These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Thorian Baalnorn
Perkone
Caldari State
#261 - 2016-01-25 14:28:17 UTC
Starrakatt wrote:
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Note: I only read the first page.


War in real life is expensive, War in eve should be too and not just for null players, for everyone that engages in it. If wardeccers are that eager for pvp, they are welcome on roams into Null, Null residents will pvp up and down their back side like a window shade.

Ah, a 'please make Hisec safer' whine. Another one. And yet, Nulsec groups always claim Hisec wars doesn't affect them...

CCP already tried the high cost angle, didn't work.


wardecs have a minimal impact on me as i would rarely leave null and only do so to JC to take care of some business now and then. Almost all of which i can have my alt do or do remotely. It adds a couple more steps to the process.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
Yes its called high security because its dangerous *facepalm*.


It's called high, not total.


Quote:
The system is abused in that it allows high sec wanna be pvpers to gank non combat ships without interference from concord. Its like welfare for eve.


That's not abuse. Those ships are supposed to die, just like everything else in the game, and if they can't be bothered to watch local for reds then why are they in a player corp to begin with.


Its abuse. Wardecs were intended to A) make high sec risky at certain times( during a war dec) while providing safety the other times. Their is a reason concord has the ability to insta pop ships. B) to create semi controlled pvp environments for pvp.

I could easily argue that if it was CCPs intentions to allow such actions as what currently goes on with wardecs, there would be no high sec. Lets do that. Lets make everything null.

What has happened over the last 3 or 4 years is that these high sec gankers wardec half of eve. usually pve only corps and alliances and null sec alliances. And then park in trade hubs waiting for easy kills. Null alliances dont mess with them. Why? because they run and hide in docks as soon as we come out of null to pvp with them. They play dock games just like they complain about with their high sec pvers.

They dont want to pvp, they want a free lunch. They are no different than the high sec freighter gank groups. They want to gank people that dont fight back and then hide in a dock when someone that actually can fight them fights back.

So lets make it all null. Problem solved. Miners can mine and wardeccers can spend the rest of their eve life hiding in docks from real pvp.

Sometimes you are the squirrel and sometimes you are the nut. Today, you are the nut and the squirrel is hungry.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#262 - 2016-01-25 14:58:33 UTC
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:

Its abuse.


It's very literally not.


Quote:

I could easily argue that if it was CCPs intentions to allow such actions as what currently goes on with wardecs, there would be no high sec.


There isn't supposed to be. Highsec in it's current form was never intended to exist in this game. The way Concord works right now was not part of this game's foundation, and CCP knows that, that's why wars exist to allow us to remove Concord in exchange for a small isk sink.

Highsec is not supposed to be safe. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, including highsec. In fact, especially highsec, since too many people congregate there.


Quote:

They dont want to pvp, they want a free lunch.


That is PvP, whether you like it or not. Non consensual PvP very often means that one side is not prepared and just dies. But that is fully intended gameplay, because those barges and freighters are supposed to die, and they'd have zero risk otherwise. They are not supposed be untouchable or out of bounds, they exist only to die so that the market can be driven for people to buy more.

"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.

Iain Cariaba
#263 - 2016-01-25 17:55:55 UTC
Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
What has happened over the last 3 or 4 years is that these high sec gankers wardec half of eve. usually pve only corps and alliances and null sec alliances.

EvE is a PvP game. No one is exempt from PvP, even those corps that claim to be PvE only.

Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
And then park in trade hubs waiting for easy kills. Null alliances dont mess with them. Why? because they run and hide in docks as soon as we come out of null to pvp with them. They play dock games just like they complain about with their high sec pvers.

You know, if those "PvE only" corps would admit to themselves that this is a PvP game, and actually do something besides **** and moan about it, they'd see a lot fewer people trying to wardec them. Wardeccers, like all other predators in existence, cull the weak and lame from the herd. The carebears have just as much power to make the wardeccers dock up, but they refuse to. All you hear when you suggest it is whining about how it cuts into their profits and is too much effort.

Thorian Baalnorn wrote:
They dont want to pvp, they want a free lunch. They are no different than the high sec freighter gank groups. They want to gank people that dont fight back and then hide in a dock when someone that actually can fight them fights back.

How is this a bad thing? If all they want are the easy kills, then the obvious solution is to stop offering them easy kills. It doesn't take changing wardec mechanics or making highsec 100% safe. It takes the players on the defending side of the wardec to step up. Stop being a victim. Stop being content. Stop being nothing more than a NPC with a slightly better AI.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#264 - 2016-01-25 18:41:20 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
If all they want are the easy kills, then the obvious solution is to stop offering them easy kills.


