These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War dec trolls.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#61 - 2015-11-02 15:32:16 UTC
It's false equivalence to say highsec with a wardec is like nullsec or lowsec because it just isnt. Having a specific, typically quite small group of people being able to shoot at you isn't the same as, or even similar to everyone random neutral being able to shoot you without consequence.

It's a very different and much more specific type of threat than that present in other kinds of space. It's also infinitely more variable since a wardec from Alibators is hardly the same level of danger as a wardec from someone actually competent.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2015-11-02 15:32:41 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The aggressor just wants the defending corp to disband. You can't make a corp disband by fighting, however aggressor are already able to achieve that objective in spite of the fact that by you're logic it is impossible.

You absolutely can make a war end by fighting in the same way that you can get a corp to disband by fighting even though there's no big flashing mechanical button that makes it happen.

Moreover if, like you say, the defender generally won't be able to defeat the pvp ships of the aggressor what's the point of this hypothetical structure again?


Here's my problem with that logic.

If I am the defender, and I am willing and staging to fight the aggressor, it pisses me off when the aggressor just camps in the station, hiding from their intended targets.

Yes, he may end the wardec without any kills, because I locked him up in station.

However, I still lost the war because he successfully halted me from doing whatever carebear thing I wanted to do.
Yes, many carebears can't or won't fight back, but there are those of us that can and would if only it did us any good.

I've seen some really good wardecs where both targets went at it and both lost ships.

That said, the vast majority of wardecs end up with lots of dead carebears, or no deaths at all.

The first group of wardecs will continue to be a thing because they have purpose and those two entities wanted to fight each other. The later is nothing more than someone wanting kills that take little effort because afkalt said
Quote:
've been under all manner of wardecs. You know how many WTs I have seen outside of highsec in my entire eve career?

0.

Not a single one.

They will literally never come after you, the minute you leave highsec.


In other words, they don't want to fight, they want to kill.

Kaarous Aldurald's comments are a shining example of this, on this and the other WD forum currently in circulation.
Oh, and you might want to tell him to stand down as his comments are a detriment to the counter-argument of these wardec proposals, as it's blatantly obvious that his intent is to put risks on others with little to no risks on himself.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2015-11-02 15:45:20 UTC
afkalt wrote:

what people are saying is you don't get to be able to PvE whilst 100% ignoring the PvP aspects.


To this point, I agree.
However, our entire goal behind changes to the wardec mechanic is to give us a way to get the aggressor to fight us, on our terms.

As it sits now, the aggressor dictates the war, as they do not have to engage if the situation doesn't suit them.

If it is expected of me to be subject to non-consensual pvp, then by god there better be a way for me to force non-consensual pvp on the aggressor.
As it sits, they dock up when we pose a threat, and we dock up when they pose a threat.

It's a game of who can play the least, and if the defender tries to put in more game time than the aggressor, the only way to do so is with PVE as the aggressor will not engage in PVP to which the defender dictates.

So, why should I bother fighting, seeing as how they won't fight back?
I have better odds of having a good time playing another game for a week.
If they get no kills, they will end the war.

But like I said, in order for them to get no kills, I have to spend less time playing the game, or sitting on a gate/station dock waiting for the "hunter" to pop their head out.

Whether I want to fight or not, neither situation provides any fun or value as it leads to death while trying to PVE, or lack of action while trying to PVP.


Any mechanic to which not playing and/or sitting around ship spinning is the best way to play has obvious flaws.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2015-11-02 15:50:34 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:


But it's a sandbox... Not a playground.



EXACTLY....
Yet the current war mechanics allow the aggressor to treat it as their own personal playground, in which they're grabbing the new/smaller kid and putting his head under the seesaw to see how high they can bounce it off his head, and when the new kids try to fight back, they go hide behind the teacher's leg.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2015-11-02 15:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's false equivalence to say highsec with a wardec is like nullsec or lowsec because it just isnt. Having a specific, typically quite small group of people being able to shoot at you isn't the same as, or even similar to everyone random neutral being able to shoot you without consequence.

It's a very different and much more specific type of threat than that present in other kinds of space. It's also infinitely more variable since a wardec from Alibators is hardly the same level of danger as a wardec from someone actually competent.


In low/null, everyone that isn't blue or purple is a threat.

In HS, you don't know who the scouts are, who's going to run neutral logi, can't attack the neutral boosts that are likely somewhere in system.

Yes low/null is quite a bit different than wardecs.

At least out there, they're willing to fight when I try to fight back instead of hiding in station until I have a barge out on his lonesome.

So yeah, I much prefer PVP in low and null considering I'm there to pvp and the other guys are typically willing to fight and aren't afraid of a threat.


Edit..
Oh, and side note.
Parts of null are more secure than HS. This is due to player security, but at least you're able to engage a possible threat upon contact, as opposed having to worry about getting CONCORDED.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#66 - 2015-11-02 16:00:25 UTC
A war in and of itself does nothing at all to prevent people from doing whatever activity they want to do. If an aggressor is a non-threat to the defender then the defenders gameplay is unaffected by the war.

Also the idea that denying both yourself and your opponent content is somehow the "best" course of action is born from the notion that not taking losses and denying your opponent fun is somehow more important than actually having fun in the game, which is completely absurd and totally invalid.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#67 - 2015-11-02 16:17:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
afkalt wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If PvE isn't going to be supported then it should be removed, and every mechanic that relies upon it adjusted so that it isn't required.

No more industry of any kind...all ships and modules seeded to the market, ISK removed from the game. All miners, exploration, etc... Just take it out.

It is disgusting that sadistic malcontents are catered to by tricking people into PvE professions in the games marketing.

Or we could... You know... Be realistic about what sandbox means.



You're kinda going off the deep end with the melodrama.

No-one is saying that, what people are saying is you don't get to be able to PvE whilst 100% ignoring the PvP aspects.


If there were no wardecs in high sec you still would not be able to ignore PvP elements.

I have never been wardeced. I have been killed in high sec. I could not ignore PvP. I have lost missions, lost ships, even lost pods, all in high sec.

The problem with wardecs is they are being used in a very one sided manner.

'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: I don't like this, make it stop.
'deccer fight me and I will make it stop.
'bear: I have lost several ship trying to engage you and your fleet of neutral logi and boosts, please stop.
'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: now I have 3 more wars, I want this to stop...
'deccers: Yarr harr harr!
'bear: unsub

It's just not good for anyone but some mouth breathing baby eaters that get their jollies ruining fun for others.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2015-11-02 16:23:20 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
A war in and of itself does nothing at all to prevent people from doing whatever activity they want to do. If an aggressor is a non-threat to the defender then the defenders gameplay is unaffected by the war.

False, and if you're teaching players to think like that, you're setting them up for failure and loss.
If a PVE player wishes to continue to to PVE during a wardec, the aggressor will always pose a threat, even if they're not in system.
Most, if not all, deccers have a scout out that knows exactly what you're doing.
If you're out PVE'ing, they will likely come to pay you a visit.
If you manage to get away, then they will hang out in system, halting you from your activities.
If you are able to establish a sizable force to take them on, they will either trump you with more in order to negate loss, or will dock up.

Even if a war doesn't completely halt your activities, it will at the very least slow them.

Quote:
Also the idea that denying both yourself and your opponent content is somehow the "best" course of action is born from the notion that not taking losses and denying your opponent fun is somehow more important than actually having fun in the game, which is completely absurd and totally invalid.


It's not the best course of action as far as gameplay goes.
However, it's the most used course of action in the vast majority of cases with both the defender and the aggressor.

I don't know if you're saying that the statement is absurd and invalid or if the action is.

If you're saying the action, then I agree, but until you give the defender incentive and force the aggressor, this will be the outcome.

If you're saying that my claim is absurd and invalid, well then we have very different experiences, because 19/20 of the wardecs have been involved in have been met with the defender docking when the aggressor is present and/or never undocking, as well as the aggressor not fighting when there is a threat posed.

Oddly enough, it used to not be this way with the old dec system and before ship rebalancing.
Defenders used to be dumb enough to think they could fight back, and attackers used to actually stick around for a real fight, though they did have all kinds of neut everything which is where the defender's stupidity came into play.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-11-02 16:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Mike Voidstar wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If PvE isn't going to be supported then it should be removed, and every mechanic that relies upon it adjusted so that it isn't required.

No more industry of any kind...all ships and modules seeded to the market, ISK removed from the game. All miners, exploration, etc... Just take it out.

It is disgusting that sadistic malcontents are catered to by tricking people into PvE professions in the games marketing.

Or we could... You know... Be realistic about what sandbox means.



You're kinda going off the deep end with the melodrama.

No-one is saying that, what people are saying is you don't get to be able to PvE whilst 100% ignoring the PvP aspects.


If there were no wardecs in high sec you still would not be able to ignore PvP elements.

I have never been wardeced. I have been killed in high sec. I could not ignore PvP. I have lost missions, lost ships, even lost pods, all in high sec.

The problem with wardecs is they are being used in a very one sided manner.

'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: I don't like this, make it stop.
'deccer fight me and I will make it stop.
'bear: I have lost several ship trying to engage you and your fleet of neutral logi and boosts, please stop.
'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: now I have 3 more wars, I want this to stop...
'deccers: Yarr harr harr!
'bear: unsub

It's just not good for anyone but some mouth breathing baby eaters that get their jollies ruining fun for others.



But that is because of problems on both sides of this particular fence.

In no order or grouping: Neutrals, the ability to drop corp, the lack of stake in the fight for either side.


I mean, my main and corp live out of null/WHs right, and we get deced from time to time. And frankly, it's just a nuisance. The haulers are already neutral (why would you not be). And this is where I disagree with Vimsy - denying content here IS the smart play. If people think you can farm for lol-kills on undocks then they will keep deccing. You know and I know it, the smart play is to not die.

We don't fight back, not because we cannot but because it is functionally impossible (where'd everybody go and why can't I shoot their POS...oh they have none) and not living in highsec area denial is of no worth to us and frankly, we have more important **** to do that make some highsec heros dock up.

If they came out to where we live, you had better believe they'd get a fight.


But this is flawed from everyones point of view. Deccers can't touch our logistic lines and we can't roll up and kerb stomp the deccers because they hide and have no exposure out there.

The thing is though the current status quo although flawed, broadly speaking it remains balanced.

So I think the ideas of a structure tie in are a useful direction, but that would have to bring with it some bonuses to the aggressors too, be that free wars or whatever.

So if we want the defenders to be able to roll up and smash the aggressors to smithereens, we rather need to make it more troublesome to evade them completely, otherwise....there's no balance.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2015-11-02 16:31:50 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You're kinda going off the deep end with the melodrama.

No-one is saying that, what people are saying is you don't get to be able to PvE whilst 100% ignoring the PvP aspects.


If there were no wardecs in high sec you still would not be able to ignore PvP elements.

I have never been wardeced. I have been killed in high sec. I could not ignore PvP. I have lost missions, lost ships, even lost pods, all in high sec.

The problem with wardecs is they are being used in a very one sided manner.

'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: I don't like this, make it stop.
'deccer fight me and I will make it stop.
'bear: I have lost several ship trying to engage you and your fleet of neutral logi and boosts, please stop.
'deccer: Yarr!
'bear: now I have 3 more wars, I want this to stop...
'deccers: Yarr harr harr!
'bear: unsub

It's just not good for anyone but some mouth breathing baby eaters that get their jollies ruining fun for others.[/quote]

You and I have very different experiences.
As I stated in my last comment, it USED to be that way before the WD changes, but now it's more like.

