These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Fix the War Dec system

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#241 - 2015-12-18 21:11:14 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:


Joe,

I've been nice. But what you are proposing is an abomination.

You are proposing that there be one and only one way to win a war. Destroy the structure, you win. And its quite obvious how to do that especially in a case where the aggressor is one player, like me. For all the very long justification you put out you just want to be able to do one thing and make people like me go away.

You want space bushido. Meeting in honorable combat for the right to claim victory. Some super duel. Too bad. I don't have to follow your made up "what should be" rules. As I've said before, I should be able to be at war with you from now until server shutdown. And frankly, even if they were to stupidly give in (again) to your demands for one more nerf, I would find a way around it. We have always done so and we will again. So you will be right back demanding more safety and more nerfs and calling us cowards because we are beating you still....

I take some solace that CCP appears to be paying little attention to our war of words although I was surprised to see the ISD step in on some violation of religous rights issue. I suspect that CCP knows that doing something like what you want would cost them the players they say they want to keep. Content creators like me.

1000 runs through Warsong Gulch is enough for any one life. Don't bring that stuff here.



If you're just going to find some way around it, then what is the problem?
That is what the players of Eve like to call, adapt, die, or quit.
It would be working as intended.


As far as CCP not paying attention... They are.. It's hard to ignore multiple threads being created each week.
The reason they are not responding is because they don't want to give the players any clues on what their thoughts or intentions are until they are ready to make a change.
They've done this on many things including awoxing and the wardec mechanics before the first change.

Oh, and btw, the previous war dec changes weren't exactly all peaches and creme for the defenders of wardecs.

As a matter of fact, the only positive thing players got from the previous wardec changes were that it cost slightly more to wardec you, though you're cheaper than wardeccing a major alliance, and the ally mechanic which only goes to add more targets for the deccer, and is only really usable by people with friends in high places or a good amount of isk.

Personally, i would rather give up the ally mechanic in exchange for a balanced system in which I had a chance of winning, and the pricing was dictated off player numbers.
Helios Panala
#242 - 2015-12-18 21:16:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
The problem with war-decs is the age of the game. Loads of players so wealthy and so experienced you're not going to starve them of funds or beat them enough to break their will to fight.

I like the idea of a structure that interferes/hacks/blocks/whatevers CONCORD and leaves an alliance or corp vulnerable to attack purely because I like the lore and I think it fits a little better than a bunch of set prices for bribes that covers all of new eden. Not sure in practice that it will change much mechanically though.

The current system works "well enough" for now, it sure is convenient at least.
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#243 - 2015-12-19 01:12:03 UTC
GoodGreyer Ayderan wrote:
Paul Pohl wrote:
GoodGreyer Ayderan wrote:
When you tell a sizeable segment of the player base "You're not entitled to the social aspects of this game unless you agree to be targets of opportunity or continuously have to play the game in THIS way, OUR way", they're just going to do the one thing they CAN do, quit and go play other games. This helps nobody, particularly CCP.


And you are throwing any pretense of a sandbox out of the window

Not to mention under-selling the rich and complex game that Eve could be

Sure.

If you're going to have a single-server game, then it's imperative that you have relatively safe areas for players to PvE.

You could break EVE down into two servers. A free-for-all PvP server (no relatively safe space), and a PvE (PvP upon consent only) server, and guess which one the vast majority of players would go to.

They would go to the PvP upon consent only server.

Though neither server would be as thriving and dynamic as the combined server.

As it currently stands, the War Dec mechanic makes EVE Online a free-for-all PvP server with NO relatively safe space for PvE activities (if you also want to enjoy one of the things people go into MMOs for - the social aspect of the game - guilds/kinships/corporations )

This is poor game design for a single-server game where you want to attract the broadest player base as possible. And if you lose the sociopaths (who want the most risk-free victims possible), who cares, because you've attracted a much wider player base that will ultimately keep the game alive.


No it doesn't need anything done with the servers....

Look... earlier in this thread I pointed out the CEO of Marmite saying that the current system doesn't work... they have 100's of wardecs running.... and some of them are legitimate.... hence those camping the Jita dock - and some of them are just griefing... an alt gets kicked out a newbie corp (before they get the chance to steal) and uses his main for revenge.... or someone notices that a newbie corps has 10-20 members...

