These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#201 - 2013-03-01 08:34:45 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Frankly there's no reason to punish the aggressor for people not fighting them either... not that you agree since apparently you think something like the stock/commodities market is the same thing, but whatever.

No, not only do I disagree, but I will not ever agree to a logic where an aggressor considers himself punished for an instant win, but chooses to think it is a punishment. It is outright stupid.


Except the corp instantly dropping and reforming isn't a "win" for the aggressor. There are no goals I can think of that an aggressor may have in which that would be considered a "win". If they want gudfites? Not a win, as the other people skirted out of the war immediately. They want easy prey? Not a win. They want to disrupt a corporations activities for some reason (null logistics, general competition, grudges, etc)? Not a win, because you can't accomplish that if they can instantly drop and reform corp.

etc.

This is my entire bloody point, the ability to so quickly and easily drop and reform corps under a war means that goals of war deccing, the point of the system existing, can be completely undermined.
Whitehound
#202 - 2013-03-01 09:14:57 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Except the corp instantly dropping and reforming isn't a "win" for the aggressor. There are no goals I can think of that an aggressor may have in which that would be considered a "win". If they want gudfites? Not a win, as the other people skirted out of the war immediately. They want easy prey? Not a win. They want to disrupt a corporations activities for some reason (null logistics, general competition, grudges, etc)? Not a win, because you can't accomplish that if they can instantly drop and reform corp.

etc.

This is my entire bloody point, the ability to so quickly and easily drop and reform corps under a war means that goals of war deccing, the point of the system existing, can be completely undermined.

You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out. Fact remains the corp disappears and therefore is it a surrender. If you wanted a surrender or not is irrelevant. You simply got a surrender. Period.

The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#203 - 2013-03-01 09:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Aren Madigan wrote:
Couldn't really tell you if there's an EVE example, haven't seen enough, but the point still stands. Anyways, you may not have said its full proof evidence, but this whole conversation started because someone else did, which ultimately was the whole issue of why this is even a thing.

Neither did I say it was fool-proof. You only think of it as fool-proof. You even now go as far as insisting on your view being the only right one while you are waiting for evidence to prove you right when you "Couldn't really tell" yet claim "the point still stands". Lol This sounds like 300b ISKs all over again.

I have to ask, is this all part of role playing a university-inside-a-game?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-03-01 11:49:18 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
1- check the warp ins, once you find the warp in, stand on it and sort belts type and distance to see what he will mine next

2- exhaust one of the next roids to the point one cycle is left in it.

3- watch the bot mine it in one cycle,
but start mining it also.

4- stop your mining lasers slightly early.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-03-01 12:02:31 UTC
Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.

Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists.
Whitehound
#206 - 2013-03-01 12:22:52 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.

Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists.

As if one could not fight wars in high-sec any more. Cry more. Cry until you can cry no more. Please, start now and never stop.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#207 - 2013-03-01 12:37:37 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Whitehound appears to be a member of a small group of people who think that the only pvp in high sec should be ganking.

Instead of people going to war with each other and having reasons to fight, he'd rather the only people who do pvp in high sec be gankers as apposed to people who have legitemate reason to go to war, like industrialists.

As if one could not fight wars in high-sec any more. Cry more. Cry until you can cry no more. Please, start now and never stop.

The extreme arguements have no merit.

Everyone is aware that the dropping corp when there's a wardec is a real thing that is practices more then just occasionally. It's become the standard method of operating in high sec.

Few people are saying you shouldn't be able to drop to the NPC corp, I'm not even one of them.

As an industrialist you have no real point in joining a player run corp, anywhere for the most part. PoS's aren't needed for the vast majority of industrialist in EVE, and that's only thing you can get as an industrialist; even then it's not something you need to join a corp for, it's something you start a one man corp to run.

Wars are largely meaningless in high sec, and CCP doesn't intend them to be. This is a fact everyone is aware of after the last CSM minutes were released and everyone read the pages worth of conversation about how they could improve high sec wardecs.