'Deccer: Yarrr!!! There be plenty of weaklings abound.
'Bear: Not this crap again
'Deccer: Harr harr harr!!! I popped your newbros venture ye scally wag
'Bear: Hey guys, get into your PVP ships. I'm at the point of not carrying anymore if we lose these ships.
'Deccer: ....................
'Bear: Figures... We want to fight and they don't... Whatever.. guys, just dock up and wait till they leave, play on an alt, or go play something else; Cause they're not going to fight and they're not going to let us PVE.
'Rookiebear: 'logs in and undocks in mining barge.'
'Deccer: Hardie harr!!! We got us another plank walker!!!

This has been my experiences for a while now.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2015-11-02 16:50:10 UTC
afkalt wrote:


But that is because of problems on both sides of this particular fence.

In no order or grouping: Neutrals, the ability to drop corp, the lack of stake in the fight for either side.


I mean, my main and corp live out of null/WHs right, and we get deced from time to time. And frankly, it's just a nuisance. The haulers are already neutral (why would you not be). And this is where I disagree with Vimsy - denying content here IS the smart play. If people think you can farm for lol-kills on undocks then they will keep deccing. You know and I know it, the smart play is to not die.

We don't fight back, not because we cannot but because it is functionally impossible (where'd everybody go and why can't I shoot their POS...oh they have none) and not living in highsec area denial is of no worth to us and frankly, we have more important **** to do that make some highsec heros dock up.

If they came out to where we live, you had better believe they'd get a fight.


But this is flawed from everyones point of view. Deccers can't touch our logistic lines and we can't roll up and kerb stomp the deccers because they hide and have no exposure out there.

The thing is though the current status quo although flawed, broadly speaking it remains balanced.

So I think the ideas of a structure tie in are a useful direction, but that would have to bring with it some bonuses to the aggressors too, be that free wars or whatever.

So if we want the defenders to be able to roll up and smash the aggressors to smithereens, we rather need to make it more troublesome to evade them completely, otherwise....there's no balance.



This is exactly my thoughts on this.
The only incentive for the aggressor is to catch easy targets out not paying attention, while there is no incentive for the defender.
This leads to stagnation, as opposed to conflict, which is the deccer's so called claims on the purpose of wardecs.

My thoughts behind the structure was that is would be a bit pricey (400-500 mil). This way the defender has the opportunity to actually put some hurt on them that they'd actually feel, as opposed to popping t1 frigs and 5 mil mobile structures.

After that, the only costs the aggressor would incur is the costs to fuel the structure.

The only issue then becomes large entities deccing small entities.


What I would like to see is a system that favors member count balance, so that it's not easy to just wardec the little guys.
A potential "out" for the defender to give them incentive to undock.
A potential loss to give the aggressor a purpose to undock.
and, a location for both parties to meet up, away from stations and gates.
Much like fighting over a POCO.

You'd think that wardeccers would love to have something that would incentivize and/or force the defender to undock and fight would be well received.

However, the fact that it's not well received just goes to show what their intents are.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2015-11-02 16:55:36 UTC
Well no, if we do that we also need to look at neutral haulage, corp folding etc.

The reason wardeccers farm easy kills is because there's nothing else. Our JF dudes are at more risk from CODE than a wardec. That is off.

Both sides of this require changes, not just the aggressors.

How possible and practical those changes are is a matter for some debate. Neutral haulers, for example, can never be stopped.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2015-11-02 17:33:23 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Well no, if we do that we also need to look at neutral haulage, corp folding etc.

The reason wardeccers farm easy kills is because there's nothing else. Our JF dudes are at more risk from CODE than a wardec. That is off.

Both sides of this require changes, not just the aggressors.

How possible and practical those changes are is a matter for some debate. Neutral haulers, for example, can never be stopped.


Agreed.
However, neuts are a problem in all areas.
Those of us without alts for whatever reason, are locked into whatever activities we're involved in.
Meanwhile, those deccing us are funding themselves through alts.

You can't ever stop it, but as long as there are mechanics in place that either force or incentivize the deccer to be active with the war toon, I'm ok.
You can't force the defender to fight, you have to set an incentive.
They're already forced into an unwanted wardec, so going even further in forcing them to fight will only need to more NPC corp players or more unsubs.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#74 - 2015-11-02 17:38:15 UTC
Corp folding is only problematic in situations where they're doing it specifically to drop the war and then form the same corp again with the same people. And even then that's only an issue because the cost of declaring a war is 30 times that of creating a corporation (which implies a war is 30 times more valuable than a corporation).

Either reducing the cost of wars, refunding the cost if a corporation folds or increasing the cost of creating a corporation would solve this problem. Personally I advocate refunding the bill if the corp folds because it's the most direct counter.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#75 - 2015-11-02 17:39:10 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Corp folding is only problematic in situations where they're doing it specifically to drop the war and then form the same corp again with the same people. And even then that's only an issue because the cost of declaring a war is 30 times that of creating a corporation (which implies a war is 30 times more valuable than a corporation).

Either reducing the cost of wars, refunding the cost if a corporation folds or increasing the cost of creating a corporation would solve this problem. Personally I advocate refunding the bill if the corp folds because it's the most direct counter.



if the corp fold you won the war why would you get your money back.

derrjuden
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#76 - 2015-11-02 17:53:14 UTC
The only people I see against a change to the war dec system are coward mercenaries who just want easy fights to pad their killboards. Your time as boosted, station camping, hand-holding cowards will come to an end. It's inevitable.

You want to have a buffet of easy to slaughter, potentially loot dropping targets that offer very little challenge if you're shooting the right ammo. Hey sounds like running highsec anomalies to me....

I have not seen one legitimate reason to keep the current system, just people afraid that their way of ruining other peoples gameplay will change and they will have to sate their killer instinct somewhere less safe, possibly even dangerous, like low or null... God forbid highsec mercenaries feel unsafe at any point, we wouldn't want that...
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#77 - 2015-11-02 18:33:45 UTC
Nullsec is the most boring crap imaginable. We got paid 9bn for a month long nullsec contact and it was the most intensely dull experience th my entire EVE career. Being a highsec carebear was genuinely more interesting than trying to catch the occasional interceptor, bomber or T2 fit anom boat amid an ocean of uninhabited space. And the locals complained about us trying to shoot them in their "pve area" even more than highsec carebears do.

People need to check their elitism and stop claiming their chosen region of space is some kind of magical pvp wonderland where only the toughest and most elite PVPers live. It's annoying and childish.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2015-11-02 19:25:44 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Nullsec is the most boring crap imaginable. We got paid 9bn for a month long nullsec contact and it was the most intensely dull experience th my entire EVE career. Being a highsec carebear was genuinely more interesting than trying to catch the occasional interceptor, bomber or T2 fit anom boat amid an ocean of uninhabited space. And the locals complained about us trying to shoot them in their "pve area" even more than highsec carebears do.

People need to check their elitism and stop claiming their chosen region of space is some kind of magical pvp wonderland where only the toughest and most elite PVPers live. It's annoying and childish.



How many POSes did you tear down?

How many TCUs were burned?


Go roll up to Dek, RF some towers, let me know boring it gets.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#79 - 2015-11-02 19:31:00 UTC
Exactly none because we weren't contracted to do that. Also grinding structures and people showing up for timers isn't exactly unique gameplay, in fact it occurs in every kind of space and it sucks in all of them.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2015-11-02 20:15:40 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
A war in and of itself does nothing at all to prevent people from doing whatever activity they want to do. If an aggressor is a non-threat to the defender then the defenders gameplay is unaffected by the war.

Even a noobship is a threat to mining barge, your argument is invalid.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Also the idea that denying both yourself and your opponent content is somehow the "best" course of action is born from the notion that not taking losses and denying your opponent fun is somehow more important than actually having fun in the game, which is completely absurd and totally invalid.

The idea of jumping people who can't fight back and sitting docked if they suddenly do is born from the unimaginable cowardice, incredible ignorance, and the risk-aversion of the risk-averse god jesus buddha cthulhu.
You are basically trying to say that everyone owes you kills and fun because you took the unimaginably high cost of a sum which will not excite even a miner, but it magically shouldn't apply back at yourself. Hypocrisy level: Kaarous Alutard.