Just put all the wwardecs for a corp together.... if you happen to be wardeced by a corp, that also has a wardec against a 'major' corp.... then you and the major corp are allies.... red vs blue... bring it on...

Suddenly you have players interacting who would never have done so... who might even form an ongoing relationship... which then goes onto create 'content' later in the game.....

But regardless it would go some way to making high-sec wardecs what should be.... two newbie corps who have some sort of beef with each other, the ability to fight it out with each other.

As opposed to the current system which is simply a way for the frightened not go into low or null-sec and to desperately boost their epeen whle hanging onto mother's apron strings

And no I don't include Jita dock campers in this analogy.... since that at least that has a point.... at least while jump freighters exist
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#244 - 2015-12-19 01:28:09 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I am willing to accept that Eve revolves around pvp.
I'm also willing to accept that ther is NO safe space.

I believe that you should as well, if you don't already.
My only goal is is to provide the defender with a win through force option to the dec mechanic.


I agree with you

And the war dec mechanic is symptomatic of many other mechanics in the game.

You can point to high-sec gate-camping, where CONCORD exists for no other reason than to protect the gankers... the same with ganking miners... and all the other exploits (warping into missions to ninja salvage etc) that go on in high-sec....

Or the custom house system - which generates 10-15% of nothing - for those that happened to be mug enough to put up a poco on an arbitrary date... and payable by those stoopid enough not to turn off the 'opportunity' thing... and dare to play a sandbox game how they want to play it

As a mechanic, I have never been in favour of capture the flag games, but at least it is better than the nonsense now, in which the attacker decides a goal that they know they can't lose, and never has to bother about the resourceful player willing to stay up until 4am just to prove that skill-points, maths, and going drinking with the devs at fan fest are the key to success in Eve

You do deserve credit for drawing every daft cliche and meme from you critics...
GoodGreyer Ayderan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2015-12-19 05:09:01 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


If you're saying HS needs to be safer, I don't think the suggestions that I've made will work out for you as it won't make them safer, only give aggressors a chance at losing a war.


Yes, I also thought he was in agreement. I meant 'Sure' in the positive sense.

As for HS being safer, well yes and no.

I think the mechanic you are proposing is quite good, it allows for PvP, including unsolicited and unwanted PvP in High Sec. But it is, and will be.... PvP. As opposed to what it currently is, which is a mechanic for griefers gankers bullies pricks douches dirtbags and general filth.

That said, it will also make HS safer. Because all those people mentioned above are at heart cowards. 99% of their cowardly activities would end, and you'd only have players who actually want to engage in actual PvP space-ship battles declaring wars.
Iain Cariaba
#246 - 2015-12-19 06:55:27 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As with so much else, all that's being asked for is a form of effective retaliation to resolve conflict. You don't like that, because then you might lose.

Hate to tell you this, Mike, but that form of effective retaliation already exists. It's known as having the balls to undock in combat ships and shoot back. Sure, you may lose some ships, but eventually you'll learn how to PvP, start scoring a few kills, and be a whole lot less of a tempting target. The simple fact is that the whole reason you're crying for changes to wardecs is because you're afraid you might lose if you undock to fight back.


I don't know mike's intention, but I personally hate when I undock with a combat fleet, to fight back, only to be met with 0 targets.
They foEver me into a war with them, so why am I not allowed to have a mechanic to force them to actually fight in the war they started, or lose their war entirely?

See, my problem isn't that I don't want to be wardecced.
My issue is that I get wardecced only so they can blow up my miners, mission runners, and haulers.

You force me into a war, fine.
You blow up all my unprepared/not paying attention members, that's fine.
You cannot or will not meet a hostile fleet engagement, then you risk me stopping the war by force.
If you actually do engage my hostile fleet and lose, you have proven to be the weaker entity, thus I can stop the war by force.
If you meet my hostile fleet and destroy us, the. You'll get a GF in local and your wardec continues.

How is this a problem?

