These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grog Aftermath
Doomheim
#961 - 2014-09-18 17:47:56 UTC
I still think this thread has less to do with PvP and more to do with what I said earlier.


Grog Aftermath wrote:
I think it's more of a case of, hound the carebears, they've ruined our game, they must pay.


Although ruining instead of ruined would have been a better choice.




Which stems from some peoples concerns that the game will become more PvE orientated and less PvP.
Iain Cariaba
#962 - 2014-09-18 18:04:52 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
You might be onto something here. An adaptation from it could be. You pay for Concord support, as a corp. As much or as little as you want. Maybe a monthly fee. Lets just say, you as a Corp pay into the fund 1bill. Anybody WDing your have to pay this and 50mill to be able to declare war. Or you could decide area is relatively safe, and pay 100 mil for Concord support.

Outside of Corp no "Concord" support is given. This Gives Corps a "Something to fight for" Puts people into Corps. And could be a considerable Isk sink.

Wow, you really didn't think that idea through before you shiptoasted, did you, or do you just not realize how ridiculously abused that idea will be? All that idea does is further enable high earning corps to drive the cost of wardecs up to stupidly high levels, while leaving smaller corps still at the mercy of the people you accuse of creating this immaginary problem.

As for being able to buy concord backup, not just no, not even just hell no, but a full on **** no!!! Again, benefit goes to those able to afford it, not to those who cannot. If both sides can afford it, then why even bother with a wardec anyway?
ashley Eoner
#963 - 2014-09-18 18:49:09 UTC
My god I can't believe people are still QQing because they don't want to spend the time or effort to target corps that have assets to defend. I swear some of the biggest carebears in eve exist in this thread. Cry hardcore about the newbie corp you decced disbanded but you're too scared to have a kill right floating around....




Said this earlier in this thread and I still stand by it.

Quote:

Oddly enough I don't have issues with people dodging my wardecs.. The fact that I don't dec one man corps or newbies might have something to do with that though.


HTFU and dec people who have stuff to defend or are capable of defending themselves. Otherwise ganking is available and easier then ever (and cheaper then ever). Don't worry you only lose .13 sec status if you don't pop the pod AND you get a free PVP fight sometime in the next month. WIN WIN!! If that's too much of a sec loss spend a little isk on tags and you'll make it back instantly. Hit someone with a bounty while having friends in fleet on grid and you can potentially easily make back your isk even.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#964 - 2014-09-18 19:15:21 UTC
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
48 pages of why bother.

People talking about might makes right and blah blah blah.

The new players are equal to children. Without children the population dies.

How much should we have to pay cops to be able to shoot kids?
Or the real question is what size bribe does it really take to make it happen.

Eve does not compare to real life in this way because the bribes are peanuts to the bulk of the population.
It's like giving a police department $20 to look the other way while you go on a shooting rampage.

If might really makes right concord would just blow through all secs of space and pop anyone with negative rating.

We need to make the cost higher. Much much much higher. If people want the game/population to exist well into the future having criminal element hunting the kids at almost no cost is not how it's done.


Here I have to disagree, simply because this game has survived for 11 years. They must be doing something right. This game appeals solely to a certain demographic, this is not one of those mmo's that anyone can get into and be reasonably satisfied with their game play. This one game stands out amongst all other mmo's. Really, though, we're talking about 2 different things. I would think that most reasonable ppl could agree that the NPE does need to be "good," or "smooth," what we're talking about is more directed towards actions regarding more "established" players.

If I were going to attempt to extort a small mining corp, for example, and I saw that the toons were all like 2 months old, I wouldnt bother.

Quote:

In real life people can bribe the cops back and they do. They pay the wages of the cops. The cops protect them for this reason and only this reason. Very rarely do you find hero cops and when you do they will not last as a cop, the other crooked cops will run them off.

The biggest game mechanic issue is that we have no way to fight back with cold hard cash. This puts indy/trade and large new player groups at huge disadvantage.

Let the defending corp pay a bribe too if needed. Have a max. Say 300 mil. If the attacking corp won't pay the 300 mil plus the cost to war dec which should be much higher no war happens.

