These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#101 - 2015-11-03 07:52:56 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Oh dear me, I have been called a liar by Kaarous again, because disagreeing with his worthless opinion is the same as lying.


Making up your "only 3 options" bullshit is lying, yes.



You don't seem to understand the word.

You see, if I made stuff up knowing it was pure fabrication to mislead people, that would be a lie. Pointing out the obvious and its implications is telling nothing but the pure sweet truth.

You can disagree with reality all you like, but it just makes you crazy and does not make anyone else a liar.

But... Tell you what.... You go ahead and list off just a few of the many, many options that exist for PVE pilots to profitably engage in a war in ways that both match up with their playstyle and don't just leave them floating in frozen pod juice. I'd like to hear those options, though I won't hold my breath. For one thing I doubt you have the capacity to even comprehend a viewpoint other than your own.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#102 - 2015-11-03 07:54:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You see, if I made stuff up knowing it was pure fabrication to mislead people, that would be a lie.


Which is exactly what you did.


Quote:

match up with their playstyle


"Not defending myself" is not a playstyle.

The fact of the matter is that in EVE, other people can effect your gameplay. If you are not able to deal with and adapt to that, you do not belong here.

"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.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2015-11-03 07:57:38 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:
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.

Err, no it's not. Every mining barge can field a full flight of light drones and can fit a 18k tank at least. Some of them have drone damage bonuses and hundreds of thousands of effective hit points, which makes them more capable combat ships than quite a few actual combat ships.

Additionally my argument would still be valid even if yours was actually true, because the war itself does nothing to affect the gameplay of the miner. The aggressor actually has to take additional action, even if its in a rookie ship in order for the miner to actually have an affect.

If players find their gameplay restricted just because they're at war without the aggressor actually doing anything then the restrictions are entirely self-imposed and blatantly irrational.


I am guessing you are one of the special kids that claim a cloaked hostile in system is also harmless and can be ignored.

A wardec leaves a PvE oriented pilot with a few options.

1. Don't play. Most of them do not enjoy this kind of play, which is why the war has to be forced on them in the first place. Forcing people to play with you is one of the most assinine game concepts I have ever heard of. This can take the form of playing an alt instead (alts are the biggest cancer in this game), playing in different space as sometimes you won't be followed, or just playing a different game altogether.

2. Fly suicidal. Just hope they don't have neutral scouts checking your ship with passive targeters and ship scanners and go about business as normal. This is why bait rarely works, yet mission ships get popped with regularity.

3. Fly compromised. Whatever your goal, from ISK to newbship PvP games, you can fly ready to fight a real force, hire protection, etc... Basically play as the aggressor dictates, making the game less fun. I personally play games for fun, and would rather go watch a show on Netflix than have my game dictated to me by some asshat.

At no point is there an option to resolve the war, other than to fold the Corp and move on.



You forgot #4: Play out of highsec.

I ratted back up form neg 10 once. I took my vagabond into lowsec, I used no scouts beyond the initial high>low jump as it was regularly camped, no forward intel barring (later) the map stats. I ratted back from neg 10, over the course of a week or two, made a couple of hundred million (status ratting isnt good for isk) and I saw exactly ZERO other players on grid with me.

Thing is, you're arguing from the viewpoint that you HAVE to live in highsec, when you do not.

I've said it time and time again, if you are not in highsec, I'll eat my hat if you see a war target. And the best part is, you don't need to worry about neutrals.

Lowsec is a million miles from the deathtrap many seem to believe it is.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2015-11-03 08:06:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The fact of the matter is that in EVE, other people can effect your gameplay. If you are not able to deal with and adapt to that, you do not belong here.


You should heed your own words.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2015-11-03 08:08:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You literally cannot act honestly, can you?

The risk between the two parties is exactly the same. Both have free reign to fire on the other. The danger they are in is therefore entirely dependent on the effort put in by the other player. Like every PvP interaction.

If the attacker is in no real danger, it's because the defender is doing it wrong.

