These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dodging Wardecs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#681 - 2014-09-15 01:02:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This existing is an unintended mechanic. The existence of the surrender mechanic makes it very clear that it is the intended way to dissolve a wardec, not play games with corp registration.


EXACTLY.

It's akin to the cloak/mwd "trick" that everyone uses. It's not intended, but I guess they have no way to fix it, so they let it go.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#682 - 2014-09-15 01:02:13 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


Oh dear. Really? please say you were only joking when you typed that.

Really you should just Edit it to a blank post.




Great argument...and again proving the point that wardeccs WAD.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#683 - 2014-09-15 01:05:28 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


Oh dear. Really? please say you were only joking when you typed that.

Really you should just Edit it to a blank post.




Great argument...and again proving the point that wardeccs WAD.


I was not arguing. The post was totally pathetic. Not worth the argument.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#684 - 2014-09-15 01:07:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I have thought of a different problem with the ease of which players can drop and roll corps.

Suppose you wardec someone. Doesn't matter who, or why, pretend they're perfectly matched to your ability. A 'fair fight', one might say.

Then, someone assists them. In response, you hire mercs to interrupt the assistance.

And the players all drop the assisting corp, create a new one, and throw up a new assist, undeterred.

If you can't see what's wrong with this, I am at a loss.

And no, I'm not crying about this actually happening, this is an entirely possible hypothetical situation, one I thought of just now as I was preparing an assistance of my own and thinking of redundancy plans if mercs interfere. This is, indeed, an option entirely open to me, as a one man corporation that would cost those mercs 50-mil to dec each time. All I have to do is roll a new corp and throw in a new assist.


I'm quoting this again because it hasn't been discussed. Tell me why an assisting corp should be able to just roll a new one in the event of a dec to interrupt them, and throw in a new, free, assist with a new, not-decced corp? Because I intend to do this myself, since all I do is assists. Tell me why I should be able to do this?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#685 - 2014-09-15 01:07:05 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#686 - 2014-09-15 01:12:14 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.



Uh-huh, whatever. This is just another stale argument. Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec. The very reason they live in highsec is because of CONCORD protection. The wardecc was against the corp, not the person. The corp folded, you won the war, WAD. If you want to kill the guy so bad, go suicide gank him. There is no change to wardeccs that can actually make them force 1 man shops to fight wars, which is the purpose of a wardecc. Since thise cannot be accomplished anyway, no changes are necessary.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#687 - 2014-09-15 01:14:33 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I have thought of a different problem with the ease of which players can drop and roll corps.

Suppose you wardec someone. Doesn't matter who, or why, pretend they're perfectly matched to your ability. A 'fair fight', one might say.

Then, someone assists them. In response, you hire mercs to interrupt the assistance.

And the players all drop the assisting corp, create a new one, and throw up a new assist, undeterred.

If you can't see what's wrong with this, I am at a loss.

And no, I'm not crying about this actually happening, this is an entirely possible hypothetical situation, one I thought of just now as I was preparing an assistance of my own and thinking of redundancy plans if mercs interfere. This is, indeed, an option entirely open to me, as a one man corporation that would cost those mercs 50-mil to dec each time. All I have to do is roll a new corp and throw in a new assist.


I'm quoting this again because it hasn't been discussed. Tell me why an assisting corp should be able to just roll a new one in the event of a dec to interrupt them, and throw in a new, free, assist with a new, not-decced corp? Because I intend to do this myself, since all I do is assists. Tell me why I should be able to do this?


Maybe you keep it under your hat. Use it on the fools who want it kept. then let them come here and whine about it being an exploit Twisted
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#688 - 2014-09-15 01:16:22 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.



Uh-huh, whatever. This is just another stale argument. Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec. The very reason they live in highsec is because of CONCORD protection. The wardecc was against the corp, not the person. The corp folded, you won the war, WAD. If you want to kill the guy so bad, go suicide gank him. There is no change to wardeccs that can actually make them force 1 man shops to fight wars, which is the purpose of a wardecc. Since thise cannot be accomplished anyway, no changes are necessary.


Again with this "FORCED" pvp. What is with with you? do you actually have a fetish for it?


Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#689 - 2014-09-15 01:21:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.



Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec.


CONCORD don't provide protection, but even if they did...

Wardecs give me the right to remove it, for a cost.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Grog Aftermath
Doomheim
#690 - 2014-09-15 01:25:21 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Because it Validates the WD. It gives it meaning.

It also gives players choice. Drop Corp and eat NPC taxes, to be able to continue with that char / Or play an Alt / go outside, or fight and defend. All of which the WD was i believe meant to achieve.

ATM the BiS, and only choice is Drop and reform. Which totally, and utterly trivialises WD's



Taxes certainly don't give meaning to war-decs.


The reason behind the war-dec is what gives meaning to it. Of course being able to dodge a war-dec that has a legitimate reason (not because they want easy kills or just to annoy a group) can be a problem. But how many of those with legitimate reasons are actually dodged?

I've dodged one in the past, the reason for the war-dec was unclear. I just played an alt (was in a player corp, not solo) for the duration.

The choices are still there, but if people want to stay in-game or on the same characters then drop and reform works for them.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#691 - 2014-09-15 01:26:19 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.



Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec.


CONCORD don't provide protection, but even if they did...

Wardecs give me the right to remove it, for a cost.


Sure, for as long as the players are in the corp. Once they leave the corp, CONCORD is back in action. WAD. Never intended to force the individual player to forgo CONCORD protection after leaving the corp.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#692 - 2014-09-15 01:30:18 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

That's not an accomplishment. Forcing a guy into NPC corp may mean he has to pay more taxes, but that doesn't benefit you. Wardeccs are not meant to be a tool to let you embargo single players for a week or force the into NPC corps, they are meant to be a tool for you to challenge medium-large corps who don't want to disband, and allow you to force them to defend themselves.


Wrong.



Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec.


CONCORD don't provide protection, but even if they did...

Wardecs give me the right to remove it, for a cost.


Sure, for as long as the players are in the corp. Once they leave the corp, CONCORD is back in action. WAD. Never intended to force the individual player to forgo CONCORD protection after leaving the corp.


Again, and pay attention now because this is important.

CONCORD never ever ever provide protection. They are not an escort service.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#693 - 2014-09-15 01:31:55 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Again, and pay attention now because this is important.

CONCORD never ever ever provide protection. They are not an escort service.


They provide protection the exact same way the police do. Not as an escort service, but by shooting up the bad guys, and saving the good guys if they get there in time. That is protection. It's not a bodyguard or an escort service, but it is most assuredly a form of protection.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#694 - 2014-09-15 01:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Here's why it's better to be at war with your adversary than not, Veers. It's all about knowing your enemy.

See, when someone decs you, they get a little icon in local. When they don't... well, they don't get the icon. No icon + intent to kill = more dangerous because you won't see them coming. You probably won't even know they have an intent to kill you.

Personally, I'd prefer to get decced. Every neutral is a complete unknown.

And no, CONCORD provide zero protection. They don't even provide retribution, real retribution comes at the hands of a victim. All CONCORD does is punish illegal aggression. Punishment =/= protection.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#695 - 2014-09-15 01:34:32 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Again, and pay attention now because this is important.

CONCORD never ever ever provide protection. They are not an escort service.


It's not really a meaningful distinction. If you kill someone in high sec, outside of certain conditions, Concord will do bad things to you.

If there were any real distinction you wouldn't have to bother with war decs, since you can kill all those totally-not-protected-by-Concord people to your hearts content anytime, anywhere.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#696 - 2014-09-15 01:34:50 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Here's why it's better to be at war with your adversary than not, Veers. It's all about knowing your enemy.

See, when someone decs you, they get a little icon in local. When they don't... well, they don't get the icon. No icon + intent to kill = more dangerous because you won't see them coming. You probably won't even know they have an intent to kill you.

Personally, I'd prefer to get decced. Every neutral is a complete unknown.


I would prefer to not know but trust that my ship can survive the 10-20 seconds of being shot at before my CONCORD buddies come and wipes out the guy(s) shooting at me. Matter of preference, I suppose. You are of course free to live in low/null where your method is in force.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#697 - 2014-09-15 01:37:31 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


KA, You know you're right, I know you're right, most people know you're right.


And yet the only people whose opinions actually matter (CCP) appear to disagree.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#698 - 2014-09-15 01:37:48 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

Again, and pay attention now because this is important.

CONCORD never ever ever provide protection. They are not an escort service.


It's not really a meaningful distinction. If you kill someone in high sec, outside of certain conditions, Concord will do bad things to you.

If there were any real distinction you wouldn't have to bother with war decs, since you can kill all those totally-not-protected-by-Concord people to your hearts content anytime, anywhere.


There is, actually, a very meaningful distinction. If CONCORD were intended for protection, then victims would never pop. CONCORD would arrive instantly, provide infinireps to a victim, as well as removing the aggressor. The meaningful distinction is in the coding, the coding reveals intent.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#699 - 2014-09-15 01:38:55 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


I would prefer to not know ...


That much you make blatantly clear with every post.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#700 - 2014-09-15 01:39:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Bryen Verrisai
That seems like splitting hairs. If a ship is tanked extremely well but not armed enough to actually kill aggressors, it will eventually die. With CONCORD assistance however, that well-tanked ship can in fact be protected from its aggressors.

To say "CONCORD is not protection" assumes that the attacked party will always die.