The defender has an incentive to undock, while the aggressor knows exactly where they will be going.
To the victor goes the spoils.

if you don't want a fight that you may lose, then don't start a wardec, just as you shouldn't leave HS, shouldn't take SOV, or shouldn't do anything else in which losing is possible.

I find it odd that everyone denounces the risk aversion of carebears, but ignore how the wardec mechanic allows players to attain kills with as little risk as possible.

regardless of your intentions for wardeccing someone, it shouldn't mean that you should be able to lose that war.

In Eve, you can lose a venture that leads to a fight where you lose a battleship, which leads to a fight where you lose a fleet, which causes you to lose SOV or control over a WH/low sec system, which could lead to the falling apart of your alliance, which can lead to your corp falling apart, which could lead to the CEO taking all of the corp assets and running away to join Goons.

However, in being an aggressor to a wardec, your entity can lose everything they own and it won't matter because you cannot lose the war.

I realize that you can lose SOV and still come back later and take it back, but my proposed changes to wardecs fall in line with this.
You can lose a war and still come back and start a new one.
If you win the second time around, good for you. If you lose, maybe you'll find someone else to pick on.

Seriously, this is like SOV holders crying that they shouldn't be able to lose SOV because they were there first.
It's just dumb and counter-intuitive to everything that is Eve.
Anyone can lose anything, at any time, by anyone.
Wardecs need to fall in line.

Wardecs allow highsec PvP to function like PvP everywhere else in the game.

You don't like how wartargets dock up when you undock to fight them? Well, everywhere else in the game people usually run away as well when overwhelming odds are brought against them.

You say they're only after easy kills because they go after your miners, PvEers, and haulers. Guess what, the concept of going after soft targets is not isolated to highsec wardecs. Go read any of the multitide of threads in F&I backlog on removing local and how jump fatigue effects blops. Those threads are full of complaints about the difficulty of catching ratters and miners in null.

If someone wardecs you for the easy killmails, and you undock a fleet that forces them to either dock up or run away, then they're not getting those easy kills. Do this to them for the whole week of the wardec, and they'll go away to find easier targets.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#247 - 2015-12-19 07:12:52 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As with so much else, all that's being asked for is a form of effective retaliation to resolve conflict. You don't like that, because then you might lose.

Hate to tell you this, Mike, but that form of effective retaliation already exists. It's known as having the balls to undock in combat ships and shoot back. Sure, you may lose some ships, but eventually you'll learn how to PvP, start scoring a few kills, and be a whole lot less of a tempting target. The simple fact is that the whole reason you're crying for changes to wardecs is because you're afraid you might lose if you undock to fight back.


I don't know mike's intention, but I personally hate when I undock with a combat fleet, to fight back, only to be met with 0 targets.
They foEver me into a war with them, so why am I not allowed to have a mechanic to force them to actually fight in the war they started, or lose their war entirely?

See, my problem isn't that I don't want to be wardecced.
My issue is that I get wardecced only so they can blow up my miners, mission runners, and haulers.

You force me into a war, fine.
You blow up all my unprepared/not paying attention members, that's fine.
You cannot or will not meet a hostile fleet engagement, then you risk me stopping the war by force.
If you actually do engage my hostile fleet and lose, you have proven to be the weaker entity, thus I can stop the war by force.
If you meet my hostile fleet and destroy us, the. You'll get a GF in local and your wardec continues.

How is this a problem?

The defender has an incentive to undock, while the aggressor knows exactly where they will be going.
To the victor goes the spoils.

if you don't want a fight that you may lose, then don't start a wardec, just as you shouldn't leave HS, shouldn't take SOV, or shouldn't do anything else in which losing is possible.

I find it odd that everyone denounces the risk aversion of carebears, but ignore how the wardec mechanic allows players to attain kills with as little risk as possible.

regardless of your intentions for wardeccing someone, it shouldn't mean that you should be able to lose that war.

In Eve, you can lose a venture that leads to a fight where you lose a battleship, which leads to a fight where you lose a fleet, which causes you to lose SOV or control over a WH/low sec system, which could lead to the falling apart of your alliance, which can lead to your corp falling apart, which could lead to the CEO taking all of the corp assets and running away to join Goons.

However, in being an aggressor to a wardec, your entity can lose everything they own and it won't matter because you cannot lose the war.

I realize that you can lose SOV and still come back later and take it back, but my proposed changes to wardecs fall in line with this.
You can lose a war and still come back and start a new one.
If you win the second time around, good for you. If you lose, maybe you'll find someone else to pick on.

Seriously, this is like SOV holders crying that they shouldn't be able to lose SOV because they were there first.
It's just dumb and counter-intuitive to everything that is Eve.
Anyone can lose anything, at any time, by anyone.
Wardecs need to fall in line.

Wardecs allow highsec PvP to function like PvP everywhere else in the game.

You don't like how wartargets dock up when you undock to fight them? Well, everywhere else in the game people usually run away as well when overwhelming odds are brought against them.

You say they're only after easy kills because they go after your miners, PvEers, and haulers. Guess what, the concept of going after soft targets is not isolated to highsec wardecs. Go read any of the multitide of threads in F&I backlog on removing local and how jump fatigue effects blops. Those threads are full of complaints about the difficulty of catching ratters and miners in null.

If someone wardecs you for the easy killmails, and you undock a fleet that forces them to either dock up or run away, then they're not getting those easy kills. Do this to them for the whole week of the wardec, and they'll go away to find easier targets.


Yes, but the mechanic allows them to retain the wardec.
If you come into my SOV and pop easy to kill ships, I have the ability to chase you down and take your SOV in retaliation. If you do not own SOV, then I have the ability to wardec you and blap you wherever you go.

One thing I San say is at least SOV entities take the risk of getting hotdropped or blopdropped, and even WH dropped at any given time.
HS sec war deccers take almost no risks. They're not even at risk of those alliances that have fought and earned what they have.
I'm talking about making HS a bit less safer for those who take advantage of the safety to earn easy kills.
At least taking those kills in low, WH, and null space present a substantial amount of risks.

Yes, HS for the most part is pretty safe, having only wardecs and ganks to worry about.
However, if you're the wardeccer, HS is that much safer for you.

Honestly, this doesn't mean that they should be immune to loss.
Anyone that enjoys PVP for the adrenaline and challenge is presents should feel that the wardec mechanic is a farce in comparison and that the deccers should be presented with more risks.
Attacking a mining barge in HS isn't PVP, it's PVE that you get a KM for.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#248 - 2015-12-19 09:44:05 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As with so much else, all that's being asked for is a form of effective retaliation to resolve conflict. You don't like that, because then you might lose.

Hate to tell you this, Mike, but that form of effective retaliation already exists. It's known as having the balls to undock in combat ships and shoot back. Sure, you may lose some ships, but eventually you'll learn how to PvP, start scoring a few kills, and be a whole lot less of a tempting target. The simple fact is that the whole reason you're crying for changes to wardecs is because you're afraid you might lose if you undock to fight back.


I don't know mike's intention, but I personally hate when I undock with a combat fleet, to fight back, only to be met with 0 targets.
They foEver me into a war with them, so why am I not allowed to have a mechanic to force them to actually fight in the war they started, or lose their war entirely?

See, my problem isn't that I don't want to be wardecced.
My issue is that I get wardecced only so they can blow up my miners, mission runners, and haulers.

You force me into a war, fine.
You blow up all my unprepared/not paying attention members, that's fine.
You cannot or will not meet a hostile fleet engagement, then you risk me stopping the war by force.
If you actually do engage my hostile fleet and lose, you have proven to be the weaker entity, thus I can stop the war by force.
If you meet my hostile fleet and destroy us, the. You'll get a GF in local and your wardec continues.

How is this a problem?

The defender has an incentive to undock, while the aggressor knows exactly where they will be going.
To the victor goes the spoils.

if you don't want a fight that you may lose, then don't start a wardec, just as you shouldn't leave HS, shouldn't take SOV, or shouldn't do anything else in which losing is possible.

I find it odd that everyone denounces the risk aversion of carebears, but ignore how the wardec mechanic allows players to attain kills with as little risk as possible.

regardless of your intentions for wardeccing someone, it shouldn't mean that you should be able to lose that war.

In Eve, you can lose a venture that leads to a fight where you lose a battleship, which leads to a fight where you lose a fleet, which causes you to lose SOV or control over a WH/low sec system, which could lead to the falling apart of your alliance, which can lead to your corp falling apart, which could lead to the CEO taking all of the corp assets and running away to join Goons.

However, in being an aggressor to a wardec, your entity can lose everything they own and it won't matter because you cannot lose the war.

I realize that you can lose SOV and still come back later and take it back, but my proposed changes to wardecs fall in line with this.
You can lose a war and still come back and start a new one.
If you win the second time around, good for you. If you lose, maybe you'll find someone else to pick on.

Seriously, this is like SOV holders crying that they shouldn't be able to lose SOV because they were there first.
It's just dumb and counter-intuitive to everything that is Eve.
Anyone can lose anything, at any time, by anyone.
Wardecs need to fall in line.

Wardecs allow highsec PvP to function like PvP everywhere else in the game.

You don't like how wartargets dock up when you undock to fight them? Well, everywhere else in the game people usually run away as well when overwhelming odds are brought against them.

You say they're only after easy kills because they go after your miners, PvEers, and haulers. Guess what, the concept of going after soft targets is not isolated to highsec wardecs. Go read any of the multitide of threads in F&I backlog on removing local and how jump fatigue effects blops. Those threads are full of complaints about the difficulty of catching ratters and miners in null.

If someone wardecs you for the easy killmails, and you undock a fleet that forces them to either dock up or run away, then they're not getting those easy kills. Do this to them for the whole week of the wardec, and they'll go away to find easier targets.


I like how the people that enjoy putting non-consent on others like to dance around any suggestion of the non-consent being placed on them.

The thing about high sec is that it is high sec. You should not be able to turn high sec into low sec for your chosen victims without a way for them to stop that. If you want to fight under low sec rules, the 0.4 gates are right over that way--->>

If all you want to do is shoot soft targets then go grab a mission. If you actually want to fight a war, you need a way to both win and lose. The issue that so many wardeccers fail to grasp is that there is no point to conflict without resolution. For the wardeccer the wardec is an opportunity to get safe and easy kills on soft targets, but for the bulk of those receiving those wardecs it is simply presenting a problem with no solution--- fight, and even if you win you get more wardecs.

There is a certain kind of person who enjoys fighting just to fight. There is another kind of person that likes to fight for a cause. This is where EVE fails--- it provides fights for those that just like to fight, but because it has relied so long on emergence rather than game development it has lost the reasons to fight. All too often it's just people showing up because the ruleset of the game allows and fosters griefing as legitimate play with no other real point to the fight than just to annoy others.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#249 - 2015-12-19 09:55:02 UTC
Whenever I read highsec rage or tears posts on these forums about how unfair wardecs are, or how evil gankers are, or how CCP isn't doing enough to stop bumfingering and it's causing people not to sub, I can't seem to sympathize with the motive of the author.
They don't see the damage they are doing to the eve economy by leaving the isk faucets wide open all the time. They don't see that every lvl 4 they grind out adds more meta mods and salvage to an already glutted market. They don't see how their actions, in the spirit of "Just leave me alone so I can f2p, bro," is making the best efforts of newbros basically unprofitable. That, if anything, is the biggest contributing factor to the low retention rate of trials.

I see past the tears and the rage.
I see the greed.
I hate greed.
Pirate
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#250 - 2015-12-19 10:10:48 UTC
I don't think wardecs are unfair, it's just that there is no way to resolve the conflict.

You want to create a condition that someone else does not like and inflict it on them, that's cool, but they should be able to return the favor and fight to the purpose of alleviating the condition.

It's a sandbox. You are welcome to your playstyle, but so is everyone else.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#251 - 2015-12-19 12:39:19 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

HS sec war deccers take almost no risks.


You lie.

They have exactly the same risk that the defender does, they are flagged to the opposing party. In fact, given the ally mechanic and the propensity to dec multiple groups, they take more risk than the defender.

Quote:

I'm talking about making HS a bit less safer for those who take advantage of the safety to earn easy kills.


No.

You're talking about making highsec a lot more safe for those who take advantage of the safety to disgustingly farm with zero risk.

Let's not pretend like your side has even the slightest bit of legitimacy here.


Quote:

Attacking a mining barge in HS isn't PVP, it's PVE that you get a KM for.


And of course, this is the crux of the carebear argument.

E-honor and inability to accept non consensual PvP.

Hate to tell you this, Joe, although actually I don't hate it at all, but killing miners is PvP by definition, unless CCP has finally taken my suggestion and disqualified them from counting as real players. Whether you like it or not, it is PvP, so your pathetic attempts to denigrate and disqualify don't mean ****.

"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.
#252 - 2015-12-19 12:41:29 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I don't think wardecs are unfair


You've claimed that many times.

Quote:

it's just that there is no way to resolve the conflict.


There absolutely are. There just aren't any easy ways out for the party that doesn't belong in a player corp to begin with.

Face it, Mike. Playing the game wrong is supposed to have consequences, you are supposed to suffer until you start doing it right.


Quote:

It's a sandbox. You are welcome to your playstyle, but so is everyone else.


Not if they can't defend it, they're not. Playing the game wrong isn't a playstyle anyway.

"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.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#253 - 2015-12-19 17:10:05 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Whenever I read highsec rage or tears posts on these forums about how unfair wardecs are, or how evil gankers are, or how CCP isn't doing enough to stop bumfingering and it's causing people not to sub, I can't seem to sympathize with the motive of the author.
They don't see the damage they are doing to the eve economy by leaving the isk faucets wide open all the time. They don't see that every lvl 4 they grind out adds more meta mods and salvage to an already glutted market. They don't see how their actions, in the spirit of "Just leave me alone so I can f2p, bro," is making the best efforts of newbros basically unprofitable. That, if anything, is the biggest contributing factor to the low retention rate of trials.

I see past the tears and the rage.
I see the greed.
I hate greed.
Pirate



You do realize that most wardeccing entities have alts in NPC corps, or perhaps even 0% tax corps in which they do what every carebear does, right?

As a matter of fact, they are just as likely to drop corp with their alt toons as any carebear.

You can sit here all day and blame everything on carebears, but the truth is that anyone with an alt in HS uses that alt to do all the same activities as any carebear in order to fund their other endeavors.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#254 - 2015-12-19 17:24:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You lie.

They have exactly the same risk that the defender does, they are flagged to the opposing party. In fact, given the ally mechanic and the propensity to dec multiple groups, they take more risk than the defender.


Not really.. See, in order for the defender to go about doing what they want, they have to risk being destroyed.
You however can keep the wardec going without even undocking. Ally or no ally.
This still gives you the overwhelming advantage of being able to dictate when an attack will happen.

Neutral scouts allow you to determine if there is a threat, thus you take as little risk as possible in order to get kills.
Your target was also selected specifically because of ease of kills, which takes away even more risks.

Hell, even if you went and deccer another deccing entity, you'd still be able to mitigate more risks than they can.

Quote:

No.

You're talking about making highsec a lot more safe for those who take advantage of the safety to disgustingly farm with zero risk.

Let's not pretend like your side has even the slightest bit of legitimacy here.

You say this as if I'm suggesting the removal of wardecs.
To which I am not suggesting that.

By the way, your comment also ignores that even with my change, you'd still be at risk of a wardec that you cannot win because you're not strong enough to fight back.
It also ignores the fact that many deccers have alts they use in NPC corps in order to fund their wardecs.


Quote:


And of course, this is the crux of the carebear argument.

E-honor and inability to accept non consensual PvP.

Hate to tell you this, Joe, although actually I don't hate it at all, but killing miners is PvP by definition, unless CCP has finally taken my suggestion and disqualified them from counting as real players. Whether you like it or not, it is PvP, so your pathetic attempts to denigrate and disqualify don't mean ****.


Hey look,'you got something right!!

However, what I was saying is that I'm not impressed by the endless industrial kills you can get.
This day and age, you can get an industrial kill with a day one toon.

My point is, a mining barge kill, does not a leet pvp'er make...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#255 - 2015-12-19 17:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Not if they can't defend it, they're not. Playing the game wrong isn't a playstyle anyway.


Good point.. If they're not able to defend their play style, they're not free to actively engage in said activity.

If only there was a play style within Eve where you didn't have to defend yourself in order to do said activity...
Oh yeah.. Wardecs.. Totally forgot about those....

You continually make claims that if one cannot defend their play style they're playing it wrong, yet your entire purpose for being here is to stop a change that would require you to defend your play style...

Seems a bit ironic really....
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#256 - 2015-12-19 19:20:16 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:



You do realize that most wardeccing entities have alts in NPC corps, or perhaps even 0% tax corps in which they do what every carebear does, right?

As a matter of fact, they are just as likely to drop corp with their alt toons as any carebear.

You can sit here all day and blame everything on carebears, but the truth is that anyone with an alt in HS uses that alt to do all the same activities as any carebear in order to fund their other endeavors.


This is actually a good example of rationalizing an act to make it more palatable.

"I'm not the only one who does this. Everyone does it. This is probably so common that every normal person does it."
You hear it a lot when people talk about selling and using drugs, making and distributing illegal video material, incest, any taboo behavior profile that is typically concealed.
You want to believe that you aren't an outlier, so you project your own behavior on the people you percieve to be accosting you for it. That way you can, in your own mind at least, declare that you are the honest one being harrassed by hypocrites.

I am in no way accusing you of doing anything but caring in the bearest way, my friend. I just saw this, and it clicked with the things I studied.

Who says that non stem degrees are useless?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#257 - 2015-12-19 19:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:



You do realize that most wardeccing entities have alts in NPC corps, or perhaps even 0% tax corps in which they do what every carebear does, right?

As a matter of fact, they are just as likely to drop corp with their alt toons as any carebear.

You can sit here all day and blame everything on carebears, but the truth is that anyone with an alt in HS uses that alt to do all the same activities as any carebear in order to fund their other endeavors.


This is actually a good example of rationalizing an act to make it more palatable.

"I'm not the only one who does this. Everyone does it. This is probably so common that every normal person does it."
You hear it a lot when people talk about selling and using drugs, making and distributing illegal video material, incest, any taboo behavior profile that is typically concealed.
You want to believe that you aren't an outlier, so you project your own behavior on the people you percieve to be accosting you for it. That way you can, in your own mind at least, declare that you are the honest one being harrassed by hypocrites.

I am in no way accusing you of doing anything but caring in the bearest way, my friend. I just saw this, and it clicked with the things I studied.

Who says that non stem degrees are useless?


What does psychology say about those that condemn the actions of others when they too are guilty of performing said actions?

You're talking about a drug user defending themselves by expressing that everyone does it.

However, what I say expressing was more like a christian condemning someone for drinking, then going home and drinking themselves.

I wasn't defending myself, I was expressing the hypocrisy it what they state.

In their mind, it's totaly cool that they have an alt out farming and dodging wardecs, but shame on me for doing it with any of my toons.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#258 - 2015-12-19 23:18:13 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

If only there was a play style within Eve where you didn't have to defend yourself in order to do said activity...
Oh yeah.. Wardecs.. Totally forgot about those....


What lie is this?

Wardec players do have to fight for it. If you aren't fighting, then nothing is happening and you don't have it.

Heck this is true for wars more than most other things in highsec. They fight for their playstyle already. It's you who doesn't.

"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.
#259 - 2015-12-19 23:19:10 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

You do realize that most wardeccing entities have alts in NPC corps, or perhaps even 0% tax corps in which they do what every carebear does, right?


This is something carebears often say, but never prove.

So I'll happily chalk it up to you just lying again, since you lie a lot.

"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.
Iain Cariaba
#260 - 2015-12-19 23:32:00 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Not really.. See, in order for the defender to go about doing what they want, they have to risk being destroyed.
You however can keep the wardec going without even undocking. Ally or no ally.
This still gives you the overwhelming advantage of being able to dictate when an attack will happen.

Neutral scouts allow you to determine if there is a threat, thus you take as little risk as possible in order to get kills.

Here's a news flash for you, Joe.

There is absolutely nothing in the game preventing the defender in a wardec from using the exact same tools, ie locaters, neut scoits, etc., the agressors to take the fight to them. Nothing.