EVE General Discussion

Heard you like to avoid posts, so I quoted in my quote so you could dodge while you dodge.

When Hi-sec was introduced (along with war-dec mechanics to begin with).
When Privateers Alliance was war-dec'ing anywhere from 20 to 60 corps a week, war-dec mechanics were changed, and I believe the record they set (which still stands, to the best of my knowledge) when the "priveteers nerf" came in was 260+ corps (hi/low/null) wardec'd in one week.
When (and since) CCP have said a previously established exploit (using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war-dec'ing a corp) was tacitly acknowledged because CCP didn't wish to spend any more GM time to investigate reports of it.

See above

Conjecture to spur discussion... Not a bad thing, tbqh... And it's *not* a "faux lynch-pin" at all. Combat / player interaction / consequences *are* central to the game.

PS's opinion (as stated clearly in the article) was that the CSM opinions (CSM Trebor - specifically) seemed to be trying to make it easier to avoid conflict (especially in hi-sec), and that he disagreed with that. Which, tbqh - he can (and did a fairly good job of).


It is *not* irrational at all, because, for example, CCP recently made a previous *EXPLOIT* a non-exploit, THEN unstickied the announcement so that the information/discussion would fall off the first page...

So yes, War-Dec Mechanics *CAN* be looked at as a "bellweather" event to gauge the direction CCP wants to take the game.


Much as I have to disagree about with PS (and I *do*) - why is that not obvious to you?


P.S. - That wasn't very polite...

You should try this sometime while at war with the Orphanage. Let us know how it works out for you





There is that word "competition" again. Competition for what? You can't seem to say accurately at this point. What do the average wardecing PVP'ers want that the average rookie cor/mission corp/mining corp also want? Why are they fighting over it? How can they go about attaining it in the current wardec system?

Are they competing for sheer existence? Well if that is the case, then should they not be competing Vs other liken corporations? What are the wardecers competing for besides KM whoring when they "push those hulks off of that belt somewhere in empire" or "LOL Keep you noobs docked in your mission ships" for a week or more?

Can you tell us specifically?
Or is this a phenomena that has stemmed from CCP's current faulty mechanics surrounding empire wardecs?




EVE Online has a multitude of half made system and mechanics. It does not mean that we cannot collectively desire something more in depth, more complex and more entertaining for all parties involved. Im am sure that all of you big bad elite PVP'ers out there would LOVE nothing more then a good fight, and something to actually compete over, as a functioning mechanic from a purely PVP standpoint, instead of just hunting down fail fit mission ships and ganking miners all the time.

Right?
Right?
Oh... wait... maybe you like this better after all. Hmmm...

Well, if that is the case, it still does not make it "better", that would just make it your biased opinion on the topic.

To say that a thing is not based on fact, is not an opinion... if said thing is not a fact.
Your logic fails hard here.



I only remember addressing commentary regarding the competition between "Time to make ISK in relative peace, resources to gather same, and the ability to travel to/from/with un-hindered." that was stated to exist between PVP corporations, mission running corporations and industrial corporations. You seem to be bringing up a different topic entirely, of which I have not commented on.

If you wish to discuss something else, I suggest posting in a way that clearly defines your claims. If not, well, no one is going to be taking you seriously.



It appears to be a statement regarding an ever developing and ever balancing MMORGP, and how the current wardec mechanics lack certain attributes that adequately promote " the mentioned competition between, Time to make ISK in relative peace, resources to gather same, and the ability to travel to/from/with un-hindered" that has been suggested to exist between PVP corporations, mission running corporations and industrial corporations

I guess if you didn't read the entire thread, you could have misunderstood. Alternatively, me commenting on what could easily be interpreted as your lack of reading comprehension would in fact be an ad hominem. Although, imo not entirely unjustified considering the nature of your reply.

I cant put my finger on it exactly but I think we are past "what could harm EvE?"


I only have a few more days to voice my opinion before my first hiatus in 6 years so please bother to read :)


if I had to call it I would throw these words into the mix:

capitals
over-expansion
drone regions
sov

Although we are discussing high sec warfare here these words are all relevent:


Why does high sec warfare occur for me?

I wanted to be able to quickly find targets and replace losses.
I wanted to be able to find fights that I had some chance of being involved in within an hour of finding my targets or them finding me.
I wanted to be able to fight with a group of people without having to rely on them or discover their life story.
I wanted to know when I logged in all my stuff would still be in a station I could dock at.


Capitals, and in particular super caps were a GIANT mistake on CCPs part. They are like the perks on MW2 and MW3: people think they like them but very quickly discover they dont and that the game before they existed was hugely superior.

over expansion of space lead to the need for capital ships in the first place - smaller space means no need for capitals and vastly increases the need for pvp.

the drone regions killed another aspect of the game - mining. Null alliances used to need an industrial base that included industrial pilots.

Sov is another "lets make something to use capitals for" mechanic


They cannot save it now. It would require a rollback of a scale never before seen in gaming. You play a game where 6 capitals are created every hour and 1 is destroyed, where huge swathes of "outlaw" space are safer than high sec. Where any kind of impact requries the sort of numbers or ISK that will never be seen again by a new entitiy.


There is only a vague glimmer of hope for the new player in all this:
Wormholes. This is the only place CCP has moved in the correct direction in recent years. I dont live or pvp in a WH but if I had any motivation left to play EvE this is where I would be.

QFT.
Imagine that, and educated opinion that makes sense.
Asuri Kinnes, you should take notes from this man.

No need to go any further because you either don't understand the question or fail at trying to elucidate this doomsday scenario. These are the wardec changes, but what makes them indicative of the game mechanics as a whole or of CCP policy as a whole?

Literally EN24.

It is actually BELLWETHER ... in the event people think I cannot spell. :)

You're still have yet to explain the overall effect on the game that is being touted in the article. I would have assumed, based on the pitch of squealing I have read here, that there was an obvious corollary and examples to be given. Instead we get "possible," "safer," and "worred about the future." Which is indicative of absolutely nothing that has occurred.

tldr; If the claim is that wardecs set the standard for the game via how safe it is to operate in empire, you will have to make the case that this is true and use examples from the past to illustrate that point. Not just gloss and generalize as though it were an obvious truism.

And frankly, I find it absolutely priceless that the cowardly OP has yet to address this point himself. *german giggles*

You don't need to rationalize it, but it would do with, you know, explaining how the hell you came to your conclusion. Being that your (assumed) intention was to convince others that you were indeed correct. Of course, that is presumptuous indeed given the content within.

Asuri did rattle off a bunch of factoids about empire and wardecs; however, he mentioned nothing remotely close to the nexus/lynch-pin relationship you were constantly alluding to.

Being that we agree there are not metrics that can support or refute your position one could only assume you would have, as I earlier suggested, extrapolated at least through a few vivid anecdotes why you felt such a broad causal relationship was there. Instead you duck the burden of proof and continue to trumpet a doomsday prophecy.

I invite you to rectify this because I agree in some part, but think you're doing an absolutely horrendous job of making the point.