But Iain, that would mean that they would actually have to play the game. And above all else, the carebear hates actually playing the game. It's why they constantly defend the indefensible, the most mindless, brainless, effortless PvE content in the MMO industry.

And while we're on the subject.

"lazy kills", huh? This from people defending mining and shooting red crosses? Even the laziest most knuckle dragging wardeccer or ganker in New Eden has more effort and thought in his gameplay than every PvE activity in highsec combined.

So none of you get to say one damned word about "effort" or "lazy" or any of that tripe, so long as mining and missioning still exist. How you dare to call out anyone else's gameplay while you sit at the lowest common denominator in the MMO industry, I cannot imagine.

"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.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#265 - 2016-01-25 19:11:14 UTC
I just want the docking timer to be fixed. It should work as follows.

If you perform an aggressive act - you can't dock.
Your 1 minute docking timer starts after ALL of the following conditions are met:
1. You're not aggressing anyone
2. No one is aggressing you

You accomplish number 2 by killing or driving off all hostiles involved in the engagement or by leaving grid.

It would ensure a sense of commitment in engagements.



One of the dumbest mechanics in eve is that you can conduct aggressive acts outside a station and the station prevents you from docking, BUT if you just don't do anything aggressive for a minute the docking manager suddenly forgets what just happened. You should have to leave grid, kill or drive off all agressors to regain docking rights.


We need commitment from both sides of engagements. Basically if you've aggressed and you're still being shot at,pointed or webbed - no docking.


On the other hand, if you don't do anything aggressive - you'd be free to dock as now.
Iain Cariaba
#266 - 2016-01-26 03:20:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
If all they want are the easy kills, then the obvious solution is to stop offering them easy kills.


But Iain, that would mean that they would actually have to play the game. And above all else, the carebear hates actually playing the game. It's why they constantly defend the indefensible, the most mindless, brainless, effortless PvE content in the MMO industry.

And while we're on the subject.

"lazy kills", huh? This from people defending mining and shooting red crosses? Even the laziest most knuckle dragging wardeccer or ganker in New Eden has more effort and thought in his gameplay than every PvE activity in highsec combined.

So none of you get to say one damned word about "effort" or "lazy" or any of that tripe, so long as mining and missioning still exist. How you dare to call out anyone else's gameplay while you sit at the lowest common denominator in the MMO industry, I cannot imagine.

Hey now, there are a few of us who shoot the formerly red crosses that do put some effort into it. Granted it's not effort into the actual shooting, but I put effort into making sure I don't get ganked. Big smile

This is why I support the playstyle of gankers, even though I didn't enjoy it when I was ganking myself. My outlook on it is that is I get ganked, it's my fault. I certainly can't blame someone for taking the opportunity to blow me up when I don't do everything in my power to minimize my exposure as a target. I also see this as the appropriate attitude for EvE, and see nothing wrong in expecting others to act the same.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#267 - 2016-01-26 13:01:44 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I just want the docking timer to be fixed. It should work as follows.

If you perform an aggressive act - you can't dock.
Your 1 minute docking timer starts after ALL of the following conditions are met:
1. You're not aggressing anyone
2. No one is aggressing you

You accomplish number 2 by killing or driving off all hostiles involved in the engagement or by leaving grid.

It would ensure a sense of commitment in engagements.



One of the dumbest mechanics in eve is that you can conduct aggressive acts outside a station and the station prevents you from docking, BUT if you just don't do anything aggressive for a minute the docking manager suddenly forgets what just happened. You should have to leave grid, kill or drive off all agressors to regain docking rights.


We need commitment from both sides of engagements. Basically if you've aggressed and you're still being shot at,pointed or webbed - no docking.


On the other hand, if you don't do anything aggressive - you'd be free to dock as now.


So the docking manager will forget what happened if the other guy is dead and that makes more sense to you?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#268 - 2016-01-26 15:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I just want the docking timer to be fixed. It should work as follows.

If you perform an aggressive act - you can't dock.
Your 1 minute docking timer starts after ALL of the following conditions are met:
1. You're not aggressing anyone
2. No one is aggressing you

You accomplish number 2 by killing or driving off all hostiles involved in the engagement or by leaving grid.

It would ensure a sense of commitment in engagements.



One of the dumbest mechanics in eve is that you can conduct aggressive acts outside a station and the station prevents you from docking, BUT if you just don't do anything aggressive for a minute the docking manager suddenly forgets what just happened. You should have to leave grid, kill or drive off all agressors to regain docking rights.


We need commitment from both sides of engagements. Basically if you've aggressed and you're still being shot at,pointed or webbed - no docking.


On the other hand, if you don't do anything aggressive - you'd be free to dock as now.


So the docking manager will forget what happened if the other guy is dead and that makes more sense to you?


EDIT: It's like this - if some assholio is outside my station shooting stuff up, then screw them, no docking until it's finished. If they have the nerve to go aggressive on my station, then I'm keeping them out there until it's over. If I were to let them dock, they could just undock in a few moments and restart the ruckus all over. Ruckus is bad for business - everyone knows that.

I think he would see and understand that the CONCORD sanctioned hostilities are completely over and it's OK to let folks that are no longer engaged dock. That makes sense to me.
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#269 - 2016-01-26 22:09:47 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I just want the docking timer to be fixed. It should work as follows.

If you perform an aggressive act - you can't dock.
Your 1 minute docking timer starts after ALL of the following conditions are met:
1. You're not aggressing anyone
2. No one is aggressing you

You accomplish number 2 by killing or driving off all hostiles involved in the engagement or by leaving grid.

It would ensure a sense of commitment in engagements.



One of the dumbest mechanics in eve is that you can conduct aggressive acts outside a station and the station prevents you from docking, BUT if you just don't do anything aggressive for a minute the docking manager suddenly forgets what just happened. You should have to leave grid, kill or drive off all agressors to regain docking rights.


We need commitment from both sides of engagements. Basically if you've aggressed and you're still being shot at,pointed or webbed - no docking.


On the other hand, if you don't do anything aggressive - you'd be free to dock as now.


So the docking manager will forget what happened if the other guy is dead and that makes more sense to you?


EDIT: It's like this - if some assholio is outside my station shooting stuff up, then screw them, no docking until it's finished. If they have the nerve to go aggressive on my station, then I'm keeping them out there until it's over. If I were to let them dock, they could just undock in a few moments and restart the ruckus all over. Ruckus is bad for business - everyone knows that.

I think he would see and understand that the CONCORD sanctioned hostilities are completely over and it's OK to let folks that are no longer engaged dock. That makes sense to me.


I agree it's an ugly mechanic, an needs to be changed,
If you read any of my posts on structure based wardec system, that to would make does kind of tactics more or less a mute point,
If the attacker if hiding and refusing to fight, go bash his wardec structure and end the war that way!
Lann Shahni
Elysium Evolutive Industries and Technologie
Initiative Associates
#270 - 2016-02-28 22:19:22 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
This post is a debate on current wardec system in eve!
This is a edit of the topic, tough my idea for a solution has changed, my general opinion that the current wardec system is broken,
And need change is the same!
I have come to believe that a structure based wardec system would be the best solution, where the attacker has to have a structure in space to run a war , and if lost will end any wars carried by that structure!
More details are in the thread! :)

I have let the original message be here below, so comments given makes sense!

I recently returned to eve again, and mw and a few of my irl friends wanted to up a corp together, having fun producing some goods and selling them, and as a start we put a small pos, to get things going, whit in less then a week we got wardec!

After that I started digging a bit into reasons why, and discovered that far most high security wardec are pll wanting steal your stuff!
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec

I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!
Also increasing the delay from one day to a week, giving pll whit irl responsibilities a chance to respond!


I have taken some time to gather information, and whit what I found I still think my original point that the wardec system needs rebalancing holds true!
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#271 - 2016-02-28 22:35:00 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

I have taken some time to gather information, and whit what I found I still think my original point that the wardec system needs rebalancing holds true!


Yet, you still don't actually have any data to present. Why, it's almost like you're lying and are just bumping your own ****-thread in direct violation of the board rules.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#272 - 2016-02-28 22:35:59 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

I have taken some time to gather information, and whit what I found I still think my original point that the wardec system needs rebalancing holds true!


Yet, you still don't actually have any data to present. Why, it's almost like you're lying and are just bumping your own ****-thread in direct violation of the board rules.



Yeah... Though I am fully for changes to the wardec mechanic, I have to agree with Monkey.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#273 - 2016-03-01 08:54:08 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
This post is a debate on current wardec system in eve!
This is a edit of the topic, tough my idea for a solution has changed, my general opinion that the current wardec system is broken,
And need change is the same!
I have come to believe that a structure based wardec system would be the best solution, where the attacker has to have a structure in space to run a war , and if lost will end any wars carried by that structure!
More details are in the thread! :)

I have let the original message be here below, so comments given makes sense!

I recently returned to eve again, and mw and a few of my irl friends wanted to up a corp together, having fun producing some goods and selling them, and as a start we put a small pos, to get things going, whit in less then a week we got wardec!

