These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2015-04-01 15:37:11 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
..But you are not entitled to dump billions of ISK worth of goods into the economy, and rake in all that profit, in safety because you deem yourself exempt from the sandbox as an industrialist.


I hadn't seen the blog so thanks for the link. Since some changes are already in the works we'll see how they pan out I guess.

Of course no area should ever be fully 'safe' and no player is exempt from the sandbox but EvE isn't just about shooting each other. Some players just enjoy making stuff but haven't the game time available to devote to living in the less secure regions. They also need some means to be abble to produce goods/trade/etc but will always be at risk from 'pirates' in hisec ganking them or otherwise messing with their business.

There has to be a balance, make wars too easy to declare and force players into another gamestyle they have no wish to be in and they will simply unsub. Purely PvP players are seemingly quick to demand that everyone be ready to fight, but there is no way that an industrial player can force other players to build stuff/mine/haul/whatever. Those who have no wish to fight should always have a means to avoid it whilst still playing the game at some level, likewise those who enjoy PvP should always have the means to engage them by some means even if it is simply ganking them.

The point still stands that if players want fights they can always live in losec and add some life there. Try making an area in losec more safe for industrialists by securing it and more indy players will join an alliance to benefit from the better rewards available.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#162 - 2015-04-01 16:05:02 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Purely PvP players are seemingly quick to demand that everyone be ready to fight, but there is no way that an industrial player can force other players to build stuff/mine/haul/whatever.


They effect the economy, often at a huge level.

And right now, since they can dec dodge, they do this without the PvP players having much recourse.

That is unacceptable.


Quote:

The point still stands that if players want fights they can always live in losec and add some life there.


And the point still stands, that if you don't want fights, you should not be playing a PvP game.

Don't try to pretend like wardec groups are doing anything wrong here. PvP belongs everywhere, and that includes highsec.

"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.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2015-04-01 17:10:27 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Players need to be encouraged into space and feel they at least have a fighting chance in the case of a war.


They already do, but the simple fact is that you can't make people undock or be in a player corp if they don't want to.

Despite this, what you can do is make that choice a more lucrative one for the people who do choose to accept risk. Economic incentive for accepting a higher level of risk is a must.


McChicken made a valid point here though, industrial corps do not tend to have the skills (player or character) to engage in warfare. You will no doubt argue that they should learn them but why should they? If those players hate PvP they should be able to avoid it otherwise you will either a) lose them from the game or b) they would have to join one of the major corps and work at the heart of one of the main nullspace alliances assuming they won't force them into combat ops they have no wish to engage in.

Perhaps some element of industrial and combat index is required for player corps, one with a very low combat index and high industrial index could cost much more to wardec than a combat oriented player corp. Make the cost of the war a function between the indices of the two opposing corps may make people more likely to engage in war and even open up the possibility of a corp hiring in 'Gunslinger' PvP types to help them without bumping up the wardec cost too much.



This is the logic.

Doing pve in hi-sec is bad.

Doing pve in nullsec under the protection of the blob is fine.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#164 - 2015-04-02 19:15:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And right now, since they can dec dodge, they do this without the PvP players having much recourse.
That is unacceptable.
Translation, "I paid my ISK and now I am entitled to slaughter helpless victims" Roll

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#165 - 2015-04-02 19:19:45 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And right now, since they can dec dodge, they do this without the PvP players having much recourse.
That is unacceptable.
Translation, "I paid my ISK and now I am entitled to slaughter helpless victims" Roll


Nope.

It means that no one should be able to have their cake and eat it too, have the benefits of a player corp and an NPC corp all in one.

Apparently that's unreasonable to some people.

"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.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2015-04-02 19:57:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Nope.

It means that no one should be able to have their cake and eat it too, have the benefits of a player corp and an NPC corp all in one.

Apparently that's unreasonable to some people.


I have a question you should be in a good position to discuss. Does this apply to those CODE members who only ever undock their gank alt from an NPC station for long enough to warp to a target, gank it and then dock up before switching back to their neutral scanning alt? I would view that as having you NPC cake and eating it too. I'm not anti-gank as it is a perfectly valid tactic with many simple counters, but it seems somewhat imbalanced in terms of the level of risk compared to potential reward.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#167 - 2015-04-03 00:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Nope.

