These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of Wardecs

First post First post
Author
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#61 - 2013-01-17 13:31:26 UTC
I blame killboards.

If a corp that is wardecced fights back and fails, they will be wardecced by a dozen corps more.

Better to stay docked and keep your killboard clean.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#62 - 2013-01-17 13:34:40 UTC
Thomas Gore wrote:
I blame killboards.

If a corp that is wardecced fights back and fails, they will be wardecced by a dozen corps more.

Better to stay docked and keep your killboard clean.


And if they don't fight back they'll never learn how to fight and win.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos
The Whale Hunters Association
#63 - 2013-01-17 13:41:42 UTC
war dec system is fine.

hey ccp moron if you want consensual pvp go play one of the dozen pve mmo's where you can duel all you want.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#64 - 2013-01-17 13:46:27 UTC
Lilan Kahn wrote:
war dec system is fine.

hey ccp moron if you want consensual pvp go play one of the dozen pve mmo's where you can duel all you want.


I beseech thee, stop helping. Please.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-01-17 13:58:36 UTC
@Andreus Ixiris. Much more eloquent version of what I was attempting to say Smile
luZk
Fivrelde Corp
#66 - 2013-01-17 14:00:43 UTC
Worst EVE idea of 2013.

http://i.imgur.com/1dl4DM6.jpg

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#67 - 2013-01-17 14:06:33 UTC
Oh jeez, maybe have an incentive for planting and defending a flag, and then people will actually bother fighting back when wardecced.

It's saddening to see CCP going backwards.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

bongsmoke
Visine Red
420 Chronicles of EvE
#68 - 2013-01-17 14:08:36 UTC
OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.

I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact.
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#69 - 2013-01-17 14:13:07 UTC
People, let me be clear. CCP are not seriously suggesting removing wardecs or aggression from hi-sec.

They are not doing this.

They are not doing this at all.

They say so in the same minutes you guys are quoting.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-01-17 14:16:15 UTC
bongsmoke wrote:
OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.

I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact.

Sir, looking at the thread it seems clear that the idea of hellokitty-wardecs is widely rejected as a horrible idea.

I, personally, do not use the wardec system to attack anyone. I am just extremely concerned about the big picture of high-sec and the changes towards making Eve just another themepark MMO.
anthie
Stars in No Sky
#71 - 2013-01-17 14:17:01 UTC
Why............... just why would we want another EQ clone ?

Not talking WoW here since EQ was the first true themepark based MMO, and now you wan't to bring the same sort of "duel" concept to Eve , jesus christ, that is something i can't and will never accept

There is a point in War deccing other corps, some corps rely on Merc corps to do their dirty business , its all apart of Eve and now you wanna change that and basicly remove not only 1 aspect about the game but several...........

If that would ever be the case i'd cancel every single account i own.
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-01-17 14:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
People, let me be clear. CCP are not seriously suggesting removing wardecs or aggression from hi-sec.

They are not doing this.

They are not doing this at all.

They say so in the same minutes you guys are quoting.


An idea this obnoxiously bad has to be nipped in the bud. Its like a cancer, you have to detect and remove it early before it reaches stage 4 and metastasizes all over CCP and enters EVE. Kill that bad idea right here right now.
bongsmoke
Visine Red
420 Chronicles of EvE
#73 - 2013-01-17 14:40:21 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
bongsmoke wrote:
OP, sounds like your disappointed CCP doesn't tie up victims in hi-sec just for you.

I came here expecting one sided argument, left with expectations intact.

Sir, looking at the thread it seems clear that the idea of hellokitty-wardecs is widely rejected as a horrible idea.

I, personally, do not use the wardec system to attack anyone. I am just extremely concerned about the big picture of high-sec and the changes towards making Eve just another themepark MMO.


If you think 4 pages of peeps here is the full EvE consensus, your sadly mistaken.

If you don't use the wardec system, wtf are you complaining about?

Hi-sec has and will always be.

When they take out ganking, you might have an argument. Otherwise, nothing new here except mechanic changes that people need to adapt or send me your stuff when you GTFO.

You want non-consensual pvp, plenty out there, don't be lazy. Go to low/null sec. Gank a mission runner. Don't feed me the BS of wardec mechanics being the knife that killed EvE.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-01-17 14:59:20 UTC
anthie wrote:
Why............... just why would we want another EQ clone ?

Not talking WoW here since EQ was the first true themepark based MMO, and now you wan't to bring the same sort of "duel" concept to Eve , jesus christ, that is something i can't and will never accept

There is a point in War deccing other corps, some corps rely on Merc corps to do their dirty business , its all apart of Eve and now you wanna change that and basicly remove not only 1 aspect about the game but several...........

If that would ever be the case i'd cancel every single account i own.

Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen!
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#75 - 2013-01-17 15:07:32 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen!


Except there's no danger of these changes being implemented anyway, since CCP does not approve of them and is not interested in making them.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-01-17 15:22:09 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Now, now. I firmly believe that CCP will listen to the playerbase before making these kinds of gamebreaking decisions. Now it is our duty to voice our opinions about the proposed hellokitty-direction before the changes actually happen!


Except there's no danger of these changes being implemented anyway, since CCP does not approve of them and is not interested in making them.


We can never be too careful. There were at least 3 CSM members and 1 CCP devs who were clearly for this kind of change. If you are interested in a more detailed analysis, check http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/01/good-csm-bad-csm.html
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2013-01-17 16:00:03 UTC
I've seen a bunch of good discussion pop up on this thread while I was asleep, but I've noticed an argument made once or twice that I really feel needs to be addressed directly.

A couple people have made a variation on the statement that it's okay to further limit or even eliminate wardecs because suicide ganking or some other form of gameplay interference would still exist. The belligerent undesirables in this game are already overburdened. In the view of those making these arguements, at what point is it no longer okay to take away methods to effect others gameplay? Are you really suggesting that it's okay to take away all the other tools in an undesirables toolbox as long as he still has a 3/8ths crescent wrench?

We're already at such a state that one of the most effective methods that exist to effect someone else's gameplay right now is to bump them. We're down to bumping! And people are suggesting that we take away even more mechanics? I love the New Order and the work they're doing. It's a sorry state of affairs that such incredible human beings don't have a better tool for the job they're doing then bumping.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2013-01-17 16:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!


Really?

He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no.

I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.

I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-01-17 16:26:45 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!


Really?

He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no.

I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.

I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.

James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2013-01-17 16:32:48 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:

It is CSM talking about Highsec wars again when they them self know fuckall about it.

Only one solution! James 315 for CSM 8!


Really?

He is the wrong person for CSM. I would do a better Job. But I already have one so no.

I don't mind what they are doing I encourage it, but I despise the fact that they sugar coat it.

I know to alot of people I am an ******* in this game which is why I am a member of the belligerent undesirables. I don't sugar coat what I do.. be real or GTFO.

James 315 would be absolutely the best highsec CSM rep this game has ever seen.


Since I am always right... you are wrong. My hair gives me powers some can never understand since washing it daily is a chore as it requires the blood of my victims.

So yeah.

Say no to a Safe Highsec!

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk