EVE General Discussion

The ability to tell friend from foe just removes the element of surprise. Doesnt make it a safer place. When you see somone who isint blue you either try to kill each other, you chase them, they chase you.

If I rat in my ship fit for ratting and a newt comes in system I have to run. Same for mining. I can still be killed or caught and have been several times over the years.

In hi-sec I dont really know who is wanting to kill me till it happens. Does this make null safer? Cant say for sure because of so many variables. What am I doing in hi-sec what type of ship where am i etc...

Yes null can have a sea of blue but you will die quicker in null for lack of awarness than if you have that same lack of awarness in hi-sec.

Did I deny that that exists as well? I was pointing out that griefing isn't the ONLY reason to wardec, by a long shot, which is what everyone in this thread who is against being wardecced is trying to claim.

Oh yeah, and you just proved my point that no one needs NPC corps to hide in, thanks

There is some irony though in the idea that an aggressor should be able to "impose their will" on another persons activities, yet the recipient should be unable to bypass it. This becomes especially true for wardec'ers who have their isk making activities separated from their wardec corps. No aspect of their play is impeded (the dec was made either to create combat opportunities of solicit a change in behavior, and would almost always achieve 1 of those 2 effects if corp hopping were eliminated) yet the defender is the one which is expected to have to be the most limited.

Actually, its not their problem right now. This is all your problem. You want to shift the problem rather than let people do things their way. Carrots and sticks work, otherwise there wouldn't be PvP at all. Generally the games that go stagnant with their PvP are the ones that have the PvP for the sake of PvP. High sec is weighted towards the defender for a reason. Leave that be.

Now as for the winning strategy thing, often those result when people find a good allaround one and people lack the resources or creativity for the counter, or when they're not, they are from an inherent issue, which they should address. I have trouble believing that problem is high sec.

Anyways, you have ways to nullify high sec protection as well, right now you just want to shift whose problem these things are with no sense of compromise, no sense of other people's play style, essentially I get the feeling you'd be happiest if the whole of the game was essentially nullsec, or at least you might think you would be. Get a bit more of an impression of legitimacy from you than I would most others, ironic given how people love crying and screaming about TEST, but really, I don't see any reason to not just leave the people who want to be safe alone. Maybe force them to refund your wardec cost out of their own pocket, sure. They want their own corp and want to avoid wardec, go for it. Maybe expand the taxes to contracts and such so that 10% affects basically everything, all that kind of stuff, thumbs up. But the line's gotta be drawn somewhere.

From my limited knowledge about nullsec, if I had to say what would be making that stagnant if anything? It'd be that it doesn't appear to be any harder to defend as you claim more territory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm dead wrong, that's fine. Just seems a little weird that people wouldn't arrange attacking multiple locations instead of blobbing into one if it wasn't the case, you know? If I'm wrong, great, fantastic, I don't know ****. But just my impressions from what I've heard. Which is a shaky way to form an opinion and why I largely avoid talking about it.

stagnant player base?

EO has more subscriber now then 2 years ago.

I've seen 60k online recently, and havn't saw that for a long time!

also, they claim over 400k subscriptions. Who do you think compose the majority of that player base? Gr.. Wardeccer? or Carebear?

on the forums, it's always the same 40-50 people complaining about wardec evasion. I'm pretty sure CCP has more then the forum to check on the wish/need of their player base, and that they are doing what they think is best for the game.

There's nothing wrong with highsec as a game-type right now. There's plenty of income and the right amount of safety is there. The problem is people don't have to participate in the highsec gametype and instead choose to participate in a super-safe version of it where they basically don't leave the tutorial mode and are able to dodge the major pvp mechanic for people living there. It's not intentional, and there is plainly no good reason for it to exist.

People are naturally min/maxxers, they will gravitate towards what brings them the most amount of money or fun for the least amount of pain. Nullsec is broken because the amount of income or fun an individual player gets is generally not worth being a target to everyone in the game all the time. The natural situation that people end up in (alone in highsec chainrunning missions or mining) results in them perpetuating stagnant gameplay and they become stuck in their situation and will never advance to any different styles of gameplay or achieve any sort of meaningful long-term goal.

The only tactic left that players have against wardec evasion and to solve the problem is to inform the public and CCP exactly why allowing this abuse of mechanics to continue is a bad decision.

We can agree that the forums don't always produce good answers.

Sadly, the forums have been used to cause many injustices to the game to go on(having corp hoping declared not an exploit anyone?) which is why you now have so many very vocal and very polarized voices here shouting for extremes that would not be good for the game.

It discredits the forums as a whole, and in case that part doesn't work, it makes sure that both extremes are presented.

Rationally, Wardec evasion is bad and needs to be fixed. Nerfing NPC corps has some serious drawbacks, but it appears to be the best solution, unless a more reasonable one is presented. Only other one that seems to make sense is CONCORD removal.

And corp hopping cooldowns is not the answer IMO, because of corps that recruit people for the purposes of griefing them(manage to join 3 in a row and find yourself trapped for days?!?!)

Edit: oh, and as a side note, they thought Incarna was best for the game, so what they feel is best for the game is not always right either.

Can we have some more context please? Who are you replying to, and if you are replying to my post which of the topics I covered are you responding to?

Quote functions exist for a reason, and you can edit the quoted text to only show the relevant parts, FYI.

Tears are extracted. Game mechanics working as intended.

Your mistake was assuming that wardecs are about attacking players, when they are about attacking corporations or alliances. Wardecs are certainly not about you having a way to impose your will upon anyone, otherwise they would target individual players and there would be no option to surrender, and making a war mutual would not drop all ally offers.

The way to fix wardecs is to adjust the balance of hi/lo/nul industry. By having more people who need to enter lowsec for their industry, you will have more targets accessible without the pointless effort of wardecing hisec mission runner corps.

Really, because I was more under the impression that was more what low sec and null sec was about. High sec being some protection from those attitudes. Key word obviously being some. Organized groups still hold more power, but there's sizeable cost to them going ape. Certainly seems how things are currently designed.