These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hannibal Crusoe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#701 - 2014-09-15 01:44:09 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.


Concord will not do bad things to you.
They just blow your ship up.
It really is not that bad.

Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#702 - 2014-09-15 01:45:35 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
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.


You are obviously quite correct. Thats the point of the discussion. to make CCP see sense.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#703 - 2014-09-15 01:48:24 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.


Do the police show up right away? No? Do they provide protection? Yes.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#704 - 2014-09-15 01:48:58 UTC


Suggestion #1 to disallow closing of corp. This really won't accomplish anything if everyone just moves out of the corporation (as stated). You can't really prevent people from moving OUT of corp because that could easily turn into a situation that causes quite a bit of heartache/RL interference, etc.


Suggestion #2: Not sure I like the idea of economic war waged by wealthier individuals on less affluent capsuleers. This wiil essentially turn into a wallet-destroying mechanic.


Instead of wardecs you should Awox. Wardecs are a tool for two large corporations to cause each other damage. Wardecs are not a tool for you to seek out one or two individuals and get free kill capabilities on them in hisec. For this kind of thing, stop throwing money at the problem and learn to Awox.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#705 - 2014-09-15 01:51:00 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.


So why do we need war decs again?

The fact that effectively fighting or evading CONCORD is impossible, and that it is explicitly considered a bannable offense even if you do find a way, might also signal some sort of intent on CCP's part.

CONCORD is there to deter unrestricted PVP in high sec. War Decs allow you to pay them to look the other way regarding a particular corporation. Once that corp ceases to exist, for whatever reason, they start paying attention again.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#706 - 2014-09-15 01:53:47 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:


Suggestion #1 to disallow closing of corp. This really won't accomplish anything if everyone just moves out of the corporation (as stated). You can't really prevent people from moving OUT of corp because that could easily turn into a situation that causes quite a bit of heartache/RL interference, etc.


Suggestion #2: Not sure I like the idea of economic war waged by wealthier individuals on less affluent capsuleers. This wiil essentially turn into a wallet-destroying mechanic.


Instead of wardecs you should Awox. Wardecs are a tool for two large corporations to cause each other damage. Wardecs are not a tool for you to seek out one or two individuals and get free kill capabilities on them in hisec. For this kind of thing, stop throwing money at the problem and learn to Awox.



to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#707 - 2014-09-15 01:57:44 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.


To use another example, you can tank a single ship in 3 different ways simultaneously too but that doesn't mean it's the best way to do things.

You can WD a small corporation with a few individuals. They can dodge the WD by closing up shop and starting anew. This will happen until your wallet runs out.


Infiltration, in this case, would be a much better way. WD seems to only be a prelude to banging head against wall..

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#708 - 2014-09-15 02:00:24 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



Sure it has a purpose. It lets you declare victory, it lets you steal the corp name, and there is the chance they don't want to disband and choose to fight back.

The fact that you are unhappy with the outcome doesn't mean that CCP needs to make changes to a mechanic that works well already. Use better target selection.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#709 - 2014-09-15 02:10:02 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



Sure it has a purpose. It lets you declare victory, it lets you steal the corp name, and there is the chance they don't want to disband and choose to fight back.

The fact that you are unhappy with the outcome doesn't mean that CCP needs to make changes to a mechanic that works well already. Use better target selection.


No it does not mean they should change it because I am unhappy with any outcome. They should change it for the sake of balance.

Your problem is that you do not want to lose your Corp protection. That the very slight proposed would mean you are stuck in an NPC corp or having to play on an alt.

Where as I'm quite willing to forgo my Corp protection for the sake of balance.
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#710 - 2014-09-15 02:21:47 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



Sure it has a purpose. It lets you declare victory, it lets you steal the corp name, and there is the chance they don't want to disband and choose to fight back.

The fact that you are unhappy with the outcome doesn't mean that CCP needs to make changes to a mechanic that works well already. Use better target selection.


No it does not mean they should change it because I am unhappy with any outcome. They should change it for the sake of balance.

Your problem is that you do not want to lose your Corp protection. That the very slight proposed would mean you are stuck in an NPC corp or having to play on an alt.

Where as I'm quite willing to forgo my Corp protection for the sake of balance.


Well, lets see, currently:

1. The aggressor, obviously, initiates the War Dec
2. The aggressor chooses whether or not maintain the War Dec for however long they choose
3. The aggressor chooses whether or not to accept surrender offers, thus leading back to 2.

Presently corp dropping is literally the only means the defender has of affecting the War Dec in any way. And the suggestions for 'fixing it' are that they should either be forced to fight/dock/alt, or suffer some form of punitive punishment if they choose to avoid it.

I'm not sure what definition of 'balance' you're using, but I don't think it's the traditional one.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#711 - 2014-09-15 02:49:31 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:


Suggestion #1 to disallow closing of corp. This really won't accomplish anything if everyone just moves out of the corporation (as stated). You can't really prevent people from moving OUT of corp because that could easily turn into a situation that causes quite a bit of heartache/RL interference, etc.


Suggestion #2: Not sure I like the idea of economic war waged by wealthier individuals on less affluent capsuleers. This wiil essentially turn into a wallet-destroying mechanic.