Imagine a game that you can make the attacker pay 500 mil to shoot at you but you pay 300 mil no matter if they end up paying or not just for the extra protection.

The mechanic is broken and is not true to human nature or real life at all currently.


I sorta like the idea, but then it could be abused too. You could grief corps just by either costing them 300M or by going the wardec route. Either way the defending corp is put in a bad position. I imagine most of the folks here in this thread who are arguing for the defender's side won't like this idea, but we'll see.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#965 - 2014-09-18 19:18:20 UTC
Grog Aftermath wrote:



Which stems from some peoples concerns that the game will become more PvE orientated and less PvP.



There is that, too, in the back of many minds.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#966 - 2014-09-18 19:25:54 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
If that's too much of a sec loss spend a little isk on tags and you'll make it back instantly. Hit someone with a bounty while having friends in fleet on grid and you can potentially easily make back your isk even.


Not to stray too far off topic, but you're assumption is grossly misinformed. I have done the "tags for sec status" 2 or 3 times, and JUST to go from a -2 to zero ended up costing about 150M. That adds up if you're actively PVPing in lowsec, which speaks further of bad game mechanics, as none of that sec loss was from ganking or anything of the sort, but from engaging in "regular" PVP in lowsec, which I find ridiculous.

Ya know what, now that I think about it, that particular issue has chaffed my hide for a long time. I'm going to totally flip and say that I could live with fairly highly restrictive rules on PVP in hisec, if they would stop dinging my sec status for PVPing in lowsec. Lowsec is ALL ABOUT pvp... so let's fine tune hisec and then we can say "ok, you have hisec to dodge PVP, now stop punishing people for PVPing in lowsec."

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
ashley Eoner
#967 - 2014-09-18 19:31:32 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
If that's too much of a sec loss spend a little isk on tags and you'll make it back instantly. Hit someone with a bounty while having friends in fleet on grid and you can potentially easily make back your isk even.


Not to stray too far off topic, but you're assumption is grossly misinformed. I have done the "tags for sec status" 2 or 3 times, and JUST to go from a -2 to zero ended up costing about 150M. That adds up if you're actively PVPing in lowsec, which speaks further of bad game mechanics, as none of that sec loss was from ganking or anything of the sort, but from engaging in "regular" PVP in lowsec, which I find ridiculous.

Ya know what, now that I think about it, that particular issue has chaffed my hide for a long time. I'm going to totally flip and say that I could live with fairly highly restrictive rules on PVP in hisec, if they would stop dinging my sec status for PVPing in lowsec. Lowsec is ALL ABOUT pvp... so let's fine tune hisec and then we can say "ok, you have hisec to dodge PVP, now stop punishing people for PVPing in lowsec."
I have a gank fleet I run and it costs me nowhere near what you're claiming. Maybe you shouldn't just rush out and buy the tags without actually doing a little research?

I mean seriously there isn't much in this thread that can't be fixed without a little effort and research being put forth.,


I can kind of understand the sec loss for pod popping but only barely. I don't see why pvp in lowsec should hit your sec status.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#968 - 2014-09-18 22:33:27 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:
I just think its funny that so many people are talking about "PvP erry time you undock cuz EVE lolz"...and yet they choose to live in high sec.


Why else do you think I live in highsec?

Because no one needs PvP visited on them more than the people who are trying to avoid in the first place.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#969 - 2014-09-18 22:41:10 UTC
Grog Aftermath wrote:

Which stems from some peoples concerns that the game will become more PvE orientated and less PvP.



Close, but not there yet.

You fail to realize that carebears have, since the inception of CONCORD, been playing a zero sum game.

Constantly I hear how "they'll quit!" if the game isn't altered to such an extent that I would never want to play it. And for seven years now (my first character's EVE birthday is today!) I have listened to these spineless cowards spew nonsense about how the mere possibility of being shot at should stop existing. Their goal is Trammel, the elimination of PvP.

