These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Customer Support lifting previous restrictions regarding war decs

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShipToaster
#461 - 2011-12-31 11:10:19 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Keep bawling. Far more constructive than actually getting on with things, right?


Gotta love it when forum 'tards get knocked out in the first round by a better set of arguments and resort to the claims of tears.

.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#462 - 2011-12-31 11:18:17 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Keep bawling. Far more constructive than actually getting on with things, right?


Gotta love it when forum 'tards get knocked out in the first round by a better set of arguments and resort to the claims of tears.


Also, I'm not sure how articulating the reasons why the change is a terrible idea is both

  1. Crying and
  2. Not Constructive


I think it's certainly more constructive than a one liner telling us we're using the forum incorrectly.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#463 - 2011-12-31 11:53:19 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Gotta love it when forum 'tards get knocked out in the first round by a better set of arguments and resort to the claims of tears.


What consolation can there possibly be for somebody who's angry that CCP doesn't specifically endorse his chosen style of play? The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it. And really, complaining about it is tantamount to walking around in the real world constantly saying "It's not fair." Of course it's not fair. Life's not fair. You deal with it by moving on. If dec'ing carebears (whom you appear to hate for no reason other than the fact that they're carebears ... not quite sure how that works) is all you're fit to do in EVE, then your game just got a lot harder. Move the hell on.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2011-12-31 17:01:07 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it.

You've at least changed your tune since entering this thread. At first you were all "Rawr! It's great that any corp that doesn't want to fight can do so at no cost. High-sec as a consensual PvP zone makes EVE better! Rawr!"

Now you're all "Rawr! It should be expensive to wage war in the high-sec part of the sandbox, but you should be able to wage war against anyone if you're willing to pay silly money! Rawr!"

I think we can now agree. I have no problem with wardecs costing some coin. I have no problem with corps bribing to end wars for similar coin. I have no problem with large corps/alliances paying through the nose to dec small corps/alliances, and for small corps/alliances to pay through the nose to wardec large corps/alliances.
Izziee
University of Izziee
#465 - 2011-12-31 17:14:23 UTC
I find it amusing that griefers QQ so much more than any other type of player.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2011-12-31 22:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Izziee wrote:
I find it amusing that griefers QQ so much more than any other type of player.
Yes, that's why CCP removed insurance for ganks, dropped policing the wardec exploits, and immediately fixed an aggression mechanics problem for highsec incursion runners when it appeared ... because carebears don't cry when they lose ships.


As an aside, I'm all for removing insurance for ganks ... but it is an example of something that was "fixed" for carebears.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#467 - 2012-01-01 00:13:04 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it.

You've at least changed your tune since entering this thread. At first you were all "Rawr! It's great that any corp that doesn't want to fight can do so at no cost. High-sec as a consensual PvP zone makes EVE better! Rawr!"

Now you're all "Rawr! It should be expensive to wage war in the high-sec part of the sandbox, but you should be able to wage war against anyone if you're willing to pay silly money! Rawr!"

I think we can now agree. I have no problem with wardecs costing some coin. I have no problem with corps bribing to end wars for similar coin. I have no problem with large corps/alliances paying through the nose to dec small corps/alliances, and for small corps/alliances to pay through the nose to wardec large corps/alliances.


But the thing is that these changes would have virtually the same outcome. If you have to pay half a billion ISK to wardec some carebear hi-sec corp with 3 members, chances are you're not going to see too many people doing that. Yeah, there may be a handful of players who are crazy rich and just don't give a crap about dumping that much money down the drain, but honestly, if I were in that carebear corp, I'd feel satisfaction that I was leading somebody to dump that much ISK down a hole, even if it meant staying docked up for a week or whatever.

So I'm not sure why you regard once change as legitimate while the other is just beyond the pale.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#468 - 2012-01-01 00:17:57 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it.

You've at least changed your tune since entering this thread. At first you were all "Rawr! It's great that any corp that doesn't want to fight can do so at no cost. High-sec as a consensual PvP zone makes EVE better! Rawr!"

Now you're all "Rawr! It should be expensive to wage war in the high-sec part of the sandbox, but you should be able to wage war against anyone if you're willing to pay silly money! Rawr!"

I think we can now agree. I have no problem with wardecs costing some coin. I have no problem with corps bribing to end wars for similar coin. I have no problem with large corps/alliances paying through the nose to dec small corps/alliances, and for small corps/alliances to pay through the nose to wardec large corps/alliances.


But the thing is that these changes would have virtually the same outcome. If you have to pay half a billion ISK to wardec some carebear hi-sec corp with 3 members, chances are you're not going to see too many people doing that. Yeah, there may be a handful of players who are crazy rich and just don't give a crap about dumping that much money down the drain, but honestly, if I were in that carebear corp, I'd feel satisfaction that I was leading somebody to dump that much ISK down a hole, even if it meant staying docked up for a week or whatever.

So I'm not sure why you regard once change as legitimate while the other is just beyond the pale.


