These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Future of Wardecs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2013-01-18 01:18:23 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.

Let me say it again.

The basis of his arguement for advoacting the removal of high sec wardecs is THAT IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO QUIT.

That is untrue. No one quits due to a wardec. They disband there corporations. THAT needs to be addressed, not the removal of wardecs in high sec.

It's supoosed to be a negative impact. It's a declaration of war. Someone else want to blow you up or prevent you from doing something.

Not undocking and disbanding corporations is the problem.


CCP has said themselves that you are not allowed to simply play EVE without anyone being able to impact you, while having impact on the game yourself. Which is what some of you keep advocating.
Winchester Steele
#122 - 2013-01-18 01:23:20 UTC
CCP Solomon wrote:


Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).



Thank you for this clear statement CCP Solomon! Although ironically, you made my day instead of ruining it. Cool

...

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#123 - 2013-01-18 01:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Who in the world quits EVE because of a wardec?

And that's the basis of his arguement.
Which is simply rediculous.

Quit or not isn't the only measure of a person's satisfaction. A person who is out doing something because it's meaningful enjoys the game more, is more likely to add accounts, become more active, tell potential new players about the game and be more active. A person who docks up because there isn't really anything to fight over isn't likely to do those things even if they don't hit the unsub button.

But when the only prospect for someone who doesn't want to PvP just because someone else singled you out for it is that of loss and not getting to do what you want to do, which in a way is fine. Interference is a part of the game. But if there is no good reason to retaliate you don't. You don't enjoy the game. You interact less. You limit your affect on the community and your effect on eve's growth.

I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.

Let me say it again.

The basis of his arguement for advoacting the removal of high sec wardecs is THAT IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO QUIT.

That is untrue. No one quits due to a wardec. They disband there corporations. THAT needs to be addressed, not the removal of wardecs in high sec.

It's supoosed to be a negative impact. It's a declaration of war. Someone else want to blow you up or prevent you from doing something.

Not undocking and disbanding corporations is the problem.


CCP has said themselves that you are not allowed to simply play EVE without anyone being able to impact you, while having impact on the game yourself. Which is what some of you keep advocating.

Even if they couldn't corp hop or hide in an NPC corp, they would still not undock and fight. There is nothing to fight for, which I think you know. We need to discuss what needs to happen so they will want to fight, even if the odds are against them.
Anna Karhunen
Inoue INEXP
#124 - 2013-01-18 01:29:09 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'm sure that many would feel lowering or eliminating the interaction of such people is beneficial (in all reality it very well may be the case) but expecting the CSM or CCP not to think about it is in my opinion asking for very shortsighted game development.


I have no problem with them investigating ways to encourage defenders to be more active during wars. I have a *huge* problem with them discussing the removal of non-consensual decs and replacing them with mutual only wars.

Because talking means that whatever will be done with 100% probability? Interesting. I'd rather expect that they discussed about variety of options even if those options would not get implemented. You see, while they do that, they may 1) come across good arguments for and against said options, 2) come across new ideas that might solve the problems better than any previously mentioned options or 3) find out that all solutions are worse than the original problem and that it is therefore better to just maintain what is. As it is, all the ideas I have seen players throw on these boards have so far fallen to the 3rd category, but I would not stiffle the discussion like you would (at least on Dev/CSM side).

As my old maths teacher used to say: "Statistics are like bikinis: It's what they don't show that's interesting". -CCP Aporia
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#125 - 2013-01-18 01:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
-stuff-
CCP Solomon wrote:
-stuff-

You guys TELL your newbies to dock!

-stuff-

Good luck on the CSM, guy.


Wrong guy, this is not the CSM guy you're looking for, he's not the Eve Uni CSM guy P

Telling people to dock in case of war is silly, my mains first corp did that and paid for the dec to go away, I quit the day they paid, I'd been playing a month and even then I saw that it was bad advice.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Merouk Baas
#126 - 2013-01-18 01:33:06 UTC
Yeah that's the problem, people refusing to fight. The war dec mechanic issue is somewhat academic, really. They'll use whatever is available to avoid the fight, when in fact "fight" is the point of the game.

Problem permeates every aspect of the game. Even hardened PVP'ers try to disengage and avoid when the fight goes sour.

Maybe they need to make all rewards happen when you see your own ship explode.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#127 - 2013-01-18 01:35:24 UTC
CCP Solomon wrote:
Secondly, the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).


Thanks for posting :). Sometimes having your day ruined opens up a new avenue too.

And... Sometimes it's nice to ruin shark's day by hiring some badass mercs to net them up and club them over the head. Yeah! Roll

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#128 - 2013-01-18 01:36:10 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Yeah that's the problem, people refusing to fight. The war dec mechanic issue is somewhat academic, really. They'll use whatever is available to avoid the fight, when in fact "fight" is the point of the game.

Problem permeates every aspect of the game. Even hardened PVP'ers try to disengage and avoid when the fight goes sour.

Maybe they need to make all rewards happen when you see your own ship explode.


The reward is getting your pod out regularly

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2013-01-18 01:36:43 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Let me say it again.

The basis of his arguement for advoacting the removal of high sec wardecs is THAT IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO QUIT.

That is untrue. No one quits due to a wardec. They disband there corporations. THAT needs to be addressed, not the removal of wardecs in high sec.

It's supoosed to be a negative impact. It's a declaration of war. Someone else want to blow you up or prevent you from doing something.

Not undocking and disbanding corporations is the problem.


CCP has said themselves that you are not allowed to simply play EVE without anyone being able to impact you, while having impact on the game yourself. Which is what some of you keep advocating.

I'll agree that no one quits NOW (for the most part, I'm almost certain some edge cases exist) and instead they use the workarounds you mention. If the loopholes for evading wardecs (corphopping/etc) are closed who knows. That would only leave docking up and after enough of that then what? I would think we'd just see an increase in independently functioning alts and NPC corp characters, but I can't predict the future, some could actually leave.

You are right, it is supposed to be negative. And guess what? It is. As with all negative things people will avoid it unless evasion is worse that fighting. So long as players have the option of not logging in and lose nothing for it those who don't want to fight won't.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#130 - 2013-01-18 01:37:05 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
-stuff-
CCP Solomon wrote:
-stuff-

You guys TELL your newbies to dock!

-stuff-

Good luck on the CSM, guy.


Wrong guy, this is not the CSM guy you're looking for, he's not the Eve Uni CSM guy P

Telling people to dock in case of war is silly, my mains first corp did that and paid for the dec to go away, I quit the day they paid, I'd been playing a month and even then I saw that it was bad advice.


So true. One of the things that makes EVE great is that you can come in as a newbie and apply real world logic to social situations. Quite special really.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Merouk Baas
#131 - 2013-01-18 01:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Merouk Baas
Wacktopia wrote:
And... Sometimes it's nice to ruin shark's day by hiring some badass mercs to net them up and club them over the head. Yeah! Roll



Yeah, where are these mercs? I've been attacked, how can I find the ******* mercs right now, dammit.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-01-18 01:38:52 UTC
The problem is that most corps in EVE are single-focused. You spend months building up an industrial base while shunning the PvP aspect of your organization and a single wardec will shut you down because you have nobody who can PvP. A horde of newbies flying ewar ships while a smaller group of older members kills wartargets off is how groups like EVE Uni deal with wardecs.

Wardecs are a part of the game. Industrial-focused corps are self-destructive in nature.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2013-01-18 01:44:44 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
-stuff-
CCP Solomon wrote:
-stuff-

You guys TELL your newbies to dock!

-stuff-

Good luck on the CSM, guy.


Wrong guy, this is not the CSM guy you're looking for, he's not the Eve Uni CSM guy P

Telling people to dock in case of war is silly, my mains first corp did that and paid for the dec to go away, I quit the day they paid, I'd been playing a month and even then I saw that it was bad advice.

Then I apologize to Trebor, doesn't make his opinion better or mean he should be supported as a CSM though.

Just means I thought he was the guy associated with EVE uni.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2013-01-18 01:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Qvar Dar'Zanar
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I mean, let's take can flipping as an example. Apparently having an entire corp able to shoot you wasn't enough? It has to be the entirety of eve? Or what about the nerfs to the Orca that have made it consistently less and less useful to those living the Suddenly Ninjas lifestyle? And what have we ever gotten in return? I could write entire books about the ways in which CCP has taken a look at some of the incredible people doing fantastic work in highsec and decided that they need to be weighed down so they can't jump as high or run as fast.


I swear I don't get it. People complain about not getting to shoot people in hi-sec and give as an example that, if they canflip, they will get pvped by everybody around in hi-sec.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#135 - 2013-01-18 01:57:19 UTC
Anna Karhunen wrote:

Because talking means that whatever will be done with 100% probability? Interesting. I'd rather expect that they discussed about variety of options even if those options would not get implemented. You see, while they do that, they may 1) come across good arguments for and against said options, 2) come across new ideas that might solve the problems better than any previously mentioned options or 3) find out that all solutions are worse than the original problem and that it is therefore better to just maintain what is. As it is, all the ideas I have seen players throw on these boards have so far fallen to the 3rd category, but I would not stiffle the discussion like you would (at least on Dev/CSM side).


My problem lies in the change of a fundamental principle in eve, which is that other people can mess your **** up. If non-consensual decs are removed, the ability for people to interfere with others in HS is damn near removed, which literally flies in the face of everything the game is. As such, I don't think it should have ever even come up as a serious topic. Since it did, I absolutely condemn it in the hope that those advocating the near total safety of large portions of the player base realize how detrimental this would be to the identity of the game.

If people don't like that their sand castle can be destroyed by others, then they should either stand up and fight for their castle, or consider other games. We shouldn't be trying to make this game into something it isn't.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#136 - 2013-01-18 02:01:14 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
I swear I don't get it. People complain about not getting to shoot people in hi-sec and give as an example that, if they canflip, they will get pvped by everybody around in hi-sec.


As much as I disagree with the Crimewatch 2.0 changes, the biggest thing they have introduced is the opportunity for belligerent undesirables such as Monk and myself to kill even more downies. That is until CCP decrees that it is too risky for carebears to be able to engage suspects/WTs/criminals while set green, and will put a cover onto the big green button that prevents them from being able to target other players. Because, you know, it's not fair that you didn't know the suspect could kill you while set to green.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-01-18 02:05:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Anna Karhunen wrote:

Because talking means that whatever will be done with 100% probability? Interesting. I'd rather expect that they discussed about variety of options even if those options would not get implemented. You see, while they do that, they may 1) come across good arguments for and against said options, 2) come across new ideas that might solve the problems better than any previously mentioned options or 3) find out that all solutions are worse than the original problem and that it is therefore better to just maintain what is. As it is, all the ideas I have seen players throw on these boards have so far fallen to the 3rd category, but I would not stiffle the discussion like you would (at least on Dev/CSM side).



I think it might have more to do with seeing members of our CSM actually tell CCP that they're ok with removing pvp from high sec.

I think most of us are well aware CCP won't do it, but to know that we have people representing us saying they should is just wrong.

It doesn't make it ok, they're our representatives.

I think it's safe to say that even CCP was a little shocked any of the CSM's would suggest such a change.

Removal of PvP of any sort from high sec sholdn't ever be a point of discussion.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#138 - 2013-01-18 02:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Then I apologize to Trebor, doesn't make his opinion better or mean he should be supported as a CSM though.

Just means I thought he was the guy associated with EVE uni.
I may not agree with his opinion but he doesn't deserved to be credited for that particular piece of advice.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2013-01-18 02:13:36 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:


I think it might have more to do with seeing members of our CSM actually tell CCP that they're ok with removing pvp from high sec.

I think most of us are well aware CCP won't do it, but to know that we have people representing us saying they should is just wrong.

It doesn't make it ok, they're our representatives.

I think it's safe to say that even CCP was a little shocked any of the CSM's would suggest such a change.

Removal of PvP of any sort from high sec sholdn't ever be a point of discussion.


The problem is that nobody has said anything about removal of wardecs, other than rigth now it's silly and they would rather remove it than leave it as it is. And then inmediately everybody goes nuts and 'OMG THEY REMOVIN WARDEC' instead of 'CCP says that they will have to do something with wardecs because rigth now sucks hard'.

Sometimes I wonder of this game isn't played by a bunch of histerical teenager girls.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#140 - 2013-01-18 02:17:11 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
The problem is that nobody has said anything about removal of wardecs, other than rigth now it's silly and they would rather remove it than leave it as it is. And then inmediately everybody goes nuts and 'OMG THEY REMOVIN WARDEC' instead of 'CCP says that they will have to do something with wardecs because rigth now sucks hard'.

Sometimes I wonder of this game isn't played by a bunch of histerical teenager girls.


The big thing I'm making a stink about is the fact that discussion between CCP and the CSM had people on both sides advocate that only consensual decs should be allowed in high sec. I'm not screaming that they're removing war decs, I'm pointing out how dumb of idea it is to remove non-consensual wars.