These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec v.s. Bot Miner Corp

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2013-02-28 08:34:26 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Not exactly a surrender if all they do is immediately reform soon after quite often. Does not really make for a good argument at all regardless of what side of the fence you're on :/

That is just you.

It is not different from surrendering to 5 wars simultaneously either. When you then do not like it then find someone else. Insisting to fight a specific target is just dumb and stupid, and riding on it for the sake of an argument can only have one goal - to harass specific players. When people do not want to fight then they do not want to fight. Get it into your head.

Should the game ever change and the targets then decide to fight you back and then suddenly kick your arse will you be again crying on the forum. This time then about how you cannot get out of war or how this is now all unfair. It is not them who cry about some mechanics, you know?


Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.
Whitehound
#82 - 2013-02-28 08:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Aren Madigan wrote:
Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.

I lose 30m-40m ISKs only by setting up a single market order and almost every day. I get nothing for it and the fact that I make a profit is my own doing. Now do you see me crying about it? No!

So stop with the crying over war-decs. You did not buy a damn thing with it other than the chance of a fight. You still have not realized that you are not even fighting and that your war can cause you losses, just like I can have losses on the market and the broker fee is not a guarantee for anything other than me getting a chance.

You may only think that if the war-dec cost would give you a guaranteed fight you would then also get a guaranteed win. It is a false logic.

Simply check a corp's war history and see if they have been in many wars and if kills/losses were made. If you do not see it then do not war-dec. And war-decs is not the only way to get fights in high-sec. You can always look for active wars with kills and offer assistance.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2013-02-28 09:00:10 UTC
The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here.
Whitehound
#84 - 2013-02-28 09:03:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Aren Madigan wrote:
The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here.

No, it makes no difference. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-02-28 09:06:32 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here.

No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.


And you'd be losing it due to your own doing. Your comparison would be like saying losing 30-40m gambling is the same as it using it to buy something, but instead of being given what you paid for, the seller runs away with the dough.
Whitehound
#86 - 2013-02-28 09:09:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Aren Madigan wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
The difference is that one involves skill, the other doesn't, which completely kills the argument you were trying to make from the first sentence. Your efforts make or break that 30-40m. If you lose a lot of money during the war from losses, that's because of your own failings, or the other side catching you with your pants down. Different situation here.

No. I can lose billions on the market, too. Those 30m-40m ISKs do not give me anything.


And you'd be losing it due to your own doing. Your comparison would be like saying losing 30-40m gambling is the same as it using it to buy something, but instead of being given what you paid for, the seller runs away with the dough.

No. 30m-40m ISKs is the broker fee I have to pay on a daily basis. I trade with billions of ISKs and have high skills as well as good standings. It still costs me this much only to set up a single market order each time.

There is no difference here. It is an ISK sink just the same and I have to pay it like everybody else.

In fact, do I have to pay the price twice, because I buy with buy orders for which I need to pay a fee and sell it with sell orders, which costs me again the same fee.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2013-02-28 09:13:00 UTC
Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#88 - 2013-02-28 09:15:06 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Fairness is a two way street, not one. While it wouldn't be fair to go all hardcore on the mechanic, its also not fair for someone to spend 50 million for absolutely nothing of value to happen at all. Disband, reform, and all that happened is the aggressor lost 50 mil. I'm sorry, I'm against what a lot of the guys who want to expand wardecs are saying too, but ignoring this factor is just being self centered.


it's chump change for someone whose been playing the game for any length of time and it's just a risk you take when you declare war on a corp with no war history. if you're worried about losing money then you can use http://evewho.com/ to check the members' employment history also.

personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds.

forums.  serious business.
Dave Stark
#89 - 2013-02-28 09:15:49 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?


so, you're suggesting that you paid the wardec fee, and the wardec wasn't placed?
Whitehound
#90 - 2013-02-28 09:16:15 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?

Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market.

Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-02-28 09:17:23 UTC
It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Whitehound
#92 - 2013-02-28 09:21:21 UTC
dexington wrote:
It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.

Not quite. You first need to cry about blue or yellow before you can enter into any argument and make a drama of it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#93 - 2013-02-28 09:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds.

No. Not when you can now enter into existing wars by offering your assistance and even ask to be paid a price for it. You are just stuck in the old war mechanics. The new mechanics allow you to avoid the war-dec cost, to enter into existing wars and to make a profit while you can just stay docked and not help in the war at all.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-02-28 09:25:02 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Yes, you paid the broker fee and you got to make your order. How would you feel about it if you paid your broker fee and the order wasn't created? And then you paid it again and the order wasn't created? And you paid it as many times as you could and the order was created maybe one time in twenty?

Nonsense. You declare war and you have your war just like I get my order onto the market.

Whatever happens then is in the hands of other players. I cannot make them sell to me or buy from me. If I cancel the order will I also not get the fee back. It is the same in many places and it is called an ISK sink.


Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. Wardecs only fall under that classification as long as they last, and generally for you to drop your order, someone would have had to of likely spent money in a way that pushed you in that direction, in otherwords its still a competition, and essentially gambling. Someone disbanding an hour into a war only to reform isn't you getting the war. Hiding in a station isn't you getting the war. I don't encourage preventing people from leaving, or anything along those lines, but they sure as hell should be getting their ISK back.
Dave Stark
#95 - 2013-02-28 09:26:28 UTC
dexington wrote:
It's absurd to try and compare the brokers fee to the cost of starting a war, you might as well compare the sound of blue to the smell of yellow, they are after all both colors so if should be easy to compare.


actually it makes perfect sense.

you pay a fee (wardec or broker fee) and you receive a chance to do something. (be that pvp in high sec with impunity against a select group of people, or allow your item to be purchased by other players.

the comparison works fine.
Whitehound
#96 - 2013-02-28 09:28:36 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ...

And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-02-28 09:41:19 UTC
Market broker fees - similar to stock market. You pay a broker to help you buy some stock, and to make a profit you have to also take into account your broker fees. Or it could be taxes, or whatever.

War decs don't sound like anything remotely close to that. They're not comparable just because they cost money. The fact you're even trying to is frankly just as absurd as the arguments for individual war decs.

Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ...

And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.


Noooot even close. Especially if say its 1-man noob vs 1-man noob and the defender still bails out. Skill had nothing to do with the bailout.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#98 - 2013-02-28 09:41:38 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
personally, I think the cost of starting a corp should be on par with the war dec to stop that behaviour but trying to force people to fight is just a bad mechanic. if a corp has nothing to defend then there's no reason for them to fight unless they feel like it. they could corphop, dock up and log out or just go ninja ratting in null for a week to **** off the deccer, it makes no odds.

No. Not when you can now enter into existing wars by offering your assistance and even ask to be paid a price for it. You are just stuck in the old war mechanics. The new mechanics allow you to avoid the war-dec cost, to enter into existing wars and to make a profit while you can just stay docked and not help in the war at all.


someone has to pay to start the war though, regardless of how other players can join it.

forums.  serious business.
Whitehound
#99 - 2013-02-28 09:53:22 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Market broker fees - similar to stock market. You pay a broker to help you buy some stock, and to make a profit you have to also take into account your broker fees. Or it could be taxes, or whatever.

War decs don't sound like anything remotely close to that. They're not comparable just because they cost money. The fact you're even trying to is frankly just as absurd as the arguments for individual war decs.

Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Its not only in the hands of other players. There's a certain skill to it, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and you wouldn't be doing it as it'd be too unpredictable. ...

And it is the same with war-decs. If you declare war on a 1-man noob corp with no war history and expect to get a fight, then frankly, do you lack skill.


Noooot even close. Especially if say its 1-man noob vs 1-man noob and the defender still bails out. Skill had nothing to do with the bailout.

The war-dec is what you pay to CONCORD for looking away. It is a fee or a bribe.

Sure there is skill involved, or ask yourself what the chances are for a 1-man corp to disband and what it is for a 50-man corp to disband? There is your skill, you just do not have any.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#100 - 2013-02-28 10:02:38 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
someone has to pay to start the war though, regardless of how other players can join it.

True. The higher the war-dec cost then is the fewer wars there will be. However, this does not stop those from fighting wars who actually want to fight them. So while you get less wars overall do you get more true wars where there is fighting going on (relatively speaking). War histories then tell a much better picture and it becomes easier to find good wars.

When you lower the war-dec cost will you again get more uneventful wars and the picture on whom you can fight becomes more blurred.

There is however no reason why a war-dec should cost as much as the fee for creating a corp except for the opinion of a few who fail to find a war, which is entirely their own mistake.

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