These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Does WAR make players leave Eve?

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#81 - 2013-11-06 15:55:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Baaldor wrote:

Hold on, if you read the warning label on the box, and decide that it does not apply because you are special, and have this idea that your money means more than the others that have read, understood and accepted the conditions of the warning...how the hell does give you or any one else the right to tell everyone they are wrong.

It is like walking up to a group of people who are playing a game by the established rules and then stomping your feet wailing about screaming it is not fair and demand to change the rules in the middle of the game.


The rules have been changed in the middle of the game of Eve Online, many many times. And yet, it's still here, and still growing. By your logic, anyone who has ever seen an ad for Eve has no right to even QUESTION current mechanics, or suggest changes, once they start playing because they have somehow locked themselves into a contract by trying the game even though someone said it was "hard".

Quote:
It is very simple, if you do not like the way it is played, find another game. Simple. You will be replaced by others that enjoy that type of game play and rules.


Another false dilemma. "EVE: Love it or leave it." Classic fallacy, straight out of the examples listed in the link I already posted.

It is not as simple as you would suggest. Valid concerns should be, and often are, addressed as the game evolves. The only ones around here wailing, stomping, and screaming are those that panic every time someone suggests that a change may be needed in an area they are content with. This happens all the time. Despite the predictions of the Chicken Littles, the sky still manages to hang solidly above the ground.

Are you guys really trying to say that ANY change to wardec mechanics that might help new players would result in a broken, unplayable, and unpopular game abandoned by anyone who signed up before 2013?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2013-11-06 16:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Princess Bride wrote:
Mythrandier wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that this game can be the PvP sandbox its advertised as and Hello Kitty Island Adventure at the same time. That’s simply not possible, there is no false dilemma here.


PvP Sandbox or Hello Kitty Island IS the false dilemma. You can't just reword a false dilemma, proclaim it to not be what it obviously is, and win.

Quote:
I honestly don’t see how it is possible to introduce yet more protection (high sec safety has been buffed so many times already) without essentially breaking the cold harsh world that is EvE.


Just because you lack vision doesn't mean there's nothing there to see. High sec safety has, as you've pointed out, already been buffed many times without breaking the game. That's a fact. The theory that one more move in that direction would be the straw that breaks the camel's back is nothing but amateur-hour conjecture and alarmist bullshit.

You're either deliberately leaving out an important part,
or are too ignorant to see it.

It's one little step, right next to all the other small steps,
right next to all the future small steps.

It's not going to end. People will complain, no matter what.

You either know that and are full of ****,
or you don't and simply lack mental capacity to see the obvious.

Personally, i think you simply say this crap because you only care about yourself
and not about the game as a whole.
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2013-11-06 16:24:50 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:


I think you are failing to recognise that there needs to be something for all the participants to be doing. At best you are suggesting there is some fun in only a third of the participants having something to do, by my math that leaves two thirds of the people with nothing to do - irrelevant of ships and skills. 'You can't fight, we're at war' is far too close to being a Dr Strangelove quote.

We do about go war correctly, that is the problem, we try to fight in an armed conflict but there is nothing to shoot at. Being able to declare war and then vanish completely from the Universe when it suites you doesn't make any sense. The war system is wrong, not the people wanting to wage war.


The quote is "You can't fight in here! This is the war room!" Blink (hilarious movie)

Why is what I said limiting the "fun things" to only 1/3 of the people in a corp? I merely posted "some" things that you could do, not all the things... care to clarify?

There's nothing stopping your corp of 100 from having a mining op during a war (just bring defense and properly tanked skiffs).
There's nothing stopping your corp of 100 from continuing to mission (just fly in pairs/quads).
There's nothing stopping your manufacturers and traders from doing their thing (use escorts/scouts).
There's nothing stopping you from looking weak/disorganized (mining 2 jumps away from home with a "small" gang ... backup on standby).



That is a quote, I don't get why it would be relevant to what I said unless you were to include all his lines and then have a Peter Griffin like epiphany.

I think you are struggling with the logic involved.
If you bring sufficient defence then there is nothing for that defence force to do. That is not fun for the defence force, no matter what they watch other people do (within the current limitations of character interaction).
There is no case for bringing insufficient defence when you vastly out number the enemy.

defence -> no enemy -> nothing for the defenders to do -> boredom -> might as well have not logged on

Mining etc., pretty pointless if you have to give a sufficiently sized defence force a cut.
Missions you can get away with but it is a bit of contradiction to fill your time with PvE when you are at war which should really be keeping you occupied with PvP.
Trading and manufacturing isn't relevant, war can make it more irritating but doesn't stop anything as those activities largely take place in stations, wars are only a week long and it's hardly a challenge to ship something through a third party if it needs moving that badly.

Certainly you can use bait but the tactic is rooted in having a lot of people doing nothing and if you can get it to work seven days a week you must be fighting the most stupid enemy in the universe. War is at least 161 hours long, finding something that fills one of those hours is a start but I think there is still some way to go before words like thrilling or exciting can really be brought into play.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#84 - 2013-11-06 16:50:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Solstice Project wrote:

You're either deliberately leaving out an important part,
or are too ignorant to see it.

It's one little step, right next to all the other small steps,
right next to all the future small steps.

It's not going to end. People will complain, no matter what.

You either know that and are full of ****,
or you don't and simply lack mental capacity to see the obvious.

Personally, i think you simply say this crap because you only care about yourself
and not about the game as a whole.


Wassup with that formatting bro? Shocked 80 column monitor?

What you've posted above is called the slippery slope fallacy. You are implying that unless we stop making changes with the goal of retaining new players the game will be ruined. As you presented no evidence to back up your assertion, it's a logical fallacy.

Then you launch into an ad hominem accusation that I am selfish, which makes no sense at all. Quite the opposite is true. I care about the game. I want to see it thrive, and I want to see new players stay after they try it out. New blood is good for the game. If I was selfish, I wouldn't care. Maybe you're the one who is selfish. You and those like you seem to care more about ganking noobs before they have a chance to learn a thing than you do about the future health of the game. The health of any MMO requires new players to try it and STAY instead of leaving after a week.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Mythrandier
Solace Corp
#85 - 2013-11-06 16:58:50 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Mythrandier wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that this game can be the PvP sandbox its advertised as and Hello Kitty Island Adventure at the same time. That’s simply not possible, there is no false dilemma here.


PvP Sandbox or Hello Kitty Island IS the false dilemma. You can't just reword a false dilemma, proclaim it to not be what it obviously is, and win.

Quote:
I honestly don’t see how it is possible to introduce yet more protection (high sec safety has been buffed so many times already) without essentially breaking the cold harsh world that is EvE.


Just because you lack vision doesn't mean there's nothing there to see. High sec safety has, as you've pointed out, already been buffed many times without breaking the game. That's a fact. The theory that one more move in that direction would be the straw that breaks the camel's back is nothing but amateur-hour conjecture and alarmist bullshit.



Well instead of throwing ad hominem attacks at me, tell me what this great "vision" of yours is. So far you are being very vague.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -  D. Adams.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#86 - 2013-11-06 17:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Mythrandier wrote:
I honestly don’t see how it is possible...


Princess Bride wrote:
Just because you lack vision doesn't mean there's nothing there to see. ...


Mythrandier wrote:
Well instead of throwing ad hominem attacks at me, tell me what this great "vision" of yours is. So far you are being very vague.


I was merely referencing your self-declared lack of vision, not promising to be your messiah. I have been very clear.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Looking for Trouble
#87 - 2013-11-06 17:26:28 UTC
no no no, wars in eve only make people leave if they fly what they cant afford to replace.
Cyborg 497
State War Academy
Caldari State
#88 - 2013-11-06 17:29:41 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Baaldor wrote:

Hold on, if you read the warning label on the box, and decide that it does not apply because you are special, and have this idea that your money means more than the others that have read, understood and accepted the conditions of the warning...how the hell does give you or any one else the right to tell everyone they are wrong.

It is like walking up to a group of people who are playing a game by the established rules and then stomping your feet wailing about screaming it is not fair and demand to change the rules in the middle of the game.


The rules have been changed in the middle of the game of Eve Online, many many times. And yet, it's still here, and still growing. By your logic, anyone who has ever seen an ad for Eve has no right to even QUESTION current mechanics, or suggest changes, once they start playing because they have somehow locked themselves into a contract by trying the game even though someone said it was "hard".

Quote:
It is very simple, if you do not like the way it is played, find another game. Simple. You will be replaced by others that enjoy that type of game play and rules.


Another false dilemma. "EVE: Love it or leave it." Classic fallacy, straight out of the examples listed in the link I already posted.

It is not as simple as you would suggest. Valid concerns should be, and often are, addressed as the game evolves. The only ones around here wailing, stomping, and screaming are those that panic every time someone suggests that a change may be needed in an area they are content with. This happens all the time. Despite the predictions of the Chicken Littles, the sky still manages to hang solidly above the ground.

Are you guys really trying to say that ANY change to wardec mechanics that might help new players would result in a broken, unplayable, and unpopular game abandoned by anyone who signed up before 2013?


I agree with you. CCP must be aware that new players may be deterred from being ganked or getting wardecced in their fledgling corps. CCP would be very foolish to ignore the potential threat to expanding the game to as many players as possible , without compromising the harshness of the Eve universe.

Eve has changed many times and it will continue to evolve hopefully in the right direction.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2013-11-06 17:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Princess Bride wrote:
Wassup with that formatting bro? Shocked 80 column monitor?

What you've posted above is called the slippery slope fallacy. You are implying that unless we stop making changes with the goal of retaining new players the game will be ruined. As you presented no evidence to back up your assertion, it's a logical fallacy.

Then you launch into an ad hominem accusation that I am selfish, which makes no sense at all. Quite the opposite is true. I care about the game. I want to see it thrive, and I want to see new players stay after they try it out. New blood is good for the game. If I was selfish, I wouldn't care. Maybe you're the one who is selfish. You and those like you seem to care more about ganking noobs before they have a chance to learn a thing than you do about the future health of the game. The health of any MMO requires new players to try it and STAY instead of leaving after a week.
Except that i don't gank noobs.

And i don't make up bullshit claims about caring about the game,
while at the same time wanting to nerf it even more.

It's fine. Of course, more new players are always welcome and people who
target specifically those aren't my type either, but if you believe that making
the game more safe for them is what they actually want,
then you just assume stuff and ignore reality.

Reality is, that the game is advertised as what it is.
Reality also is that protecting people only weakens them. There are studies about this regarding children
and "protective" playgrounds, which led to children only get hurt even more in the long run,
because they didn't learn how to watch out for themselves, as somebody else did it.

If you really cared about the game, you would go seek out all those new players and
help them learning to protect themselves. Help them to fight. Help them to defend themselves.

Instead, you want to game to be changed for people who might or might not have stayed,
ignoring the long time consequences completely.

You have no actual ground for anything, tbh. EvE always had lots of new players leave early
and it still works. People still join and stay.

Keep dreaming you're the good guy.

You're just the selfish ******* only believing what he wants to believe,
ignoring actual reality.


If you *really* want to make more players stay, then you should go and check
out what's actually wrong ... like i did. And it's not them getting killed.

New players mostly KNOW what the game is about,
because it is advertised as that !

Dismissed.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#90 - 2013-11-06 17:35:36 UTC
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:


I think you are failing to recognise that there needs to be something for all the participants to be doing. At best you are suggesting there is some fun in only a third of the participants having something to do, by my math that leaves two thirds of the people with nothing to do - irrelevant of ships and skills. 'You can't fight, we're at war' is far too close to being a Dr Strangelove quote.

We do about go war correctly, that is the problem, we try to fight in an armed conflict but there is nothing to shoot at. Being able to declare war and then vanish completely from the Universe when it suites you doesn't make any sense. The war system is wrong, not the people wanting to wage war.


The quote is "You can't fight in here! This is the war room!" Blink (hilarious movie)

Why is what I said limiting the "fun things" to only 1/3 of the people in a corp? I merely posted "some" things that you could do, not all the things... care to clarify?

There's nothing stopping your corp of 100 from having a mining op during a war (just bring defense and properly tanked skiffs).
There's nothing stopping your corp of 100 from continuing to mission (just fly in pairs/quads).
There's nothing stopping your manufacturers and traders from doing their thing (use escorts/scouts).
There's nothing stopping you from looking weak/disorganized (mining 2 jumps away from home with a "small" gang ... backup on standby).



That is a quote, I don't get why it would be relevant to what I said unless you were to include all his lines and then have a Peter Griffin like epiphany.


You mentioned Dr. Strangelove ... I just gave you the right quote from the movie... relax dude.


Pap Uhotih wrote:

I think you are struggling with the logic involved.
If you bring sufficient defence then there is nothing for that defence force to do. That is not fun for the defence force, no matter what they watch other people do (within the current limitations of character interaction).
There is no case for bringing insufficient defence when you vastly out number the enemy.


No, there's not ... but if you know that bringing all 100 dudes in your corp will get them do dock up, don't bring all 100.

Set up smaller gangs (say 10)

- roam looking for WTs who think they're "safe" because you're a mining corp -> have killed several people this way (probed them in their mission).
- if you can't probe their mission, just watch the gate(s) that they have to go through to get "home"


defence -> no enemy -> nothing for the defenders to do -> boredom -> might as well have not logged on

Pap Uhotih wrote:

Mining etc., pretty pointless if you have to give a sufficiently sized defence force a cut.
Missions you can get away with but it is a bit of contradiction to fill your time with PvE when you are at war which should really be keeping you occupied with PvP.
Trading and manufacturing isn't relevant, war can make it more irritating but doesn't stop anything as those activities largely take place in stations, wars are only a week long and it's hardly a challenge to ship something through a third party if it needs moving that badly.


Mining -> you don't need a huge fleet to "defend". Yeah, you might need a big fleet to actually curb-stomp them, but a handful of hero tackle and griffins/falcons will let the guys mining GTFO (some miners may die to alpha, but that's what skiffs are for).

Missions -> better than ship spinning (debatable -- I'd rather ship spin).

Trade/Mfg -> happens in station yes, but can still get messed up.

I mean it seems you've got this hard limit of "no war = do whatever the hell you want" and "war = all PVP all the time". It's not like that -- wars just allow CONCORD-free combat between two parties.

Wouldn't you agree that it is more damaging to their morale (and boosting to yours) to see your corporation flipping them the bird and continuing to do whatever while still under the "duress" of a war?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Baaldor
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#91 - 2013-11-06 17:41:36 UTC
Cyborg 497 wrote:
Princess Bride wrote:
Baaldor wrote:

Hold on, if you read the warning label on the box, and decide that it does not apply because you are special, and have this idea that your money means more than the others that have read, understood and accepted the conditions of the warning...how the hell does give you or any one else the right to tell everyone they are wrong.

It is like walking up to a group of people who are playing a game by the established rules and then stomping your feet wailing about screaming it is not fair and demand to change the rules in the middle of the game.


The rules have been changed in the middle of the game of Eve Online, many many times. And yet, it's still here, and still growing. By your logic, anyone who has ever seen an ad for Eve has no right to even QUESTION current mechanics, or suggest changes, once they start playing because they have somehow locked themselves into a contract by trying the game even though someone said it was "hard".

Quote:
It is very simple, if you do not like the way it is played, find another game. Simple. You will be replaced by others that enjoy that type of game play and rules.


Another false dilemma. "EVE: Love it or leave it." Classic fallacy, straight out of the examples listed in the link I already posted.

It is not as simple as you would suggest. Valid concerns should be, and often are, addressed as the game evolves. The only ones around here wailing, stomping, and screaming are those that panic every time someone suggests that a change may be needed in an area they are content with. This happens all the time. Despite the predictions of the Chicken Littles, the sky still manages to hang solidly above the ground.

Are you guys really trying to say that ANY change to wardec mechanics that might help new players would result in a broken, unplayable, and unpopular game abandoned by anyone who signed up before 2013?


I agree with you. CCP must be aware that new players may be deterred from being ganked or getting wardecced in their fledgling corps. CCP would be very foolish to ignore the potential threat to expanding the game to as many players as possible , without compromising the harshness of the Eve universe.

Eve has changed many times and it will continue to evolve hopefully in the right direction.


CCP has made a lot of changes, some good and some bad. Stating CCP has made some changes does not support or give validity to the idea of changing a fundamental part of the game.

Not only that, no one has shown proof that you have large numbers of player leaving the game.

All that has been brought forward is a bunch of "I knew this one guy who had a friend that watched his cousin rage quit because someone ganked his buddies ship...and it was just not fair."