Your failing to play the game correctly does not reflect on the mechanic.


and i'm supposed to be the one with the "strawman" arguments.... Sure...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#106 - 2015-11-03 08:09:47 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The fact of the matter is that in EVE, other people can effect your gameplay. If you are not able to deal with and adapt to that, you do not belong here.


You should heed your own words.



I do. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite. If people want to evade or defeat me, they are welcome to it. Actually playing the game is something I always encourage, regardless of who's doing it.

Crying on the forums because you're too scrub to get things done? That's below pitiable, it's downright pathetic.

Right now, wars are fair, more or less. If anything they are somewhat unbalanced in the defender's favor. Everyone can shoot everyone, free for all, and that's as fair as fair gets in this game.

But you don't want fair, or equal. You want an unbalanced mechanic hugely in your favor.

"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.
Anthar Thebess
#107 - 2015-11-03 08:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Remove the wardecs, remove the concord.
Leave only faction police.
Make all structures engage able by any one and giving suspect timer.

Attacked structures show as beacon in the system, for any one to come.

All higsec issues solved.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-11-03 08:31:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

But you don't want fair, or equal. You want an unbalanced mechanic hugely in your favor.



lol.. You're so full of crap that it's coming out of your mouth.

I just presented a suggestion the is more fair and equal than the current mechanic, as it actually presents the defender with incentives, which they currently don't have.

However, that mechanic means you would have to put something at risk for a change.

The current mechanic give the defender no teeth, as the attacker is free to run and hide when a threat is posed, and the defender can do nothing about it.

They are subject to the full length of the wardec regardless of what they do, even if that means they are willing to fight, but the aggressor is not.


You don't want it to change because you don't want it to be fair or equal. You want carebears to die to your guns and be allowed to hide in a station for as long as you like when they bring more guns than you can handle.


I'm washing my hands of you at this point.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#109 - 2015-11-03 08:35:21 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I just presented a suggestion the is more fair and equal than the current mechanic


Your suggestion is that one side be weighed down by babysitting a structure, while one side is not.

It could not be less equitable.

And you know that, but like always you are not capable of discussing this in good faith. All you are after is to place punitive mechanics against a playstyle you don't like.




Quote:

The current mechanic give the defender no teeth, as the attacker is free to run and hide when a threat is posed, and the defender can do nothing about it.


The current mechanics give the attacker no teeth, as the defender is free to run and hide when a threat is posed, and the attacker can do nothing about it.

So, you know, it's fair.

Keep on crying that docking exists.


Quote:

I'm washing my hands of you at this point.


Try and run away if you like, you've already been exposed for a liar and a hypocrite.

"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.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#110 - 2015-11-03 08:41:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Right now, wars are fair, more or less. If anything they are somewhat unbalanced in the defender's favor.

This made me chuckle.

The attacker gets to choose who they attack. They get to choose when they attack.

By paying a small fee (and it is small for what it does) you can freely attack your target as if you were both in null-sec while retaining the safety of high-sec for yourself. You can do this because you choose your targets. You can choose to attack those who can't fight back. And that's what you'll do.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#111 - 2015-11-03 08:44:50 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:

The attacker gets to choose who they attack. They get to choose when they attack.


And the defender gets the free allies mechanic. They can dogpile like nothing else in the game. That is probably the most unbalanced thing about wardecs.

The attacker has literally no mechanical advantages. What you're referring to is a meta activity entirely, and has no reflection on the mechanic itself.

I get it, you people hate player freedom because other players are allowed to choose to do things you don't like. You need to either get over it, or play a different game.


Quote:

By paying a small fee (and it is small for what it does) you can freely attack your target as if you were both in null-sec while retaining the safety of high-sec for yourself.


Yet more lies from the carebear brigade.

Literally nothing stops my targets from shooting back. I am not "retaining the safety of highsec", I am giving it up and what's more I'm paying for the privilege.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#112 - 2015-11-03 08:48:28 UTC
Oh, I have an idea then... it will be purely balanced.