What they want? What they want is for me to stop playing the game. Simple as that, what they want from the game is for me and everyone like me to either quit, or be forced into a small corner of the universe where we can't bother them.

**** that, and **** them.

"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.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#970 - 2014-09-18 23:06:56 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
If that's too much of a sec loss spend a little isk on tags and you'll make it back instantly. Hit someone with a bounty while having friends in fleet on grid and you can potentially easily make back your isk even.


Not to stray too far off topic, but you're assumption is grossly misinformed. I have done the "tags for sec status" 2 or 3 times, and JUST to go from a -2 to zero ended up costing about 150M. That adds up if you're actively PVPing in lowsec, which speaks further of bad game mechanics, as none of that sec loss was from ganking or anything of the sort, but from engaging in "regular" PVP in lowsec, which I find ridiculous.

Ya know what, now that I think about it, that particular issue has chaffed my hide for a long time. I'm going to totally flip and say that I could live with fairly highly restrictive rules on PVP in hisec, if they would stop dinging my sec status for PVPing in lowsec. Lowsec is ALL ABOUT pvp... so let's fine tune hisec and then we can say "ok, you have hisec to dodge PVP, now stop punishing people for PVPing in lowsec."
I have a gank fleet I run and it costs me nowhere near what you're claiming. Maybe you shouldn't just rush out and buy the tags without actually doing a little research?

I mean seriously there isn't much in this thread that can't be fixed without a little effort and research being put forth.,


I can kind of understand the sec loss for pod popping but only barely. I don't see why pvp in lowsec should hit your sec status.



Pod popping, sure, but merely aggressing someone, no no no.

As for the tags for sec, either the prices for the tags (cuz rly who wants to rat for them) have gone down, or theyre higher than most places in Amarr, which is where I had bought mine. I think the exact cost for the tags + the concord fees came out to 144M, with most of that of course going for the tags.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#971 - 2014-09-18 23:11:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


What they want? What they want is for me to stop playing the game. Simple as that, what they want from the game is for me and everyone like me to either quit, or be forced into a small corner of the universe where we can't bother them.

**** that, and **** them.


Here here!
+1
o7

Sad but true.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Seneca Auran
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#972 - 2014-09-18 23:37:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Grog Aftermath wrote:

Which stems from some peoples concerns that the game will become more PvE orientated and less PvP.



Close, but not there yet.

You fail to realize that carebears have, since the inception of CONCORD, been playing a zero sum game.

Constantly I hear how "they'll quit!" if the game isn't altered to such an extent that I would never want to play it. And for seven years now (my first character's EVE birthday is today!) I have listened to these spineless cowards spew nonsense about how the mere possibility of being shot at should stop existing. Their goal is Trammel, the elimination of PvP.

What they want? What they want is for me to stop playing the game. Simple as that, what they want from the game is for me and everyone like me to either quit, or be forced into a small corner of the universe where we can't bother them.

**** that, and **** them.


So your real problem with carebears is...they have the exact same mindset toward the game that you do?

By 'forced into a small corner of the universe' do you mean the 93% of the game (give or take) where CONCORD doesn't respond? It seem to be you having the problem with the idea that there is a 'small corner of the universe' where there are a handful of deterrents to constant PVP.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#973 - 2014-09-18 23:40:35 UTC
Seneca Auran wrote:

So your real problem with carebears is...they have the exact same mindset toward the game that you do?


Oh, let's not go there. I didn't start this, after all. PvP players are not the ones who have been buffed incrementally and repeatedly by crying to CCP for the last decade.

Yes, I stopped believing in "live and let live" a long time ago in regards to carebears. But you people have been doing this literally since launch.

It's our turn now, it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way for once.

"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.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#974 - 2014-09-19 00:51:34 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
This game appeals solely to a certain demographic



If this were suddenly to become a true statement 90% of GD would cease to have ever existed.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#975 - 2014-09-19 01:02:07 UTC
Hiply Rustic wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
This game appeals solely to a certain demographic



If this were suddenly to become a true statement 90% of GD would cease to have ever existed.


aaaaand your sig:

Quote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
"Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied."
EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.