It means that no one should be able to have their cake and eat it too, have the benefits of a player corp and an NPC corp all in one.

Apparently that's unreasonable to some people.
I have a question you should be in a good position to discuss. Does this apply to those CODE members who only ever undock their gank alt from an NPC station for long enough to warp to a target, gank it and then dock up before switching back to their neutral scanning alt? I would view that as having you NPC cake and eating it too. I'm not anti-gank as it is a perfectly valid tactic with many simple counters, but it seems somewhat imbalanced in terms of the level of risk compared to potential reward.
Sssshhhh .... don't point out how his cultish beliefs are based on hypocrisy. You might one day succeed in bursting his bubble and making him cry. P
They work really hard to justify why people deserve what they do and why they think what they do is great works for the greater good.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#168 - 2015-04-03 00:50:32 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I have a question you should be in a good position to discuss. Does this apply to those CODE members who only ever undock their gank alt from an NPC station for long enough to warp to a target, gank it and then dock up before switching back to their neutral scanning alt? I would view that as having you NPC cake and eating it too. I'm not anti-gank as it is a perfectly valid tactic with many simple counters, but it seems somewhat imbalanced in terms of the level of risk compared to potential reward.


What's the point of undocking a ship that's going to be immediately Concorded? Of course we keep our gank toons (not all of them alts, BTW) in station during GCC.

Now, if you want to talk about going back to Concord being killable and avoidable, removing faction navy response to -5s and a few other balance tweaks to suicide ganking...

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jenshae Chiroptera
#169 - 2015-04-03 00:56:24 UTC
admiral root wrote:
... and a few other balance tweaks to suicide ganking...
Roll

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#170 - 2015-04-03 00:56:27 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Does this apply to those CODE members who only ever undock their gank alt from an NPC station for long enough to warp to a target, gank it and then dock up before switching back to their neutral scanning alt?


No, and I'll explain why.

If you are neg ten, the game basically forces you to use an alt for that, since any scanning ship you could use would be destroyed by facpo before you could get a lock.

Playing in a way literally necessitated by the game? No, I don't think that qualifies as an exploit, nor asking too much.

The second point of consideration for this is that you are talking about two separate characters, whereas I am discussing merely one. For two characters to have two characters worth of consideration is rather normal, but for one to have both at once is not.

They honestly don't even compare.

"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.
Madd Adda
#171 - 2015-04-03 01:05:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Does this apply to those CODE members who only ever undock their gank alt from an NPC station for long enough to warp to a target, gank it and then dock up before switching back to their neutral scanning alt?


No, and I'll explain why.

If you are neg ten, the game basically forces you to use an alt for that, since any scanning ship you could use would be destroyed by facpo before you could get a lock.

Playing in a way literally necessitated by the game? No, I don't think that qualifies as an exploit, nor asking too much.

The second point of consideration for this is that you are talking about two separate characters, whereas I am discussing merely one. For two characters to have two characters worth of consideration is rather normal, but for one to have both at once is not.

They honestly don't even compare.


nice double standard, buddy. Maybe if you spent some time grinding sec status you wouldn't be neg 10, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Carebear extraordinaire
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#172 - 2015-04-03 01:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Madd Adda wrote:

nice double standard, buddy.


Treating two different things differently is not a double standard, carebear.


Quote:

Maybe if you spent some time grinding sec status you wouldn't be neg 10, you have no one to blame but yourself.


Look, I can do it too:

Maybe if people actually trained combat skills, they wouldn't be helpless against real players. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Nevermind the sheer hypocrisy in actually telling me that PvE should be mandatory for everyone. My God, how do you people live with yourselves?

"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.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#173 - 2015-04-03 01:27:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=Madd Adda]Nevermind the sheer hypocrisy in actually telling me that PvE should be mandatory for everyone. My God, how do you people live with yourselves?

Let me paraphrase this.

Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?
And yet that is exactly what many of the PvP players have said here in this very topic.

