EVE General Discussion

It's not nonsense. Someone leaving a corp, or the corp folding, in no way prevents non-consensual PvP. In Hisec all it does is prevent one method for having consequence-free non-consensual PvP, something that was never promised to anyone in Hisec, anywhere, ever.

Actually, that has more to do with my previous main account having been doxxed, stalked and threatened by a butthurt carebear after I awoxed his corp. (of note, CCP did not punish this person, despite them having sent me these threats through the game mail client)

Anything else you'd like to chat about how I post on the forums?

Still waiting for the part where the defender has any direct control over the war dec mechanic itself. Or why the defender needs to do x/y/z to protect themselves, but all the attacker needs to do is pay 50 million ISK, click a button, then kill anything that pops up on their overview.

But I do like the 'use alts for hauling' advice in a thread that's all about how unfair and wrong it is that people can get around war decs. Or earlier when Kaardus referred to Red Frog as 'doing it right', when they literally exist as a chat channel and contract clearing house for undeccable NPC corp haulers, before going on to rant about how people who use PC corps as just a chat channel don't "deserve" the privilege.

The War Deccer argument might be more convincing if it had any coherent point beyond , "We need more easy kills!"

Just keep repeating that lie, eventually it might be true.

But in the meantime, you can't dismiss a legitimate argument by lying about what people are actually asking for.

Another BNI that jumps into a discussion halfway through and has no idea what points have been made on this already, all throughout the thread. It's easy to declare an argument makes no sense when you haven't even read it, isn't it.

Seriously, you and your ilk are all alike. You have no interest in understanding the opposing viewpoint, you've already decided.

There are plenty of good reasons other than 'consequence free ganking' to wardec a highsec corporation. Many have been discussed in this thread. I'm sure it helps to maintain the comfort of your narrow-minded preference that highsec be PVP-free to avoid discussing any of them, of course.

I actually get around high sec offering decced carebear corps assistance, no charge. I explicitly give them an alternative to rolling their corp. I offer an intel channel, I do a tonne of intel work myself before making the offer, I provide a free out-of-corp hauling service for when their pilots need stuff from a trade hub that's been camped, and many other services. More often than not, they decline and roll corp. Even when presented with an alternative, rolling corp is the easier method for them.

My problem is FAR from not getting 'easy ganks'. It's not even that I don't get PVP, I have a neat little lowsec pocket for more than enough of that. My problem is that my efforts to make highsec a less comfortable place for actual 'griefers' is actually hindered by the ease with which one can drop corp to avoid a wardec.

You'll have to do a lot better than flippantly dismissing the veritable gamut of reasons one might declare war in highsec just because you're ignorant of them.

First of all, at least spell my name correctly. Seven letters is not too much to ask.

And Red Frog is doing it right because they justify their existence, they are more than just a tax dodge for mission runners and miners. I elaborated that earlier, so knock off the lies of omission, it just makes you look stupid.




Considering that is not the argument being made, it's just the one that you guys keep making up because you refuse to address the salient point, then I'd say we're good.

Because this is a video game. There doesn't NEED to be a point. There does need to be an internally consistent rule set that makes sense.

I've seen that kind of thinking my entire gaming life. There used to be a guy here on these forums who said he didn't "see the point of ganking" so it should not be allowed...because he doesn't see the point.

"I don't see the point" is a reason for you to not do something personally (like me, i don't see the point in ganking, so I don't do it), it's not a reason for game rules and mechanics, because someone else may see the point (or have no point at all other than fun in a video game).

You're conflating issues in order to make what you think make sense in your own head. That's the only place it makes sense btw lol.

The issue for me isn't the pvp aspect. I've dodged pvp under war decs. I was soooo funny seeing that Marmite dude complain in local about my Stabbed machariel getting away from him gate after gate between Jita and Amarr (I told him "shoulda brought a hictor, Hoe" lol).

But what I did came with the potential for failure (in that case, ship destruction). The potential for failure is one of the things that makes a thing balanced in a video game. You can NEVER fail to fold and reform a corporation. That's what makes the mechanic lame.

It's not just about kills it's about making life harder for PvE players, I mean let's face it, it's not hard for PvP players in high-sec when they're up against PvE players.


What EVE is, is not for you to dictate, it's what CCP want it to be. Presently it caters for both PvP players and PvE players, now if CCP decided to cater for just PvP players, then they might as well get rid of CONCORD and with it they will lose part of their player base. But whatever happens it's ultimately their decision to make.

They do that as a roundabout way of trying to make their rabid risk aversion legitimate. Because unless it is legitimate, absolutely nothing justifies permitting this exploit to continue.

So if they manage to establish the dialogue that PvP of any kind constitutes harassment, then avoiding is a *good* act, instead of an evil one.