When War is declared *both* sides get a structure. If either structure dies, the war is over and the side that still has a structure is publically declared the winner.

If the defender wants to defend that structure, that's their choice. If they want to attack the aggressors structure, also their choice. If they are ok with losing by popping their own structure... again their choice.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#113 - 2015-11-03 08:50:15 UTC
Kaarous, you are presenting a basic fallacy in assuming your targets desire or even care about fighting you at all.

Sure, nothing stops them from shooting you. But just because you want to play with them does not mean they want to play with you. Maybe you should go find like minded people to play with.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#114 - 2015-11-03 08:53:30 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Kaarous, you are presenting a basic fallacy in assuming your targets desire or even care about fighting you at all.


How is that? Joe keeps saying it over and over. You two need to get together and get your story straight.


Quote:
Sure, nothing stops them from shooting you. But just because you want to play with them does not mean they want to play with you.


And the very best thing about EVE Online is that what they want doesn't matter. No one gets anything just because they want it.

If they want to be rid of me, they should have to do something about it.

But we really should get back on topic, we're talking about wars, not about how much you hate player freedom.

Quote:

Maybe you should go find like minded people to play with.


And maybe you lot should finally admit that you are playing the wrong game.

EVE is a game that was literally designed to allow people to **** with you. If you don't want to play by the rules of the game, then stop playing it.

"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.
#115 - 2015-11-03 08:55:46 UTC
You're both here saying that the rules of "Sorry!" should be changed because you don't like that your piece can get knocked back.

But people already like Sorry just the way it is. Maybe if you don't like the game, you should go play something else. Feel free, you're both dead set on not actually interacting with other players anyway, so you probably won't be missed.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#116 - 2015-11-03 09:00:24 UTC
No. EVE is a game that was designed to be a sandbox that supports many playstyles.

You are claiming yours is the only valid one, and spewing dreck all over the forums about how you are the only one who should be allowed to play the way you want.

The rules of war are always set by the aggressor. That's fine for real life, where war is not fought for fun. In a game everyone should be having fun. When people would rather not play than deal with your hassle, it is you who are doing it wrong.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#117 - 2015-11-03 09:00:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Literally nothing stops my targets from shooting back. I am not "retaining the safety of highsec", I am giving it up and what's more I'm paying for the privilege.

Oh, they can shoot back, sure, but they'll still die in the end. After all, they are weak. That's why you declared war on them in the first place. And yes, you retain the safety of high-sec, because the only people who can shoot you are the people you chose to declare war on.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#118 - 2015-11-03 09:02:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No. EVE is a game that was designed to be a sandbox that supports many playstyles.


Wrong.

From CCP themselves.

"The core concept of EVE Online is full time PvP in a sandbox environment."

The one comes before the other.


Quote:
When people would rather not play than deal with your hassle, it is you who are doing it wrong.


When other people would rather not play than expose themselves to any risk, they are playing the game wrong, and playing the wrong game.

If they refuse to accept the reality of EVE Online, they do not belong.

If you don't like the rules of "Sorry", then go play Candyland.

"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.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2015-11-03 09:51:18 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Literally nothing stops my targets from shooting back. I am not "retaining the safety of highsec", I am giving it up and what's more I'm paying for the privilege.

Oh, they can shoot back, sure, but they'll still die in the end. After all, they are weak. That's why you declared war on them in the first place. And yes, you retain the safety of high-sec, because the only people who can shoot you are the people you chose to declare war on.


You know allies are a thing, right?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#120 - 2015-11-03 09:53:29 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Literally nothing stops my targets from shooting back. I am not "retaining the safety of highsec", I am giving it up and what's more I'm paying for the privilege.

Oh, they can shoot back, sure, but they'll still die in the end. After all, they are weak. That's why you declared war on them in the first place. And yes, you retain the safety of high-sec, because the only people who can shoot you are the people you chose to declare war on.


You know allies are a thing, right?


The funny thing is that he probably doesn't. He's too wrapped up in the three man pity party they've got going.

"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.