CSM Campaigns

The problem is that this is unrealistic, because you don't want people who PvP to defend, you want players who have no skill or interest in PvPing to do it. Giving a defender a token reward to defend themselve then cutting of their ability to evade isn't going to suddenly make them good at PvP. I'll have to dig out the stats later, but from CCPs crest data, the vast majority of wars are won in the isk war by the aggressor. This is because the aggressor targets groups they will win against. There's nothing to gain by attacking someone they'd lose against.

I'm all for conflict, but it has to be meaningful conflict between groups who are on an even footing (and it also doesn't have to be just shooting each other, there are other forms of conflict). I'm not for forcing players into gameplay they don't like just so that another group has more targets to shoot at. This game is for multiple playstyles whether you like that or not.

In that instance, by PvP I meant the classic "pew pew" variety, which is what you are trying to encourage. You know this too.

And I believe that low SP characters controlled by players interested in shooting people can excel at it, sure, but you're being rather dishonest if you are suggesting that's who ends up as the defender in a wardec 9 times out of 10. The majority of defenders are players who have no interest at all in shooting people, and if they tried would fail against most of their aggressors who are considerably more skilled (not in SP, but in actual player ability).

I get it, you want more people to shoot at - so go find players who want to play that way. Stop trying to force every other player who wants to play their own way into playing the way you want them to just because you want to be fed easy targets rather than hunt tougher ones down.

Check it out, my personal troll found me again.

Then you have comprehension issues.

Nope, I'm for non-consensual combat, it just needs to be within reason. Forcing players to have to engage in fighting in order to get out of a hostile situation placed on them by another player isn't respecting other people's playstyles. Just because people don't play like you, doesn't mean they are playing wrong. I'd like everyone to be able to get whatever it is out of EVE they want. That's not good enough for you, well tough, that's still my view.

Because like you, I'm allowed to. My opinions are valid even if you don't like them.

Which is why I'm not advocating it's removal. I just don't support making it even easier for a player to be disruptive to the PvE playstyle just because you think people should be punished for not wanting to engage in PvP combat. Once again though you either are unable to or actively refuse to make that distinction, and you continue to assume that anyone with a view that isn't exactly yours is automatically asking for the removal of all non-consensual PvP.

At the end of the day, there's room for all types of player in EVE. I really don't care if you think it should be just you guys. That's never going to happen, even if you get terrible CSM candidates elected.

Where exactly did I say I'm not for non-consensual combat? In your mind unless I'm screaming "EVERYONE SHOULD KILL EVERYONE AT ALL TIMES WITH NO RESTRICTIONS RAAAAH!!" that I'm not for non-consensual combat. That's ludicrous. I'm for a balanced game, which involves considerably more than one playstyle.

No that's not what it means at all. Sabriz's suggestions amount to making wars unavoidable without logging off or staying docked, then giving the defenders some token amount of isk to repeatedly die as a form of content for the aggressors. Being against that isn't removal of non-consunsual PvP, it simply means not making it ridiculously easy and not giving people choices when reacting to it. And sure, defending themselves, but that does not mean they have to FIGHT to defend themselves.

You haven't seen though anything. Basically you've read some of what I've written, ignored it and gone on your usual tirade that you dish out to everyone lately. I get it, you hate EVE, you hate where it's going. Well tough luck buddy, this is the game. PvE exists, and CCP are not going to just throw everyone into some sort of pit of death for you to blap endlessly without effort.

You want non-consensual PvP? That's fine, it exists and always will but you have to work for it just like everything else. You already have to pay basically nothing to force an entire corporation into combat, you can gank with a week old character in a ship costing a tenth the cost of a mining barge, and yet you want the game to be even easier? Seriously, HTFU.

I'm for non-consensual combat

is the quote that I get out of your link.

Lucas, just click his name and hide his posts. He is not on the forums to contribute. Kaaros sees himself as some sort of forum warrior who needs to smite anyone with a different opinion.

As to getting back on track;
Sabriz and I would both like to see more conflict in high sec but in different ways.
I want to see veterans exposed to more danger and less newbies farmed by suicide gankers and station camping duellers.

I grow so very tired of seeing things along the lines of this, "It is not fair! They changed corporations when I declared war on them! I paid ISK! I am entitled to kill them now!" Meanwhile, the ones expected to defend themselves haven't got a snowballs hope on the surface of the sun.
Gankers run around suiciding into newbies and laughing at their horrible fits.

Both groups complain about risk aversion and yet create more risk adverse behaviour.

Sabriz - how do you respond to that?

Edit: Please, make it very clear between what you and your friends do and how you see others behaving generally.

No, that's just lip service.

Your problem is with this: I'll make it a little clearer for those with issues understanding. I have no problem with you attacking a player who does not want to be attacked, but their ability to respond should not be limited to "shoot back". Players who don't want to fight have the option to run, and that's a perfectly valid option. At no point will I ever suggest that you should not be allowed to attack another player against their will, but at the same time, their options should also not be restricted to what you want.

Yeah, I'm aware of what he does, I'm just not put off by people like him. He'll get bored or banned eventually, I'm sure.

Yeah, I agree with that in principle. I'd rather make it more challenging to attacker newer and more passive players while more rewarding to engage in fights where the opposing team is willing and able to fight back. At the same time though I'd like to see players less rewarded for "safer" PvE and more rewarded for venturing out. Exploration for example, it sucks. It should be much more consistently rewarding to explore space away from highsec. Mining is the same, there should be more reward for players mining in places like wormholes.

*Puts on wizard cloak and hat*
I am a watery swamp troll that makes me difficult to kill with fire.

I simply do not see newbies farmed by suicide gankers.

Freighters, Orcas, exhumers, mining barges and T1 haulers are the main ships targetted by gankers. Of those, only one requires less than a week of dedicated skilling. (You can sit in a battleship in less than half that time).

If you want to complain about non-consensual PVP that hits a lot of newbies, you should be up in arms at two things. Gatecamping high to low gates (especially low systems that have stations that sell skillbooks), and market manipulation in rookie systems.

The people who are overwhelmingly the targets of highsec predators (gankers, wardeccers and the like) are not newbies. Nor are they the extremely experienced player (who usually has a clue they are in danger and so can use the advantages highsec gives the defender in conflicts to escape). They are usually the middling experienced player.

We do get the odd actual newbie, and I tend to give them advice to get back on their feet.

On laughing at failfits - I do this to older characters. Newer characters will instead get advice. If I blow up a Vindicator which mixes active and buffer armor tanks and has no web, I'll check the character age. Two months - they get advice. Two years - they get a Minerbumping blog post mocking them.


As for wardec evasion - this was termed every bit as much of an exploit as CONCORD evasion once. It gives the defender an overwhelming advantage in conflicts. I support some form of unilateral surrender as long as it is a *surrender*, not a broken mechanic.