EVE General Discussion

No, there is not. They were being told about the L5 bug for literally years, and they did not fix it until a long bloody time after it was first brought up.

This is no different, it has a large amount of entitled highsec players defending an advantage they are not supposed to have.

Surrender is only an option if it's offered, if it's not then it's no longer a valid option.

If you take away the only get out clause what do you expect?

And yes I presume that even if it was offered some would shut up shop anyway.

What I will say though is this, I have never been in a wardec where surrender was offered.

And in reply to ANA..

#5, My mate has a corp I used to be in, he got decced, a few went out to try and fight and lost every ship, understandable as they are all indy players. The result was that it kept getting extended for weeks because they tried to fight back. End result? a rolled corp as they had no other choice, they couldn't do a thing to try and play.

Why exactly am I a liar? Because I'm pointing out that while you keep saying "I don't care how people play", it is immediately followed by you claiming they are doing something the wrong way, then you explaining how you do it?

The rules are currently consistent, but even if they weren't, yes, I believe there should be a benefit to warrant a gameplay change. That's development 101, you don't develop changes that add absolutely no benefit.

You're lying because if English is your 1st l;language you should be able to understand what's being said. maybe that's a bad assumption on my part seeing as how you totally misunderstood Prince Kobol's post. Maybe you have some condition I don't know about. But barring that, yea, you're lying.



Again, the fact that you can't see a benefit to a consistent rule set says everything. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" only applies to things that ain't broke. The current situation is anti-EVE in that it punished larger corps and corps that have in space assets like POSes that can't easily drop and reform.

It's the game literally saying "If you do good things in this game like provide targets for other peoples to struggle against, screw you, but if you have a useless shell corp, here is a way to avoid unpleasantness). In this way, it's the same kind of broken as NPC corps, which is the game saying "hey, this is a player driven game, BUT if you form a player corp you stand to get war decced, best to stay in the npc corp where people have to suicide to kill you".

I'm one of those PVE players who doesn't fear "mean people" (pvp'rs) and i think people hiding behind the "I don't want pve so whatever I do is ok" cover make all of us look bad.

I'm here to tell everyone that not all of us are self centered carebears who say "screw the game and it's rule set as long a I'm ok"

I do understand what's being said and I believe you are misrepresenting your opinions to make them sound more valid. And I didn;t misunderstand anything about Kobols post. you guys are acting like dodging a dec is not PvP, but it's as much PvP as any other form of not-combat PvP. Fleeing is a valid tactic in whatever form you do it.

Then point out where the benefit lies.

And that's not a punishment, it's a cost of having a larger corp. If you have a large corp with lot's of assets, your corporation management will be tougher. Therefore if someone attack you, dropping and reforming your corp may be more effort than the benefit it provides.

And like I've pointed out multiple times, if it were changed, people with smaller corps would still be able to avoid wardecs in other ways far easier than larger corps.

So yes, you are saying "I do it right, they do it wrong". Wrong. Both your method and theirs are equally valid. HTFU.

If it were intended, there wouldn't be the option of an official surrender. The very fact the surrendering exists is reasonable proof that surrendering and not corp-hopping is the intended manner of getting out of a war.



Oh man, what game are YOU playing?


I hate to keep bringing this up, but every page I come across someone who didnt read my last few posts. EXTORTION. Extortion is a legit use of the wardeccing feature. I dont expect anyone to"just sit there and be shot," I expect them to sit in station and chat, or try to find an out of the way system (that my locator agents will point me toward," etc.

See, how I see it, a wardec is not about pew-pewing carebears in hisec, it's about denying them content. Sure, we'll shoot them if we see them out, but what's even better than killing them is keeping them stuck in station and BORED. 7 days is a long time to be sitting in a station with nothing to do. The more content you deny them, the more likely they WOULD HAVE BEEN willing to pay a lousy few hundred million isk to end it.

BUT NOOOOOOOO!!!!! Lets totally scrap a legit use of the wardec feature, and let people weasel out of it by paying 50M, or by corp-swapping.

How very UN Eve-like.

Yeah I realised that, I was just pointing out an example of your posting.

Nope. I dont care of none of them die, unless it's of boredom. There's a whole subset of "war-deccers" that are in it purely for extortion money. Deny your target(s) content, make them pay to once again be able to undock and go about their business.



I don't know that I agree with the notion that games are inherently fair to all players. Just doesn't look right sitting there next to HTFU.



You forgot the 4th option - Everybody wins! That's right folks, contact your friendly neighborhood aggressor and tell them you're interested in an amicable surrender. The deccer gets paiD, you get to go back the life as normal.... EVERYBODY WINNNSSS EVERYBODY WINNSSS!!!!

That doesn't address the issue of dec dodging at all. Say my corp gets dec'd, I leave, wait a week until the war is over (which I would do anyway) then rejoin. The penalty of having to pay npc corp tax for a week is not going to deter people from dodging.

Instead of punishing players for leaving during a dec perhaps there is a way to reward them for staying. Maybe something like war monger bounties, when a corp declares war and gets a kill they have a warmonger bounty placed on them. The bounty would be paid out if one of the defending corps or allies gets a kill on them. Perhaps make it so a declaring corp can also claim the bounties to allow for some true bounty hunting. Although I'm sure it would be abused with the war dec corps just scrubbing their own bounties.

Actually that's not an everyone wins. That's the deccer winning, as he got what he wanted. And what, aside from a loose sense of e-bushido prevents the deccer from accepting the payment and not ending the war? Oh, right - nothing. And what if they can't pay the amount you're demanding? Oh, yeah, they get to keep being wardecced. So you are creating a situation in which the target corporation cannot actually choose to exit the war. Once the wardec is filed, they are completely at the mercy of the aggressor as to the duration of the war itself - given the changes suggessted by some people in this thread, you could then, in theory trap people in a particular corp forever - unable to leave, even if they wanted to.

And by fair I mean everyone gets to operate by the same set of rules. Call it balanced if you want. The solutions proposed here are not balanced, and would lead to abuseemergent gameplay by larger, more aggressive corporations. Unless you changed the surrender mechanic so that once a surrender is offered, it must be accepted, and a cool down timer to start another war against the same corp, all you end up with is the potential for an endless wardec.