After that I started digging a bit into reasons why, and discovered that far most high security wardec are pll wanting steal your stuff!
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec

I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!
Also increasing the delay from one day to a week, giving pll whit irl responsibilities a chance to respond!


There are plenty of ways to avoid the wardecs, be creative.

-1
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#274 - 2016-03-01 17:20:08 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:


There are plenty of ways to avoid the wardecs, be creative.

-1


Herein lies the problem.

I don't want wardecs to be avoided, unless you just absolutely do not want to get involved; In which case you would stay in an NPC corp.

As far as everyone not in an NPC corp, I want to provide incentives to actually fight a war; And not punishments hidden under the cloak of incentive, but rather the ability to actually force an end.

I want to make wars fun for both parties, as opposed to what they are now.
Terrah Chain
Space Isolation
#275 - 2016-03-01 18:34:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Terrah Chain
Lann Shahni wrote:
This post is a debate on current wardec system in eve!
This is a edit of the topic, tough my idea for a solution has changed, my general opinion that the current wardec system is broken,
And need change is the same!
I have come to believe that a structure based wardec system would be the best solution, where the attacker has to have a structure in space to run a war , and if lost will end any wars carried by that structure!
More details are in the thread! :)

I have let the original message be here below, so comments given makes sense!

I recently returned to eve again, and mw and a few of my irl friends wanted to up a corp together, having fun producing some goods and selling them, and as a start we put a small pos, to get things going, whit in less then a week we got wardec!

After that I started digging a bit into reasons why, and discovered that far most high security wardec are pll wanting steal your stuff!
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec

I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!
Also increasing the delay from one day to a week, giving pll whit irl responsibilities a chance to respond!

After reading some discussion on this topic I too thought there could be structures or nodes introduced to affect the status of a war dec.

Not sure if that idea has been posted by someone else, but here is what I thought would make it more interesting:

Starting a War Dec, cost, duration all remains the same. Introduce something like command nodes that spawn in a time window set by the defender, and spawn in the defenders corp/alliance designated HQ constellation. These would spawn once per day of the war dec for the defender and if they defender can capture them all the war is over instantly.

Why, what does this accomplish?
1. Forces war declarers to actively keep a war going and not just use it as a harassment tool.
2. More likely to create content as even weaker corps may feel they can capture nodes if not fight the enemy directly.
3. This makes it very hard for any mass war deccing groups to maintain huge lists of wars as they will be required to daily take action on all wars in progress.

I hope CCP considers something like this to move the war declarations back into a strategic game design and out of the gank and harassment side of things.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Wardecs Without Borders
#276 - 2016-03-01 21:15:05 UTC
Going back to the OP: the problem here is that a small group of inexperienced people jumped straight into "let's make our own corp and put up a POS!" As highsec goes, that's basically the endgame. Keeping a POS operating means you have steady stream of income and a purpose for the POS.

That's sort of the problem with wardecs and highsec in general. There are too many people out there forming up corps who have no idea how the game works and no interest in learning it. They're poisoning the minds of new recruits and teaching them some outright lies about Eve. In that environment, of course a wardec is going to crush them.

Want to fix wars? Fix corporations. Make long-term corporate membership a goal with its own rewards. Encourage the growth and organization of corporations and alliances in highsec, rather than rewarding those players who know they can get by just fine in NPC wcorps. When a well-organized corp with dozens of active players is subject to a dec, they have the ability to put up a fight and set terms. You want to do something about those hub-hugging no-risk wardeccers? Park a dozen enemies on their hub and keep them docked up.

Once we have incentives for building strong corps, THEN it's a good idea to talk about war objectives. You got those guys to dock and maybe alpha'ed one of their neutral logi? You need some way to press your advantage and punish them. A structure of some sort is an obvious choice, but I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be. I just know that defenders need an objective to pursue. This would mean those guys who dec the null alliances and sit on the Jita undock would risk losing far more than they could kill, as docking up simply means the enemy is free to molest your hardware.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#277 - 2016-03-02 02:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
The flaw in all the war structure ideas is that it is out of docking ring. A good number of empire war dec folks will change occupations if they have to leave a docking ring and become at risk. Also the corps w/ 100 or so active decs run the risk of having their war structures over run by numbers which is a concept they simply can't bear.

Having a way for the defending corps to end a war dec through force of guns and in a place out of docking/jump range would be a great start to turning the current war dec corp situation into something meaningful down the road. The truth of the matter is that, though smaller in number, the war dec forum warriors are more organized and more attached to defending the borked mechanics now in place. They are fighting for their way of life. The defenders are disorganized and since it's not their core eve activity not as dedicated to fixing the obvious problems.

The biggest problems (sorry for no numbers on this) are that war decs are currently meaningless and totally not fun.