I'd be somewhat OK with that IF it cost the carebear corp a hefty bribe to keep that protection. Some kind of wardec-counterbribe thing, so long as it's a fair bit more expensive for the defender. This is EVE. The next expansion's focus is on creating War. Conflict is, has been, and should be encouraged. If you don't want to play in the multiplayer sandbox, where someone can kick down your sandcastly, you can play WoW or play on SiSi.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#469 - 2012-01-01 00:31:38 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
I'd be somewhat OK with that IF it cost the carebear corp a hefty bribe to keep that protection. Some kind of wardec-counterbribe thing, so long as it's a fair bit more expensive for the defender. This is EVE. The next expansion's focus is on creating War. Conflict is, has been, and should be encouraged. If you don't want to play in the multiplayer sandbox, where someone can kick down your sandcastly, you can play WoW or play on SiSi.


Why should they have to pay any ISK? They can either fight (and perhaps get blown up) or stay docked up. That's their "payment" for being the focus of an aggressive wardec. If we followed your recommendation, might as well just change our avatars into lawyers in pinstripe suits, and our ships into briefcases. I can see it now: Harassing Lawsuits ... IN SPACE!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2012-01-01 00:57:43 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
... but honestly, if I were in that carebear corp, I'd feel satisfaction that I was leading somebody to dump that much ISK down a hole, even if it meant staying docked up for a week or whatever.

You'd probably fake a killmail to put that amount on your killboards.

Hiya Kelduum!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#471 - 2012-01-01 01:00:50 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
So I'm not sure why you regard once change as legitimate while the other is just beyond the pale.

Because under one option (the current option), one can avoid a wardec at no cost and indefinitely. If you don't want to be a part of a war declaration, you never have too. You can be a **** with no consequences.

Under the payment option, there is the option for anyone to pull you into a war. If you then want to stay docked up, then that is fine. They get to play the game for a week, and you don't.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#472 - 2012-01-01 01:36:26 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
So I'm not sure why you regard once change as legitimate while the other is just beyond the pale.

Because under one option (the current option), one can avoid a wardec at no cost and indefinitely. If you don't want to be a part of a war declaration, you never have too. You can be a **** with no consequences.

Under the payment option, there is the option for anyone to pull you into a war. If you then want to stay docked up, then that is fine. They get to play the game for a week, and you don't.


Correction: They get to pay half a billion ISK and I get to play my alt.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#473 - 2012-01-01 01:48:10 UTC
Until the entire war declaration system is revamped; I'm all for this ability to escape war decs with ease. Besides, most of the time it is some pussy ass guys with neutral rr alts on standby who only go after a group of miners/mission runners for easy kills. So don't act like some great feature was ruined by allowing corporations to shed war decs.

I do enjoy all your tears about it... NOM NOM NOM!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#474 - 2012-01-01 02:40:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
... most of the time it is some ***** ass guys with neutral rr alts on standby who only go after a group of miners/mission runners for easy kills.
You're not allowed to go after industrial targets during wartime?
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#475 - 2012-01-01 03:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mu-Shi Ai
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
... most of the time it is some ***** ass guys with neutral rr alts on standby who only go after a group of miners/mission runners for easy kills.
You're not allowed to go after industrial targets during wartime?


I think the point is that, whenever this issue comes up, the troll wardec'ers come out of the woodwork and give us the same old disingenuous handwringing, making like their "business" is this super-serious thing with legit fundamentals about making ISK and disrupting "logistics" or whatever else. Against 3 person carebear corps. That exist solely in hi-sec. I'm sorry, but it's not serious business. I feel truly sorry for those who, due to this mechanic, have had non-trolling hi-sec wardecs made nearly impossible. But I don't feel sorry, even the slightest bit, for troll wardec'ers whose style of play has taken a hit here.

This will hopefully push hi-sec carebear PvPers out into low and null to make that part of the game more interesting/fun.
Valei Khurelem
#476 - 2012-01-01 03:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
Izziee wrote:
I find it amusing that griefers QQ so much more than any other type of player.


They do as well, particularly if CCP does something that causes them to have to fight fairly against someone, you'll notice I'm sure that these people go around trolling any threads that try and make things better game mechanics wise as well or fix any exploits.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#477 - 2012-01-01 04:01:49 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
They do as well, particularly if CCP does something that causes them to have to fight fairly against someone, you'll notice I'm sure that these people go around trolling any threads that try and make things better game mechanics wise as well or fix any exploits.


Exactly. It's only an exploit when it doesn't skew the game in favor of their chosen play style or give them some advantage.
First Lieutenant Dan
Doomheim
#478 - 2012-01-01 04:03:06 UTC
OMG! IT'S ALBINO BRUCE WILLIS!
ShipToaster
#479 - 2012-01-01 18:22:11 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
II have no problem with wardecs costing some coin. I have no problem with corps bribing to end wars for similar coin. I have no problem with large corps/alliances paying through the nose to dec small corps/alliances, and for small corps/alliances to pay through the nose to wardec large corps/alliances.


You can take the pilot of of eve university but sadly the indoctrination remains.

Again, any form of wardecs where number of members influences costs is open to fairly easy manipulation and will consume GM resources when declared an exploit. Arguing about wardecs on TS earlier resulted in this; "No one will make 2000 trial accounts with 3 chars and move them all into the same corp just to avoid paying a few hundred million more for a wardec", "I would" echoed out, "So would I" another claimed, and I also would. This is EVE and people in EVE for long enough are insane enough to do things like this.

What was EVE university's ideas? Symmetrical war or something like that. Where no one could dec them unless they had at least 50% of the membership of 1500+ member EVE university (which no one in high sec has, so another de facto way to avoid wardecs). Then EVE university wanted some sort of capture the flag scenario where their massive numerical advantage would mean they always won and won quickly. Then they wanted counter payments. Anything to have that consensual PvP flag so they can decline and keep on carebearing.

For someone who is against consensual PvP you are giving off very mixed signals with your agreement to counter payments to end wars. Unless of course the counter payments you meant are significantly more than the costs of a wardec and go to the aggressor along with a nice message in game saying that group X has surrendered to group Y and has paid them Z ISK then even I can agree (with the proviso that surrendering imposes no penalty upon the aggressor and a new wardec can be issued immediately).


Izziee wrote:
I find it amusing that griefers QQ so much more than any other type of player.


Thought your sort were banned from posting here? Did you get permission to post here from your owner?

Did you drop corp for the one war that eve university has had in the last few months? You might as well leave them when wardecs are repaired as the wars against eve university will be never ending.

Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
If you have to pay half a billion ISK to wardec some carebear hi-sec corp with 3 members, chances are you're not going to see too many people doing that. Yeah, there may be a handful of players who are crazy rich and just don't give a crap about dumping that much money down the drain


Thank you for making my point for me using carebear logic. CCP, even carebears think that 500 million for a wardec will price out wardecs on corps. De facto immunity from wardecs due to costs being too high is a bad thing.

.
ShipToaster
#480 - 2012-01-01 18:34:40 UTC
Is there something about carebears that makes them susceptible to these little emotional forum tantrums where they try to psychoanalyse you using some sort of pre-school psychology?

Lets break it down so I can correct all of Mu-Shi Ai's mistakes in a previous emo post.

Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
What consolation can there possibly be for somebody who's angry that CCP doesn't specifically endorse his chosen style of play?


Have to laugh at you for getting this absolutely wrong. There can be no doubt that :ccp: are 100% supportive of my style of play as I am currently an incursion whore.

Talking about incursions for a few lines will highlight the differences between us. Do incursions benefit me greatly? Yes. Do I think incursions are good for EVE? No, no, no. VG whoring needs a nerf bat homerun dealt to it.

This is the difference between us in a nutshell: I have enough objectivity to realise that what is good for me as an individual is not good for EVE as a whole.

This logic applies to wardecs. Are wardecs likely to interfere with my EVE? Yes. Should they be removed or nerfed because of this? No.

Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
The game may be a sandbox, but that doesn't mean that CCP has to make it easy and dirt cheap for you to do anything you want to do within it.


Nor does it mean things need to be difficult and horrendously expensive.

In all the posts I have read about wardecs needing to become more expensive not one person has put forward a real reason why. I have already said that carebears are rich and imagine everyone else is rich because of this but how this translates into the carebear mantra of "I am rich and can make trillions on incursions so wardecs for everyone should cost 1000% more" is a logic that escapes me.

Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
And really, complaining about it is tantamount to walking around in the real world constantly saying "It's not fair." Of course it's not fair. Life's not fair.You deal with it by moving on.


I reject your assumption that my behaviour mirrors your behaviour in these situations.

You might move on and meekly surrender. I would like to think I am intelligent and like all intelligent people am able to influence my environment, or at least attempt to. I might well fail utterly here and CCP could introduce a 1000% wardec price increase, make wars consensual, introduce bizzare victory conditions, and implement a fail points system to determine winners of wars BUT I will have done everything I can do to stop such a series of bad decisions like these being made.

Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
If dec'ing carebears (whom you appear to hate for no reason other than the fact that they're carebears ... not quite sure how that works) is all you're fit to do in EVE, then your game just got a lot harder. Move the hell on.


You are making wrong assumptions again here. I dont use high sec wardecs and it is not part of my gameplay but wardecs are important in EVE and this position needs to be argued even if it is only against the carebear hordes who spam the same **** about wardecs constantly: should cost more or we should be exempt are basically the only arguments used (add the new player defence as this to is being used a lot more).

This is EVE why do you think I need a reason to hate some person or group in EVE? Carebears think that you need a reason to declare war and doing it for fun or to annoy people indicates some sort of psychopathic tendencies in real life. This is a game and people are playing a game.

I am a carebear just now and it is true that I have a lot of shame and self loathing due to this. I actually despise carebears for their weakness and general all round patheticness but reserve my EVE hate for :$1000 Jeans: and :18 Months: as these really deserve hatred.

You see the contempt and disdain real EVE has for carebears with comments like this from EN24 "one thing that unites all losec/0.0 dwellers, we all think hisec carebears are dumbfucks ", real EVE players see carebears as children playing a solo version of EVE. I am no different in my opinion of carebears than much of EVE.

.