You seem to be the only person who thinks that everything is ok as it is, and keeps saying that it shold stay as is.

Telling people that you shouldn't be doing warfare in high sec is just irresponsible. High sec isn't exempt, neither are industrialist, and industrialists are the ones that should be benefiting most from wars in high sec.

The problem isn't "the guy looking for targets" vs the industrial corp. The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.

I personally do not give a **** about giving the guys in high sec who want easier targets, access to easier targets. I want wardecs and high sec player run corps to be fixed so that I as an industrialist can use the tools that CCP has given me to be a better industrialist then you.

Bounties and wardecs are largely useless when it's mostly small corps, and corporations with policies to drop corp when there's a war.

Whitehound
#208 - 2013-03-01 12:47:32 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.

Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can!

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#209 - 2013-03-01 12:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Whitehound wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.

Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can!

So you're just a troll?

You know goddmaned well that as an industrialist every other person that builds the same items you build is a competitor and reducing your profits.



Edit: I'm beginning to seee what you're doing.
Troll enough, bait enough, and eventually the thread just gets locked.
Whitehound
#210 - 2013-03-01 12:54:29 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
The problem is one industrial corporations ability to use a wardec in the place where the bulk of all industry occurs, to limit the ability of another industrial corporation to outperform them.

Please, tell me what is it this one corporation can do, but no other can!

So you're just a troll?

You know goddmaned well that as an industrialist every other person that builds the same items you build is a competitor and reducing your profits.



Edit: I'm beginning to seee what you're doing.
Troll enough, bait enough, and eventually the thread just gets locked.

No. You listen. Either you answer my request and tell me about it or you are the troll here.

Start talking. What is it this one corporation can do but no other can?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#211 - 2013-03-01 17:12:11 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Whitehound wrote:
You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out.


That's fine. In that event, it costs something to deny your attacker their goals. Right now, it doesn't.


Quote:
The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.


Oh God, how am I ever going to afford 1.6 Million ISK to reopen my corp? I'm going to have to send out the collection plate.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#212 - 2013-03-01 19:43:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You will not achieve any of your goals either by the corp not disbanding, but only staying docked and waiting for the war to run out.


That's fine. In that event, it costs something to deny your attacker their goals. Right now, it doesn't.


Quote:
The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.


Oh God, how am I ever going to afford 1.6 Million ISK to reopen my corp? I'm going to have to send out the collection plate.

It does not have to cost anything. When I shoot at another ship and it flies off does then anybody refund my ammo? No. One gets chances in EVE, not guarantees.

And 1.6m ISK may be less than 50m ISKs, but 50m ISKs is less than 1b ISKs, which is the price for an alliance creation. Shall we make war-decs cost 1b ISK now because of a stupid logic? Do you want this? ... Again, EVE is not fair.

Get over it. This is not a shop and not even EVE's markets give a refund. Not much then has changed and if players do not get the new mechanics then we will get only more stricter rules until every last idiot gets it. And maybe we need stricter rules...

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#213 - 2013-03-01 20:01:32 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
It does not have to cost anything. When I shoot at another ship and it flies off does then anybody refund my ammo? No. One gets chances in EVE, not guarantees.
Sure, but you've denied that ship access to that location in space, and there are ways to keep the ship there.

What have you denied a corp who drops out of a wardec? They can keep the same name, corp ticker, and continue doing exactly the same thing they were doing.

Quote:
And 1.6m ISK may be less than 50m ISKs, but 50m ISKs is less than 1b ISKs, which is the price for an alliance creation. Shall we make war-decs cost 1b ISK now because of a stupid logic? Do you want this? ... Again, EVE is not fair.


Disbanding an alliance doesn't free anyone from a wardec, since the member corps continue to be under wardec for the duration. If you're asking for corps to be treated similarly to alliances, you're asking for players to continue being under the effect of a wardec after their corp disbands.

Quote:
Get over it. This is not a shop and not even EVE's markets give a refund. Not much then has changed and if players do not get the new mechanics then we will get only more stricter rules until every last idiot gets it. And maybe we need stricter rules...

EVE's markets always give you what you pay for. CCP has said that wardecs represent paying for targets.
Nobody's asking for a refund. We're asking for the targets we paid for.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#214 - 2013-03-01 20:18:07 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Sure, but you've denied that ship access to that location in space, and there are ways to keep the ship there.

What have you denied a corp who drops out of a wardec? They can keep the same name, corp ticker, and continue doing exactly the same thing they were doing.
...
Disbanding an alliance doesn't free anyone from a wardec, since the member corps continue to be under wardec for the duration. If you're asking for corps to be treated similarly to alliances, you're asking for players to continue being under the effect of a wardec after their corp disbands.
...
EVE's markets always give you what you pay for. CCP has said that wardecs represent paying for targets.
Nobody's asking for a refund. We're asking for the targets we paid for.

Stop with the stupid comment quoting. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you.

You somehow imply to know why the shots were fired, but you do not really know. Might as well be it just tanks your shots and you have to fly off. It also does not matter if someone leaves an alliance, but it is about the creation cost, because this is what you based your logic on and out of lack of a real argument. There just is no direct relation between the cost of a war-dec and the creation cost of a corporation. The amount was increased by CCP and on purpose, which is what you are really crying about. Like a Goon once said - it costs $1 to ruin a $50,000 car. You then only paid CONCORD and all they do is to look away and not to look towards. The game has change and you only did not get the news flash. It simply is cheaper to create a corporation than to declare war on it. Deal with it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#215 - 2013-03-01 22:14:28 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Stop with the stupid comment quoting. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you.

You somehow imply to know why the shots were fired, but you do not really know. Might as well be it just tanks your shots and you have to fly off. It also does not matter if someone leaves an alliance, but it is about the creation cost, because this is what you based your logic on and out of lack of a real argument. There just is no direct relation between the cost of a war-dec and the creation cost of a corporation. The amount was increased by CCP and on purpose, which is what you are really crying about. Like a Goon once said - it costs $1 to ruin a $50,000 car. You then only paid CONCORD and all they do is to look away and not to look towards. The game has change and you only did not get the news flash. It simply is cheaper to create a corporation than to declare war on it. Deal with it.


You were implying that the 1.6 Million ISK corp creation cost was a significant one to escape a wardec. It's not. The cost of the Wardec is irrelevant.

I never said there was. I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.

Where did I say that I didn't know that it is currently (and always has been) cheaper to create a corp than declare war on it? I only said that the 1.6 million ISK creation fee is not a significant cost for escaping a wardec.


Why do you think that wardecs should be consensual corp duels? Because without a significant cost to evade them, that's all they are. Consensual.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#216 - 2013-03-01 22:41:17 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
You were implying that the 1.6 Million ISK corp creation cost was a significant one to escape a wardec. It's not. The cost of the Wardec is irrelevant.

I never said there was. I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.

Where did I say that I didn't know that it is currently (and always has been) cheaper to create a corp than declare war on it? I only said that the 1.6 million ISK creation fee is not a significant cost for escaping a wardec.


Why do you think that wardecs should be consensual corp duels? Because without a significant cost to evade them, that's all they are. Consensual.

No. You implied cost as a factor. It was your argument, but now it is no good, which is the part you had to realize. You still seem to be hung up on a CCP statement, which you mistook as a guarantee for targets. Obviously you got it wrong, because it is not how it is working. The only guaranteed targets are NPCs, which is why we have NPCs.

I then do not think war-decs should be consensual or non-consensual. I make no demands at all to what it should or should not be, because we are on the Internet and it is a fundamental fact that you cannot make people do stuff they do not want to do.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-03-01 22:43:58 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

...I'm simply saying that escaping a wardec needs to come with a significant cost since, as CCP has said, Wardecs are about purchasing targets. Docking up for a week is a significant cost. 1.6 million ISK is not.

It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#218 - 2013-03-02 01:18:10 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No. You implied cost as a factor. It was your argument, but now it is no good, which is the part you had to realize. You still seem to be hung up on a CCP statement, which you mistook as a guarantee for targets. Obviously you got it wrong, because it is not how it is working. The only guaranteed targets are NPCs, which is why we have NPCs.

I then do not think war-decs should be consensual or non-consensual. I make no demands at all to what it should or should not be, because we are on the Internet and it is a fundamental fact that you cannot make people do stuff they do not want to do.


Whitehound wrote:
The corp then always needs to pay the fee for creating a corp each time they reopen it. Just like everybody else no matter if it is a new corp or an old corp reopening.

You implied that the corp creation fee was a significant factor in disbanding a corp. I am saying that it is not.

I'm saying that CCP came up with a flawed plan to reach their stated goals, and that WarDecs are currently just as badly broken as they were before the patch. Their entire rationale for the scaling costs was that "wardecs are purchasing targets."

You can, however, impose costs on behaviors. If the purpose of wardecs is only to allow for consensual corp dueling, that's one thing (and a bad thing for the game). If it's to allow players to disrupt the activities of other players in HS, then imposing a significant cost for escaping them is important. Whether that's a counterbribe, or docking for a week, or whatever.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character.


Maintaining an alt is a cost. If you want to pay that cost to be unimpeded by a Wardec, that's fine.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#219 - 2013-03-02 07:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
RubyPorto wrote:
You implied that the corp creation fee was a significant factor in disbanding a corp. I am saying that it is not.

I'm saying that CCP came up with a flawed plan to reach their stated goals, and that WarDecs are currently just as badly broken as they were before the patch. Their entire rationale for the scaling costs was that "wardecs are purchasing targets."

You can, however, impose costs on behaviors. If the purpose of wardecs is only to allow for consensual corp dueling, that's one thing (and a bad thing for the game). If it's to allow players to disrupt the activities of other players in HS, then imposing a significant cost for escaping them is important. Whether that's a counterbribe, or docking for a week, or whatever.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It could be argued that, with the proliferation of alts, for many wardecs would still remain effectively consensual as they could go about their activities unimpeded on another character.


Maintaining an alt is a cost. If you want to pay that cost to be unimpeded by a Wardec, that's fine.

Stop whining about the cost factor. You know it is a bad argument. If you want to whine to CCP then send them a petition. Tell them you did not get it and ask them to explain it to you.

People come to play EVE and they pay for it. Then disrupting someone's game is a terribly stupid idea. Just the idea of making players dock up for a week and consider it as valuable is the most immature concept I have read here on the forums. If you cannot play your game without disrupting or driving other players out then, frankly, it is you who needs to leave and not those who want to play. Nobody likes to play with biatches. HTFU and L2P. The mechanics are the same for everyone.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Lin Suizei
#220 - 2013-03-02 07:58:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Stop whining about the cost factor. You know it is a bad argument. If you want to whine to CCP then send them a petition. Tell them you did not get it and ask them to explain it to you.

People come to play EVE and they pay for it. Then disrupting someone's game is a terribly stupid idea. If you cannot play your game without disrupting or driving other players out then, frankly, it is you who needs to leave and not those who want to play. Nobody likes to play with biatches. HTFU and L2P. The mechanics are the same for everyone.


Before I bumped miners like yourself, I used to think all the posts like this were just some normal EVE players gently trolling each other and having a bit of a laugh among themselves. Now, I'm not so sure, that scares me a bit - that you might actually believe what you're posting on some level.

Mate, turn the mining lasers off for a few cycles, go outside, and have a long hard think about what you're posting.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.