These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Income vs Null Sec Income - the reality

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#401 - 2013-10-18 19:16:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

And I notice a distinct lack of answering my question. Why does it matter if I can shoot people somewhere else? Does that in any way mean that people should be able to completely avoid non suicide PvP in highsec?


Since CCP recently revamped the whole high sec flags/agression system and made it so an individual being attacked in high sec while not being a member of a corp or alliance at war OR under the effect of a kill right are automatically defended by CONCORD, i'd say it's pretty much an intended feature for INDIVIDUALS to be protected by concord while CORP/ALLIANCE are free to be declared war on.

The wardec is not a personal war tool. It was never meant to be and such is proven by the fact that you can only dec a corp/alliance while represeneting a corp/alliance yourself. If they wanted wardec to affect individuals, I'm pretty sure they would of made wardec declarable to individuals.

Maybe you think they did it contrary to what they intended and it actually could be true but if they intended for individuals to be targettable, they missed when shooting that system in.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#402 - 2013-10-18 19:18:30 UTC
So, I'd have to believe that Crimewatch and the current iteration of criminal flagging was both poorly implemented and misguided?

Done.

"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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#403 - 2013-10-18 19:20:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So, I'd have to believe that Crimewatch and the current iteration of criminal flagging was both poorly implemented and misguided?

Done.


Or that they actaully hit the mark THEY wanted to hit and not the one you wish they aimed for. As long as CCP does not tell exactly what they were aiming for, none of us 2 has a fact, only speculation on the outcome of a feature.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#404 - 2013-10-18 19:22:49 UTC
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#405 - 2013-10-18 19:25:56 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp


The reverse, that NPC corps do not offer enough drawbacks, is also true.

"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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#406 - 2013-10-18 19:27:57 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp


Even if there was, people would reform a new corp. If forming a new corp had a higher entry cost people would just go with the math of if I can lose more money while staying under this wardec than it require me to drop/reform, drop/reform. People drop out of corp/alliance war because corp/alliance war make you lose stuff and there is a way to not lose that stuff. This is EVE, the game where people will use every little hole in a net to better thier own position at the cost of pretty much anything.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#407 - 2013-10-18 19:29:28 UTC
well, since my noob school do periodic NPSI roams and help new players PvP in syndicate I'd say they're probably more valuable to the game than teary griefers who will probably still be spam duelling everyone who undocks in dodixie in 4 years time.

forums.  serious business.
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2013-10-18 19:30:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I just don't want people to be immune.


Why do you deserve to have the game you want to play more than other people deserve to have the game they want to play? Why would it be in CCP's interest to cater to you, a tiny minority, as opposed to providing both for you and for other people with other play styles?

You may attack people in high already. You have lots of other areas in the game where you can attack people as well. It seems to me that you are well served by the game with lots of opportunities to enjoy what you like. Or is it not enough that you get what you want, but that others must also fail to get what they want?

You really come across as incredibly selfish and disrespectful of other players... but then, that would be essential to someone whose idea of fun is ruining the game play of others, no?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#409 - 2013-10-18 19:30:44 UTC
yeah but there's some tightening of the net that could be done to make wardecs a more interesting part of the game
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#410 - 2013-10-18 19:30:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp


The reverse, that NPC corps do not offer enough drawbacks, is also true.


Even if the tax was 50% + 50% of the mineral you refine + 50% of the income you amke out of trading (yes total income not even profit) + 50% damage reduction from every weapon system you use, people would still drop out of wardecs. The rules are not emant for individuals to be stuck without CONCORD support in high sec unless they are in a wardecced corp/alliance or have a CONCORD provided killright on thier head. The whole system is designed that way.

The only way it might be "wrong" right now is if CCP completely missed the mark they were aiming for. It's possible of course but I do not belive it. They would not of missed THAT bad.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#411 - 2013-10-18 19:35:58 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp


The reverse, that NPC corps do not offer enough drawbacks, is also true.


Even if the tax was 50% + 50% of the mineral you refine + 50% of the income you amke out of trading (yes total income not even profit) + 50% damage reduction from every weapon system you use, people would still drop out of wardecs. The rules are not emant for individuals to be stuck without CONCORD support in high sec unless they are in a wardecced corp/alliance or have a CONCORD provided killright on thier head. The whole system is designed that way.

The only way it might be "wrong" right now is if CCP completely missed the mark they were aiming for. It's possible of course but I do not belive it. They would not of missed THAT bad.


Hence, why my proposal is to generate killrights on people who leave corp during a wardec. Nice and legal. It doesn't follow them forever, there is no endless griefing.

And NPC corps being unattractive helps give incentive to actually defend yourself, something which apparently is a horrendous possibility. I still cannot figure out why the simple requirement of self defense is so offensive to y'all.

"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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#412 - 2013-10-18 19:38:30 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
yeah but there's some tightening of the net that could be done to make wardecs a more interesting part of the game


The more tight you amke the net, the more drastic way people will use to evade the net.

Can't drop out of corp?
Have an alt with CEO spot kick you out.

Can't form a new corp?
Have an alt make a corp for you.

Can't even join a new corp?
Wait it out in NPC corp because until the tax is 100%, you still ahve more meaningfull gameplay possibility than having to dodge ~elite PVPers~ deccing your non PVP corp.

You can take down anyone's sandcastle in the sandbox but if you want to throw sand in people's face, you ahve to have the rule amker give you the right to do so or do it where the rulemaker does not watch. School was the same. You could not really got punished if you threw sad at other kids as long as you did it where whoever was checking on kids could not see(low sec). You would only really get a sec status hit (they would be watching your behavior more). If you did it out of school hours (null sec) no penalty at all.
Fa Xian
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#413 - 2013-10-18 19:39:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The only way it might be "wrong" right now is if CCP completely missed the mark they were aiming for.


In many games, there are mechanics for optional PVP. That's what a wardec is supposed to be. Like a duel. It is a way to opt out of the safeguards of a PVE area. But it is not intended as a griefing tool for one sided harassment. It does not exist so that one side can use it to prey on another indefinitely.

That's the most disturbing part of the insistence that it must go that way. The idea that there should be no escape, no alternative, only fighting - which serves only a value to griefing. Next, there will be some insistence that while wardec'd, players should not be allowed to dock. Or log off. Or downfit ships. Where does it end, wardeccers? When will you get what you want out of it?

If you want unrestricted PVP, the game offers that to you in other areas of space. Use them. They were built for you.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#414 - 2013-10-18 19:41:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Were it about getting their corp to disband, yes. But it's not. I don't give a hoot about their corp, I want to kill them. Clearly, they don't want to be killed. A mechanism currently exists preventing me from killing them despite declaring war on them.

Why is it the case that a player can make themselves immune to PvP? Why does anyone, not just highsec players, get to say "yes" or "no"? If you get to actually have a say in the matter after I have gone to the lengths necessary to wardec you, that's not a war, that's a tennis match.

Generate killrights on dec dodgers.

Sports are. Wars are rarely, if ever, consensual. Pretty sure WW2 wasn't consensual for most of Europe.

Fortunately, in EVE, seeing as capsuleers exist apart from their empires, nothing is or can be considered a war crime. There are also no such things as a war crime in a video game, with the possible exception of the Planetside 1 funeral bombing.

But apparently EVE is real, to you.

Oh, and here we go, I'm a sadist. Last time it was a sociopath. I wonder what I'll be next week, for wanting to shoot spaceships in a game about shooting spaceships. What an awful person I am...


There is just something about the first and last paragraph of this quote that seems a bit...off.

The rest of Europe had two choices when it came to Germany in WW2. Surrender, or fight back. Most chose to fight back, thus consensual. If they surrendered, Germany would be much bigger than what it currently is. Now what Germany did with the Jews, certainly not consensual.

"EVE is real' to me? No, I see EVE for what it is. A sand box game. You think it's just about blowing up ships with ships. You, sir, are quite narrow minded.

It's about mining materials and making stuff.
It's about running missions
It's about hauling goods from one place to another
It's about trading goods on the market
It's about claiming ownership of systems
It's about fighting over territorial control
It's about driving away the competition (not from the game, just the area of it you play in)
It's about exploring
It's about stealing from others
It's about many things, and yes it is also about blowing up ships

But as far as the last one goes, the question to ask is 'for what purpose?'.

For fun? Who's fun? Yours? A good enough purpose but what about it is fun? Blowing stuff up or ruining the other person's gaming experience?

The former is fine but it can be achieved by going up against others looking for the same thing. The latter is...well calling it sadism may be an exaggeration but I would honestly refer to it as cyber bullying. Why do you think CONCORD even exists in hi-sec? Why is it that if you continue to bump someone and prevent them from warping, they can report you to CCP and CCP will take action against your account (it happened to someone I know that kept an Orca from warping from a belt)?

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#415 - 2013-10-18 19:42:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
i like crimewatch :(

frostys' argument is convincing but there's still the whole 'majority of members drop', 'pos is taken down before war starts' and 'reforming corp' problems if the argument was taken as true

also actually being in a corp offers barely any benefits vs. npc corps which means there's no drawback to dropping corp


The reverse, that NPC corps do not offer enough drawbacks, is also true.


Even if the tax was 50% + 50% of the mineral you refine + 50% of the income you amke out of trading (yes total income not even profit) + 50% damage reduction from every weapon system you use, people would still drop out of wardecs. The rules are not emant for individuals to be stuck without CONCORD support in high sec unless they are in a wardecced corp/alliance or have a CONCORD provided killright on thier head. The whole system is designed that way.

The only way it might be "wrong" right now is if CCP completely missed the mark they were aiming for. It's possible of course but I do not belive it. They would not of missed THAT bad.


Hence, why my proposal is to generate killrights on people who leave corp during a wardec. Nice and legal. It doesn't follow them forever, there is no endless griefing.

And NPC corps being unattractive helps give incentive to actually defend yourself, something which apparently is a horrendous possibility. I still cannot figure out why the simple requirement of self defense is so offensive to y'all.


Except then you are no longer protecting the individual. It might be CCP's goal to not protect them but as far as I know, there is NOTHING proving this point. The only thing that was possible to do to individuals in high sec where he was not protected while not under killright/wardecced in a corp/alliance was completely stopped when they made it impossible to evade CONCORD. This to me mean it was not intended to attack individuals in impunity in high sec unless some criteria are met.

I just though I actaully forgot another criteria that can be met other than wardecced corp/alliance and killright. If your target is a repeat criminal, he is also no longer protected.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#416 - 2013-10-18 19:54:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Quote:
The rest of Europe had two choices when it came to Germany in WW2. Surrender, or fight back. Most chose to fight back, thus consensual. If they surrendered, Germany would be much bigger than what it currently is. Now what Germany did with the Jews, certainly not consensual.


You seem to be under a grave misconception about what "consensual" means.

It does mean "Hey you! Let's go to war with each other" "Ok!" *declares war mutually* The best example of this would be RvB, where they actually have a mutal war going against one another.

It does NOT mean "Well, I'm declaring war on you, sucks to be you" And then Poland says "Aww, dangit!"

Also, "most" did not chose to fight back. France surrendered, Spain basically dropped to an NPC corp, and everything else between Spain and Russia was conquered except for Britain.

And then Britain had another alliance (Murika) join in on the wardec. With predictable results.

Throughout human history, very rarely have there been a group of people who each wanted to declare war on one another mutually. It's an aggressor against a defender, sometimes for resources, or sometimes merely for love of killing(Mongols, Goths both "Visi" and the regular kind) or to fulfill some grand destiny(Romans).

But, in general, wars are not consensual. If you fight back against a mugger, it's not consensual, it's simple self defense.

"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.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2013-10-18 19:56:07 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
yeah but there's some tightening of the net that could be done to make wardecs a more interesting part of the game


The more tight you amke the net, the more drastic way people will use to evade the net.

Can't drop out of corp?
Have an alt with CEO spot kick you out.

Can't form a new corp?
Have an alt make a corp for you.

Can't even join a new corp?
Wait it out in NPC corp because until the tax is 100%, you still ahve more meaningfull gameplay possibility than having to dodge ~elite PVPers~ deccing your non PVP corp.

You can take down anyone's sandcastle in the sandbox but if you want to throw sand in people's face, you ahve to have the rule amker give you the right to do so or do it where the rulemaker does not watch. School was the same. You could not really got punished if you threw sad at other kids as long as you did it where whoever was checking on kids could not see(low sec). You would only really get a sec status hit (they would be watching your behavior more). If you did it out of school hours (null sec) no penalty at all.

nah not stuff like that. but things like making pos a viable target instead of being able to take them down in the 24 hours, so there's something to fight over. or making being in a corp and fighting for the corp better than being in an npc corp, somehow. incentives to drive gameplay beat draconian restrictions
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#418 - 2013-10-18 20:01:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
The rest of Europe had two choices when it came to Germany in WW2. Surrender, or fight back. Most chose to fight back, thus consensual. If they surrendered, Germany would be much bigger than what it currently is. Now what Germany did with the Jews, certainly not consensual.


You seem to be under a grave misconception about what "consensual" means.

It does mean "Hey you! Let's go to war with each other" "Ok!" *declares war mutually* The best example of this would be RvB, where they actually have a mutal war going against one another.

It does NOT mean "Well, I'm declaring war on you, sucks to be you" And then Poland says "Aww, dangit!"

Also, "most" did not chose to fight back. France surrendered, Spain basically dropped to an NPC corp, and everything else between Spain and Russia was conquered except for Britain.

And then Britain had another alliance (Murika) join in on the wardec. With predictable results.

Throughout human history, very rarely have there been a group of people who each wanted to declare war on one another mutually. It's an aggressor against a defender, sometimes for resources, or sometimes merely for love of killing(Mongols, Goths both "Visi" and the regular kind) or to fulfill some grand destiny(Romans).

But, in general, wars are not consensual. If you fight back against a mugger, it's not consensual, it's simple self defense.


Welcome to video games, where sometime, the rules can't be dodged.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#419 - 2013-10-18 20:02:54 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Welcome to video games, where sometime, the rules can't be dodged.


Nope, just wardecs. :P

"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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#420 - 2013-10-18 20:09:46 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
yeah but there's some tightening of the net that could be done to make wardecs a more interesting part of the game


The more tight you amke the net, the more drastic way people will use to evade the net.

Can't drop out of corp?
Have an alt with CEO spot kick you out.

Can't form a new corp?
Have an alt make a corp for you.

Can't even join a new corp?
Wait it out in NPC corp because until the tax is 100%, you still ahve more meaningfull gameplay possibility than having to dodge ~elite PVPers~ deccing your non PVP corp.

You can take down anyone's sandcastle in the sandbox but if you want to throw sand in people's face, you ahve to have the rule amker give you the right to do so or do it where the rulemaker does not watch. School was the same. You could not really got punished if you threw sad at other kids as long as you did it where whoever was checking on kids could not see(low sec). You would only really get a sec status hit (they would be watching your behavior more). If you did it out of school hours (null sec) no penalty at all.

nah not stuff like that. but things like making pos a viable target instead of being able to take them down in the 24 hours, so there's something to fight over. or making being in a corp and fighting for the corp better than being in an npc corp, somehow. incentives to drive gameplay beat draconian restrictions


People will evaluate the cost of both side of the medal (defend POS or drop a new one later) and decide if they let it go pop or not. NPC corp restriction are only gonna affect new players unless you put a cap on forming new corp. Anybody who want a corp can have a corp.