Meaningless: If 2 corps have a problem they want to settle with space violence, the current assist mechanism quickly erases any original meaning attached to the conflict as dozens of assist mails roll in the within minutes of the war being declared.

Not fun: once the coolness of wonking ships on the Jita undock (fill in pipe choke point or hub of your choice) wears off, it's meh. If that doesn't get old for you - great, but "doesn't get old" isn't equivalent to "fun".

The mechanics suck. They need fixed.

Plausible options:
1. Remove war dec assist - if you want help - hire a merc, this free adds thing is horrible - The game already allows you to seek out and pay or negotiate for additional help - there needs to be a reasonable cost to join a conflict.
2. Have something in space that if taken by force ends the war - put the aggressor corp at risk outside of the docking ring.
3. Scale the costs like they used to be. Small v. Large = cheap and Large v. Small = expensive. Scaling costs and keeping the current assist mechanics intact would render the cost scaling useless. Each additional conflict a corp enters should have a higher participation fee.
4. Change docking/jump mechanics such that an engagement must be complete before docking/jumping - complete engagement would be ships need to leave grid before they can dock/jump. De-aggressing and tanking for 1 minute should not allow docking/jumping if the other half of the aggression is still engaging you.

In general - HS war decs need meaning and HS engagements need more commitment (your engagement plan should not need to include racing against a timer - seriously - wtf?)
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#278 - 2016-03-02 02:17:17 UTC
Defenders need a way to win wars. Not endure them. Not avoid them. Win them.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Wardecs Without Borders
#279 - 2016-03-02 17:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Serendipity Lost wrote:
The flaw in all the war structure ideas is that it is out of docking ring. A good number of empire war dec folks will change occupations if they have to leave a docking ring and become at risk. Also the corps w/ 100 or so active decs run the risk of having their war structures over run by numbers which is a concept they simply can't bear.


Good riddance to bad mercs. I live and breathe wardecs and really don't care if the hubhuggers are inconvenienced.

Serendipity Lost wrote:
the war dec forum warriors are more organized and more attached to defending the borked mechanics now in place. They are fighting for their way of life.


No, we're fighting for our way of life when ideas like "social corps" come up proposing ways to opt out of wardecs. We're fighting for our way of life when CCP proposes killing the watchlist. When some of my fellow wardeccers oppose defender objectives, they're just trying to keep their easy button warfare.

As for your ideas:

1. Remove war dec assist - if you want help - hire a merc, this free adds thing is horrible - The game already allows you to seek out and pay or negotiate for additional help - there needs to be a reasonable cost to join a conflict.

-- The advantage of the ally system is that it brings in mercenaries only for the duration of the war. Once the original conflict is ended, all parties involved are at peace. Here's an idea for a modifiication to the existing setup: Allow the aggressor to bring allies into the war as well should it escalate. Maybe if the defender adds a second or third ally, the aggressor can then bring in their own allies until they have one less ally than their opponent. Wars could definitely get interesting then.

2. Have something in space that if taken by force ends the war - put the aggressor corp at risk outside of the docking ring.

-- This is a common suggestion and I support it in theory, but find it hard to envision a good solution, especially given the state of the current alliance system. That would need to change along with this.

3. Scale the costs like they used to be. Small v. Large = cheap and Large v. Small = expensive. Scaling costs and keeping the current assist mechanics intact would render the cost scaling useless. Each additional conflict a corp enters should have a higher participation fee.

-- I agree there should be penalties for a large entity going after a small one. There should also be penalties for a large corp allying into a war against a smaller one. The idea should be to encourage choosing appropriate targets, not something you can steamroll.

4. Change docking/jump mechanics such that an engagement must be complete before docking/jumping - complete engagement would be ships need to leave grid before they can dock/jump. De-aggressing and tanking for 1 minute should not allow docking/jumping if the other half of the aggression is still engaging you.

-- This would change so much of how Eve is played I'm not sure it's a good idea. As much as I hate station games and refuse to play them, it's easy enough to simply not engage people inside a docking radius.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#280 - 2016-03-08 07:55:49 UTC
TooLong ; Didn't Read.

But I will tell you this: wardecs can make or break a corp.
If the corp breaks, it wasn't in the cards. Too much carebears, not enough cojones.

You may not like me for saying this but peeps NEED wardecs to realize this isn't bloody WoW, as an incentive to become better pilots.

I still have fond memories about the guys that chased me all over Aridia, and kicked out our alliance. We deserved a good kick in the nuts, and got better because of it. Same applies to wardecs: only when challenged does one learn how good he really is. For brand new highsec indy corps, that may include hitting rock bottom.