Instead of wardecs you should Awox. Wardecs are a tool for two large corporations to cause each other damage. Wardecs are not a tool for you to seek out one or two individuals and get free kill capabilities on them in hisec. For this kind of thing, stop throwing money at the problem and learn to Awox.



to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



And, since leaving a corporation to avoid a wardec is explicitly permitted, then it follows what we have here is WAI.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#712 - 2014-09-15 02:52:47 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:

I'm not sure what definition of 'balance' you're using, but I don't think it's the traditional one.


That'd be the part where one unintended mechanic is not supposed to completely negate an intended mechanic with zero consequences.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#713 - 2014-09-15 02:56:00 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



Sure it has a purpose. It lets you declare victory, it lets you steal the corp name, and there is the chance they don't want to disband and choose to fight back.

The fact that you are unhappy with the outcome doesn't mean that CCP needs to make changes to a mechanic that works well already. Use better target selection.


So you finally admit defeat at my hands. I commend you, Veers, for your humility for a change, despite your hubris elsewhere.

“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
#714 - 2014-09-15 02:58:28 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
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.


Incorrect. If you've got a well tanked ship, then you've protected yourself.

“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
#715 - 2014-09-15 03:01:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Seneca Auran wrote:

I'm not sure what definition of 'balance' you're using, but I don't think it's the traditional one.


That'd be the part where one unintended mechanic is not supposed to completely negate an intended mechanic with zero consequences.


CCP has rather clearly stated that is not an 'unintended mechanic'.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#716 - 2014-09-15 03:03:22 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.


Uhhhh, a wardec gives me the right? Shocked


Quote:

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.


Man, you just dont get it. A wardec is about shutting someone down. Denying them content. Forcing them to stay docked or hide out in lowsec. Man Ive been decced by marmites several times, if you would look at their war histories, youll s3ee that many if not MOST of the wars have ZERO KILLS. It's NOT FREAKING ABOUT KILLING THEM, ITS ABOUT SHUTTING THEM DOWN. Jesus Christ man, how many times do people have to tell you this?

Now, since you keep on parroting "the purpose of wardecs" how bout a freakin citation, because the people who live with wardecs strongly disagree with what you think they're about.

So freaking citation needed. Tell us where you read "the purpose of wardecs."

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#717 - 2014-09-15 03:04:28 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Seneca Auran wrote:

I'm not sure what definition of 'balance' you're using, but I don't think it's the traditional one.


That'd be the part where one unintended mechanic is not supposed to completely negate an intended mechanic with zero consequences.


CCP has rather clearly stated that is not an 'unintended mechanic'.


I'm not going to ask you for a citation on this because I know there isn't one. The surrender mechanic says, to me, that they could be taking them in a certain direction, much like tiericide and other gradual developments in EVE. Who knows, maybe it's on their list of things to do already.

“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
#718 - 2014-09-15 03:05:14 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:


to use a VB's argument. If it is allowed then it must be a tool for that purpose.


If Wding a small corp of 1-2 players is allowed, then it follows that it is a tool for that purpose.



Sure it has a purpose. It lets you declare victory, it lets you steal the corp name, and there is the chance they don't want to disband and choose to fight back.

The fact that you are unhappy with the outcome doesn't mean that CCP needs to make changes to a mechanic that works well already. Use better target selection.


So you finally admit defeat at my hands. I commend you, Veers, for your humility for a change, despite your hubris elsewhere.


Lolz...next time I'll be happy to give you the name for 25 mil....give me a ring and we can do business.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#719 - 2014-09-15 03:07:04 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx 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.



Uh-huh, whatever. This is just another stale argument. Nothing gives you the right to force people into PvP without CONCORD protection in highsec.


Uhhhh, a wardec gives me the right? Shocked


Quote:

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.


Man, you just dont get it. A wardec is about shutting someone down. Denying them content. Forcing them to stay docked or hide out in lowsec. Man Ive been decced by marmites several times, if you would look at their war histories, youll s3ee that many if not MOST of the wars have ZERO KILLS. It's NOT FREAKING ABOUT KILLING THEM, ITS ABOUT SHUTTING THEM DOWN. Jesus Christ man, how many times do people have to tell you this?

Now, since you keep on parroting "the purpose of wardecs" how bout a freakin citation, because the people who live with wardecs strongly disagree with what you think they're about.

So freaking citation needed. Tell us where you read "the purpose of wardecs."



A wardecc is against the CORP not against the PERSON. There is no mechanic to force an individual pilot into war with you. CCP never created such a mechanic, and pilots were always free to drop to NPC corps. From the fact that CCP explicitly allowed dropping to NPC corp, its obvious that the purpose of wardeccs was never to allow you to engage in unrestricted pvp against an individual pilot without any way for them to avoid it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#720 - 2014-09-15 03:12:46 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Seneca Auran wrote:

I'm not sure what definition of 'balance' you're using, but I don't think it's the traditional one.


That'd be the part where one unintended mechanic is not supposed to completely negate an intended mechanic with zero consequences.


CCP has rather clearly stated that is not an 'unintended mechanic'.


The existence of the surrender mechanic displays otherwise.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.