Roll

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
ashley Eoner
#976 - 2014-09-19 02:00:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Pod popping, sure, but merely aggressing someone, no no no.

As for the tags for sec, either the prices for the tags (cuz rly who wants to rat for them) have gone down, or theyre higher than most places in Amarr, which is where I had bought mine. I think the exact cost for the tags + the concord fees came out to 144M, with most of that of course going for the tags.


I don't buy all my tags in the amarr area and I have the luxury of waiting for the best deals which you might not have.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Seneca Auran wrote:

So your real problem with carebears is...they have the exact same mindset toward the game that you do?


Oh, let's not go there. I didn't start this, after all. PvP players are not the ones who have been buffed incrementally and repeatedly by crying to CCP for the last decade.

Yes, I stopped believing in "live and let live" a long time ago in regards to carebears. But you people have been doing this literally since launch.

It's our turn now, it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way for once.

I've watched you people try to destroy highsec from the day it was proposed. You can't stand the thought that someone somewhere might be having more fun playing the game differently from you.

"Sandbox for me but not for thee" is your warcry.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#977 - 2014-09-19 02:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
ashley Eoner wrote:

I've watched you people try to destroy highsec from the day it was proposed. You can't stand the thought that someone somewhere might be having more fun playing the game differently from you.

"Sandbox for me but not for thee" is your warcry.


Ironic statement, coming from someone who advocates strongly for those who want to pretend like EVE is a single player game at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, there is a way to play a sandbox MMO wrong, and that's to behave in a fashion entirely contrary to the concept. No, sticking your head in the sand is not a correct way to play the game just because it's a theoretical possibility.

"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.
ashley Eoner
#978 - 2014-09-19 02:51:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

I've watched you people try to destroy highsec from the day it was proposed. You can't stand the thought that someone somewhere might be having more fun playing the game differently from you.

"Sandbox for me but not for thee" is your warcry.


Ironic statement, coming from someone who advocates strongly for those who want to pretend like EVE is a single player game at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, there is a way to play a sandbox MMO wrong, and that's to behave in a fashion entirely contrary to the concept. No, sticking your head in the sand is not a correct way to play the game just because it's a theoretical possibility.

You have no real clue what I advocate for. You have only your assumptions and preconceived notions.


It's really funny seeing you complain about people wanting changes at the expense of everyone else......
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#979 - 2014-09-19 04:57:28 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
You have only your assumptions and preconceived notions.


No, I have your post history.

Quote:

It's really funny seeing you complain about people wanting changes at the expense of everyone else......


No, I'm saying that, after a decade of getting what they want, a decade of buffs to safety, if they think it's still not enough... that it's ridiculous. And it exposes that their agenda is the removal of PvP, simple as that.

I say no to this. And I say that after a decade of buffs to highsec safety, that it's too much, and it's about time they have some of that taken away, so we can actually have game balance for once.

"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.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#980 - 2014-09-19 04:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
ashley Eoner wrote:
My god I can't believe people are still QQing because they don't want to spend the time or effort to target corps that have assets to defend. I swear some of the biggest carebears in eve exist in this thread. Cry hardcore about the newbie corp you decced disbanded but you're too scared to have a kill right floating around....




Said this earlier in this thread and I still stand by it.

Quote:

Oddly enough I don't have issues with people dodging my wardecs.. The fact that I don't dec one man corps or newbies might have something to do with that though.


HTFU and dec people who have stuff to defend or are capable of defending themselves. Otherwise ganking is available and easier then ever (and cheaper then ever). Don't worry you only lose .13 sec status if you don't pop the pod AND you get a free PVP fight sometime in the next month. WIN WIN!! If that's too much of a sec loss spend a little isk on tags and you'll make it back instantly. Hit someone with a bounty while having friends in fleet on grid and you can potentially easily make back your isk even.



lolassets.... poco can be transfered to another corp, pos offlined and reanchored for free, jump clone access is not dependant upon standings once you create them.... basically any asset a corp has can be taken off the table cost free.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist