These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Dodge Clarification Needed

Author
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2013-02-25 19:31:13 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
I guess being able to disband your corp and make a new one within those 7 days to skip the timer is working as intended too? Even more wardec mechanics that you can dodge, further proving that corp hopping is an exploit.


I've not heard one good reason why this is a problem if the corp is nothing more than a shell. if they corp hop then they lose their rights on you also.


But who paid for those rights? A reason why I'd agree with refunds..
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2013-02-25 19:32:04 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:


EI Digin wrote:
Highsec would still be peaceful. Vastly more so than any other section or playstyle in the game. You just won't necessarily receive peace all of the time for free and you actually have to work towards it if you tend to do things that affect other people's gameplay.


Which activities in EVE are the ones that do not affect other people's gameplay?
There are no activities that don't affect other people's gameplay. That means if you are affecting someone else's gameplay and they don't like it, it's only fair for them to have recourse. Blink



And currently that recourse includes suicide ganking them, bumping them, putting bounties on them, stealing their mission loot, stealing their cans(yeah I know, who uses cans now), salvaging "their" wrecks, trying to scam them, and many other creative endeavours.
What you don't get to do is wardec them and negate their Concord protection.
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#103 - 2013-02-25 19:34:49 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:

if it is a problem for war between corps and alliances then put the timer on the other side. you can leave but you can't rejoin.


it's already like that!

as long as the war remains, you cannot rejoin a corp if you leave during the war, as long as the war is active.


That is not correct. You cannot rejoin until the war ends, or seven days, whichever comes first.


after 7 days, even if the war is renewed?

Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#104 - 2013-02-25 19:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Skeln Thargensen
Aren Madigan wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
I've not heard one good reason why this is a problem if the corp is nothing more than a shell. if they corp hop then they lose their rights on you also.


But who paid for those rights? A reason why I'd agree with refunds..


if the purpose of the war is to attack the characters in a corp then the deccer deserves to get burned if they disband, if they erroneously believe that wardecs are non-consensual PvP. 'cos they aren't player versus anything and players choose to be part of entities or not.

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#105 - 2013-02-25 20:57:50 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Its not like CCP does not know there are issues here. From the last CSM minutes:
"Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak aren’t responding, and nobody’s getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?

Alek countered that this more often happened in the reverse – a smaller, say 5-man corp, will wardec a larger 50-man entity, who will just dock up and refuse to fight. Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP."

Remember this is a game. People play it for fun. If being in a war is not someone's idea of fun, then they will:

Drop corp for the duration. If the rules were changed so as to block them from doing so:
Stay docked up for the duration. Or if forced to undock:
Not log in that pilot for the duration.
You have to understand the environment that has been created with wardecs being disposable. The scenarios that currently play out aren't really liked by anyone, but they're products of the environment that has been created. When all of the smart players are dodging wardecs, all that's left are corps who don't know how to deal with them, or that cannot disband because they hold in-space assets. The actual targets you would want to wardec and people who could actually handle the wardec are immune, and you end up with ridiculous scenarios like your 50 man corps being afraid of 5 people. This is the real reason why you see that 70-80% figure come up, because the only real options left for highsec PVP corps are grief opportunities.

The strong's only prey is the uneducated, because the vast majority of the prey is able to hit the "I win" button. That's not a healthy ecosystem because it kills off the predators or anyone trying to show predator-like traits.

Being in a wardec may indeed not be people's preferred form of fun. But you can't have fun and do what you want all of the time, sometimes you have to work towards it. It makes the fun you have better when you know you've worked for it, and it gives you experiences you will never forget and are willing to share with your friends. Your idea of fun might even change as you become more and more experienced with other forms of gameplay.

A major problem in highsec is that profit margins are so ridiculously low that if you aren't having your preferred form of fun all of the time you are falling behind, because the market has adjusted to a wardec-free game dominated by low profit margins that only old, experienced players with lots of capital can match. This is a major reason why people don't undock and hate wars, because they fall behind and margins increase to the point where any ship loss drastically cuts into their bottom line.

Skeln Thargensen wrote:
I've not heard one good reason why this is a problem if the corp is nothing more than a shell. if they corp hop then they lose their rights on you also.
Because corps aren't shells, you don't understand the concept of what a corporation is other than a tax shelter because you've been living like this and exploiting the system for so long. You have been incorrectly educated by the system. Players shouldn't have this mindset, it's something that game avoidance tends to bring on people.

Takseen wrote:
And currently that recourse includes suicide ganking them, bumping them, putting bounties on them, stealing their mission loot, stealing their cans(yeah I know, who uses cans now), salvaging "their" wrecks, trying to scam them, and many other creative endeavours.
What you don't get to do is wardec them and negate their Concord protection.
Players are able to use in-game mechanics to protect themselves from these and other mechanics. That's fair. What isn't fair is being able to dodge a mechanic using exploits. Especially when that exploit breeds players who choose to become immune from consequence.
Karle Tabot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#106 - 2013-02-25 21:16:05 UTC
The fundimental problem is that the current implimentation of a war dec does not promote mutually fun pvp. It is totally one-sided fun, and that type of implimentation has now naturally progressed to the point where one side fails to get the combat and fun it was seeking, and the other side feels forced into not playing the game in any form of what they consider fun.

What really needs to happen is that mutually fun pvp needs to be designed into the game, promoted and encouraged. To realize that and articulate it is easy. But the design, and the promotion and encouragement of that design, is much more difficult to solve.

I respectfully suggest that those sincerely interested in truly fun and rewarding pvp in this game begin focusing on how that might be so implimented, promoted and encouraged, as to appeal to more than merely those seeking totally one-sided combat that is virrtually risk free and highly rewarding for them, while at the same time punishing, demeaning and totally unfair for the victims.

If and when such a design is conceived and implimented, and promoted and encouraged, it would not only naturally lead to desired pvp, but greatly add to the fun of the game.

Right now the focus of those who arguably want this is more on complaining about the lack of totally one-sided forced pvp in whiuch they get all the rewards and the victims get only punished. If and when the same energy and creativity gets redirected to finding a more mutally beneficial solution, the benefits could be huge for all.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#107 - 2013-02-25 21:41:22 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Because corps aren't shells, you don't understand the concept of what a corporation is other than a tax shelter because you've been living like this and exploiting the system for so long. You have been incorrectly educated by the system. Players shouldn't have this mindset, it's something that game avoidance tends to bring on people.


lol @ game avoidance. tell me more about how i need brainwashing educating on how to play sandbox game.

actually don't.

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#108 - 2013-02-25 23:05:07 UTC
Karle Tabot wrote:
The fundimental problem is that the current implimentation of a war dec does not promote mutually fun pvp. It is totally one-sided fun, and that type of implimentation has now naturally progressed to the point where one side fails to get the combat and fun it was seeking, and the other side feels forced into not playing the game in any form of what they consider fun.

What really needs to happen is that mutually fun pvp needs to be designed into the game, promoted and encouraged. To realize that and articulate it is easy. But the design, and the promotion and encouragement of that design, is much more difficult to solve.

I respectfully suggest that those sincerely interested in truly fun and rewarding pvp in this game begin focusing on how that might be so implimented, promoted and encouraged, as to appeal to more than merely those seeking totally one-sided combat that is virrtually risk free and highly rewarding for them, while at the same time punishing, demeaning and totally unfair for the victims.

If and when such a design is conceived and implimented, and promoted and encouraged, it would not only naturally lead to desired pvp, but greatly add to the fun of the game.

Right now the focus of those who arguably want this is more on complaining about the lack of totally one-sided forced pvp in whiuch they get all the rewards and the victims get only punished. If and when the same energy and creativity gets redirected to finding a more mutally beneficial solution, the benefits could be huge for all.
It's impossible to have mutually fun PVP. Someone has to lose, whether it's the person who gets run out of business or the person who lost their ship to war targets. Losing isn't fun and people will do anything to avoid it, including breaking the game. If you remove loss, you remove meaning and consequence, which is one of the biggest reasons why people play this game.

And of course when anyone wins their form of PVP, either through making tons of money (PVE as you know it doesn't exist in this game, it's called market PVP), through ship combat or through demolishing argument after argument on the forums it shows that they are skilled, masterful at their art and great players. If you lose it was because of dirty stupid blobbers who were seeking one-sided combat that is risk free, have been punished unfairly and was totally unfair. Blink
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2013-02-25 23:11:52 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
It's impossible to have mutually fun PVP.


That's not even remotely true, even in Eve.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#110 - 2013-02-25 23:13:34 UTC
that's a load of crap. just because you lose it doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the gf.

forums.  serious business.

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#111 - 2013-02-25 23:13:53 UTC
RvB doesn't keep people subscribed for 10 years.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#112 - 2013-02-25 23:21:10 UTC
I know, sound a bit too 'fun' and not really like some grim dutiful endgame.

forums.  serious business.

0Lona 0ltor
Adeptio Gloriae
#113 - 2013-03-01 14:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: 0Lona 0ltor
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
I really like the idea of locking people into a corp for the duration of a war. So many cool things you could do!

Off the top of my head, get an awoxer into Corp A. Have awoxer's bros promptly declare war on Corp A. At least a week of locked in fun!


That would be a problem but then the corp ceo could mearly set this known awoxer as a red and thus the problem would be solved.

But

On this note the best solution would be that wars simply follow players if they choose to leave or are kicked from corp. The war would follow for 7 days or when the war ends which ever comes sooner. This would include chars kicked from corp.
Whitehound
#114 - 2013-03-01 14:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Karle Tabot wrote:
I respectfully suggest that those sincerely interested in truly fun and rewarding pvp in this game begin focusing on how that might be so implimented, promoted and encouraged, as to appeal to more than merely those seeking totally one-sided combat that is virrtually risk free and highly rewarding for them, while at the same time punishing, demeaning and totally unfair for the victims.

It is already in the game with the existing war-dec mechanic and the new mercenary market, where one can offer assistance and enter into a war free of cost or even get paid for it. This makes for a good, encouraging PvP experience.

What needs to be addressed now is to disable war-decs on small corps and to put an end to those corporations who only seek easy kills. This will provide the long needed discouragement and puts an end to the discussion.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Adaahh Gee
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#115 - 2013-03-01 14:47:13 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Takseen wrote:
If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.


CONCORD tries to protect you from everyone else who doesn't pay to wardec you. Sounds like a good reason to still have them to me, because there are a lot of people out there who aren't valid targets to you.



Concord are not there to protect, they are there to punish.
Whitehound
#116 - 2013-03-01 14:51:15 UTC
Adaahh Gee wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
Takseen wrote:
If you could bypass CONCORD for a measly wardec fee there'd be precious little point to having them at all.


CONCORD tries to protect you from everyone else who doesn't pay to wardec you. Sounds like a good reason to still have them to me, because there are a lot of people out there who aren't valid targets to you.



Concord are not there to protect, they are there to punish.

Actually, they do both. When CONCORD is fast enough is it protection. Even if it was only a punishment will its long term effect serve as a protection, because it discourages fights.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2013-03-01 14:51:21 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
[http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wars

Quote:
A war declaration (war dec) is a formal state of war between two player corporations or alliances.


it's not there so players can grief other players.

Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.


It will used for exactly that, if you take away all chances of avoiding it.



That's really the crux of it - high sec wardec corps (in my experience) want free ganks, not a real war. If they wanted a real war, they'd wardec Miniluv or Test - someone that can toss a hundred capable, experienced, PvP pilots onto the field at a moments notice, not 5 man corps of miners with no fixed assets. The real "problem" is that these corps feel they should be able to stop people from avoiding their wars. Let's be clear - these people don't WANT to PvP. They aren't going to "man up" and stick around to fight you in their fleets of mackinaws and hulks. They will duck the war dec as soon as they can.

However, if your real goal is to cause them economic harm, this really won't stop you from doing so. If, on the other hand, all you're after is a consequence free killboard padding gank fest - well, as someone else said, prepare to be disappointed. Try wardeccing PIRATE or The Marmites. I'm pretty sure they won't disband when the dec rolls in.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-03-01 15:05:09 UTC
0Lona 0ltor wrote:
That would be a problem but then the corp ceo could mearly set this known awoxer as a red and thus the problem would be solved..


Use a 10-hour hero. Problem solved.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Adaahh Gee
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#119 - 2013-03-01 15:26:33 UTC
The problem with war in eve, is it has no goal.

IRL, war is usually used as a tool to:
gain/defend territory,
force religious/political change,
gain access to resources such as Oil

(or any combination of the above)

None of these are really touched upon by high-sec war decs in eve.
War decs are merely a way to pay a fee so you can attack people in high-sec without concord getting involved.
Motivation for this is usually revenge, extortion or just as a way to shoot other people that don't really want to/know how to fight back.

Put yourself in the shoes of an average miner in Eve, you enjoy the relaxing buzz of your lasers while your training queue ticks away, maybe later you'll run some level 2's to learn a little (you hope) about combat and fitting.
Now you are under war dec, you just lost your Hulk to a pair of strat cruisers, having not been in combat before, you lose your pod too.
You have 2 options,
1. You leave corp until war dec is over, there is nothing you can do to help with your mainly industrial skills anyway.
2. You log off and don't play eve for the week, hoping that the dec will not get renewed for another week.

In my experience, the majority of war dec corps seem to only engage against haulers, barges and PVE boats. The moment that anything shows up that could be an actual threat, they dock up and log off (ironicly, probably logging on an alt to go do carebear stuff in null sec to pay for more war decs with your alt)
There are exceptions out there, but sadly not enough.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#120 - 2013-03-01 16:22:02 UTC
To be fair a few high sec wars have a goal.

POS removal: sort of like a fight for territory
Move the other corp out of the area, with the goal to reduce competition for asteroids and/or manufacturing slots. A fight for resources.

My guess is less than one in 10 wars are of this type. As CCP themselves have said, its a cursed mechanic. Its there for the few times its needed, but most of the time its use results in a situation that is not fun for anyone involved.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction