammed, and everyone is active. Which would you say is flourishing?
ashley Eoner
#368 - 2014-09-10 23:16:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

What's fascinating is that they already have the exact system they want - nullsec, it's just that no one wants to be there! So instead they have decided to come to where the people actually want to be - highsec, and turn it into nullsec! It's all pretty crazy.


Oh Veers... Oh Veers

I don't know if I should tell you that you're wrong or give you a big hug and say "It'll be alright Veers... It's okay".

Yes Veers no one wants to be in nullsec... Highsec is where it's at.


What % of gameplay takes place in highsec these days? 75%? 90%? Go check the eve map average pilots in space stat. Or just do what I have done and roam through nullsec....empty system after empty system, like a ghost town many times. Last time I was there we hard to arrange a fleet fight, because we couldn't find anyone else to engage. In highsec I see ships everywhere, local is jammed, and everyone is active. Which would you say is flourishing?

Indeed the whole issue comes down to people wanting PVP but when they say "pvp" it's code for "pvp I know I will win!!". In nullsec their drop might lose due to a counter drop etc. Much better to just wardec a bunch of newbies and industrialists in highsec.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2014-09-11 00:20:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

What makes you think that they intended wardecs to be avoided with a few million isk and a few minutes time?

What CCP intended isn't really what matters at this point, because regardless of their original intentions they've given no indication (to my knowledge) that they are overly displeased with the wardec system as is and have any desire to change it in any significant manner.

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?
Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#370 - 2014-09-11 04:12:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

Not true. I think wardeccs work fine. They are effective at hitting medium-large corps which don't want to disband. They are ineffective against 1 man corps (like incursion runners use). I think this is 100% WAD. Wardeccs are a tool to engage organizations that are willing to fight, not a tool to force individuals who don't want to fight into PvP without CONCORD protection.


This right here is an example of the working as intended, self correcting nature, of the current Dec system. What can one expect when attacking a shell corporation? Little to nothing at all. Their very existence is largely trivial. If you want to have a profitable war experience, then you should make wiser target selection decisions. The Med-Large corp that isn't primarily Null oriented would be ideal. It is non trivial for them to disband. Corp assets such as a POS's don't take just 5 minutes tear down. Research, industry and invention jobs can't just be abandoned without cost. There may even be POCO's to consider as well. This is a corp that is worthy of a war dec. There are plenty of them to chose from as well.

I wouldn't care in the least if war dec mechanics changed to be more 'sticky', at the same time, I'm hardly sold on why a minute of dev time should be invested in such a thing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#371 - 2014-09-11 04:22:04 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

"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.

ashley Eoner
#372 - 2014-09-11 04:35:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

They are putting forth the effort to defend themselves via what you call wardec dodging. So what's your complaint now? That it takes too much effort to find a corp that can't easily dodge a wardec?


What's next? Complaining that wartargets are allowed to sit docked up?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#373 - 2014-09-11 04:37:11 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

They are putting forth the effort to defend themselves via what you call wardec dodging. So what's your complaint now? That it takes too much effort to find a corp that can't easily dodge a wardec?


No, they are not putting forth effort. I outlined what putting forth effort actually looks like earlier in this thread.

Abuse of an exploit is not effort. It's effortless, that's part of what makes it an exploit.

The intended method to get rid of a wardec is the surrender mechanic.

"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.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#374 - 2014-09-11 04:37:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

Avoidance is a defense. Acknowledging they avoided a situation that favors their opponents means they did defend themselves.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#375 - 2014-09-11 04:38:22 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

Avoidance is a defense. Acknowledging they avoided a situation that favors their opponents means they did defend themselves.


Answer the question, NPC alt.

What makes you think that CCP intends for wardecs to be trivially removed with a few minutes time and a few million isk?

"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.

ashley Eoner
#376 - 2014-09-11 04:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

They are putting forth the effort to defend themselves via what you call wardec dodging. So what's your complaint now? That it takes too much effort to find a corp that can't easily dodge a wardec?


No, they are not putting forth effort. I outlined what putting forth effort actually looks like earlier in this thread.

Abuse of an exploit is not effort. It's effortless, that's part of what makes it an exploit.

The intended method to get rid of a wardec is the surrender mechanic.
So spending time and isk to close a corp and reform is not effort. Randomly clicking declare war is effort?

Because as I stated earlier. If you put effort into picking your wartarget then you won't have to worry about dodgers.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2014-09-11 04:40:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

They are putting forth the effort to defend themselves via what you call wardec dodging. So what's your complaint now? That it takes too much effort to find a corp that can't easily dodge a wardec?


No, they are not putting forth effort. I outlined what putting forth effort actually looks like earlier in this thread.

Abuse of an exploit is not effort. It's effortless, that's part of what makes it an exploit.

The intended method to get rid of a wardec is the surrender mechanic.
CCP hasn't deemed it an exploit, so by what claim is it one?

Also smart use of mechanics by design should decrease the effort in achieving a goal. Nothing wrong there. that surrender exists as an option doesn't change this. Nothing has been stated that supports the idea that surrender should be the only option.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#378 - 2014-09-11 04:42:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bryen Verrisai wrote:

Until they do the burden is on the wardeccer to find the right targets. And really, if you want fights but aren't willing to put forth the effort to find them why do you deserve them?


To turn that around on you, in a PvP game, if you don't put the effort to defend yourself, why do you deserve to not explode?

Avoidance is a defense. Acknowledging they avoided a situation that favors their opponents means they did defend themselves.


Answer the question, NPC alt.

What makes you think that CCP intends for wardecs to be trivially removed with a few minutes time and a few million isk?

The fact that they don't declaring doing it as an exploit.
The fact that they haven't used the obvious solution of having decs follow characters.
They fact that they haven't locked the ability to drop corp during a dec.

Essentially the fact that they haven't done anything to support the opposite position.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#379 - 2014-09-11 04:44:41 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
So spending time and isk to close a corp and reform is not effort. Randomly clicking declare war is effort?


Declaring war is intended.

Now, what makes you think that CCP intends for wardecs to be 100% mitigated by this exploit?


Quote:

Because as I stated earlier. If you put effort into picking your wartarget then you won't have to worry about dodgers.


And I reject that, the same as I would the "go to low/nullsec" fallacy.

EVE is a PvP game. Not just in lowsec or nullsec. 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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#380 - 2014-09-11 04:49:01 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The fact that they don't declaring doing it as an exploit.


Really?

Are you aware that there still exists at least one way to avoid CONCORD? They haven't declared it an exploit, I imagine because I have not shared the trick with anyone else, nor repeated it after discovering it accidentally.

They have not declared this action as an exploit.

Quote:

Essentially the fact that they haven't done anything to support the opposite position.


And I want that changed. Hence my posting here. Many things were legal before they weren't, that's not precedent of anything.

"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.