As far as your needs aa a PvP player to "grind" standing that is as they say a horse of a different color and a discussion for another topic. All I will say about it for now is that there needs to be consequences to your chosen action of shooting other players that are not valid targets, although I will not argue that the "grind" is the proper way to handle it.

EvE is a complex game, remove PvP and it dies no questions about that and I have never once tried to deny it.
Like wise if you remove PvE then the game as we all enjoy it now also dies and there is no way to deny that. Especially when you consider that CCP has clearly stated that they want to make EvE as close to a 100% player made and player driven economy as practical within the confines of the game and the need to maintain some balance to all things.
Madd Adda
#174 - 2015-04-03 01:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:

nice double standard, buddy.


Treating two different things differently is not a double standard, carebear.




You're using an alt that is in a NPC corp to scout your targets while being immune to war decs. It's similar to the logic used to high sec indy players to avoid interference from other players. Hell I use an alt to get away from wars too, so how is it different from your logic again?


Quote:
Look, I can do it too:

Maybe if people actually trained combat skills, they wouldn't be helpless against real players. They have no one to blame but themselves.


Ho ho "real players" now that's rich. Having a different playstyle to you suddenly invalids them has a real player. Nevermind the fact that we all, in one form or another, pay to play this game. You attack a mining ship, while its mining, how the hell do we get combat related mods on the ship? Tank helps, but it doesn't help that 10 fitted catalysts still cost less than one barge of any kind.

Quote:

Nevermind the sheer hypocrisy in actually telling me that PvE should be mandatory for everyone. My God, how do you people live with yourselves?

Nice touch with the bit about hypocrisy, I never said that pve should be mandatory. I meant that if having neg 10 is such a problem then just to what it takes to bump your status up above -0.5

Carebear extraordinaire
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#175 - 2015-04-03 01:36:39 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?
And yet that is exactly what many of the PvP players have said here in this very topic.


Name three in-game activities that aren't PvP.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#176 - 2015-04-03 01:40:06 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?


No one is suggesting mandatory.

Merely not 100% optional, with the same benefits as a player corp to boot.


Quote:

As far as your needs aa a PvP player to "grind" standing that is as they say a horse of a different color and a discussion for another topic.


No, it's not. In fact it's an excellent point in my argument.

If you can expect me to have to engage in PvE to get by(which is the case in the game at present), why is it not reasonable to suggest that industry oriented groups have to engage in PvP?

Why do you think they get to be different, why do they get to be the exception?

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the gander?

"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.
Madd Adda
#177 - 2015-04-03 01:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
admiral root wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?
And yet that is exactly what many of the PvP players have said here in this very topic.


Name three in-game activities that aren't PvP.


please define pvp, I like to hear your definition before answering.

Carebear extraordinaire
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#178 - 2015-04-03 01:43:26 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:

You're using an alt that is in a NPC corp to scout your targets while being immune to war decs. It's similar to the logic used to high sec indy players to avoid interference from other players. Hell I use an alt to get away from wars too, so how is it different from your logic again?


It's not similar at all.

I'm not engaging in an income generating activity while sitting and scanning people. That's the important distinction. An income generating mechanic has to account for risk vs reward.



Quote:

Having a different playstyle to you suddenly invalids them has a real player.


No, they get invalidated as real players because they're hypocrites abusing an exploit or loophole, just like the ISBotters.

"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.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#179 - 2015-04-03 01:46:02 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?
And yet that is exactly what many of the PvP players have said here in this very topic.


Name three in-game activities that aren't PvP.


please define pvp, I like to hear your definition before answering.


I don't know what "pvp" is, but "PvP" only has one definition: Player versus Player.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Madd Adda
#180 - 2015-04-03 01:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
admiral root wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Never mind the sheer hypocrisy of actually telling me that PvP should be mandatory for everyone. My God how do you people live with yourselves?
And yet that is exactly what many of the PvP players have said here in this very topic.


Name three in-game activities that aren't PvP.


please define pvp, I like to hear your definition before answering.


I don't know what "pvp" is, but "PvP" only has one definition: Player versus Player.


BP Research, Manufacturing, and Invention. All are activities whether you admit to them or not.

Carebear extraordinaire