This entire thread has been is a big social agenda sandy va jay jay rant.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2013-11-06 17:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Baaldor wrote:
CCP has made a lot of changes, some good and some bad. Stating CCP has made some changes does not support or give validity to the idea of changing a fundamental part of the game.

Not only that, no one has shown proof that you have large numbers of player leaving the game.

All that has been brought forward is a bunch of "I knew this one guy who had a friend that watched his cousin rage quit because someone ganked his buddies ship...and it was just not fair."

This entire thread has been is a big social agenda sandy va jay jay rant.
Not empty quoting.

I guess what would really help the game is kicking all the wannabe white-knights out of it.
Right next to all the morons who specifically target noobs and, to make sure it's done properly,
all the vets in starter corps giving new players bad advises.
Mythrandier
Solace Corp
#93 - 2013-11-06 17:54:43 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
Mythrandier wrote:
I honestly don’t see how it is possible...


Princess Bride wrote:
Just because you lack vision doesn't mean there's nothing there to see. ...


Mythrandier wrote:
Well instead of throwing ad hominem attacks at me, tell me what this great "vision" of yours is. So far you are being very vague.


I was merely referencing your self-declared lack of vision, not promising to be your messiah. I have been very clear.


No, you have merely spouted strawman arguments back up by nothing more than your opinion, hyperbole and ad hominem attacks.

But carry with your smug self importance. I find it rather amusing given your posts utter lack of content. :)

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -  D. Adams.
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#94 - 2013-11-06 18:21:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
Pap Uhotih, +1 for you again because what you say rings so true in my ears.

We are a lowsec corp with a piratical edge. We own some POCOs and POS, in a system that has no stations. This system is quite busy, but since it's our home we have a good handle on who-is-who. We use our system to do PVE and some indy stuff, and the POCOs are a nice source of extra income thanks to an indy group of blues that uses them intensely. This is infrastructure, a real tangable objective to defend or destroy. No war party has ever entered our system to attack our infrastructure. Instead, wardeccers go for the soft targets hauling loot or running missions.

Sure, attacking the moneymakers is a valid tactic. But doing this exclusively while true strategical objectives that could truly weaken our position are being ignored, fills me with sort of a sad sympathy. To the lowsec entrepeneur, a wardec is a laughable attempt to get some high value kills. Courier contracting makes it so that we'd have to explictly commit ships to hisec in order to lose them. That's like getting pity sex. I can lose a ship whenever I feel like it, and the pirates next door are less likely to play station games.

Wardeccers have no space assets because ownership would imply the chance of losing them*. So with their ships docked the defender has literally nothing to shoot at unless he does a ton of effort setting a trap. Who was the agressor again? During war our lowsec turf offers the normal amount of entertainment, same amount of belts / anomalies / sites / gates... PI and POS projecs keep running, sometimes even mining happens. All this really helps to mitigate the effect of a wardec. It's truly the new players (and granted, lazy idiots) that get their boat blasted by a war target. I mean when you need to go flashy running logi in another corps war fleet to make your own WT's show up, it's a sad state of affairs.

* Rubicon may change this, as wardecs will become a requirement to legally agress a POCO. This means we finally get a reason to dec each other apart from blasting newbies and the ignorant. Might shine a new light on this discussion.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#95 - 2013-11-06 18:22:40 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Except that i don't gank noobs.

And i don't make up bullshit claims about caring about the game,
while at the same time wanting to nerf it even more.

It's fine. Of course, more new players are always welcome and people who
target specifically those aren't my type either, but if you believe that making
the game more safe for them is what they actually want,
then you just assume stuff and ignore reality.


Quote where I said that I want to "nerf the [game] even more." Oh that's right, you can't, because I never said it. I am simply saying there is always room to discuss whether or not changes are needed in any given area. But apparently that's not true in your opinion.

Quote:

Reality is, that the game is advertised as what it is.
Reality also is that protecting people only weakens them. There are studies about this regarding children
and "protective" playgrounds, which led to children only get hurt even more in the long run,
because they didn't learn how to watch out for themselves, as somebody else did it.

If you really cared about the game, you would go seek out all those new players and
help them learning to protect themselves. Help them to fight. Help them to defend themselves.


Protecting people weakens them? That is a massive oversimplification. While I agree that OVER-protecting people can lead to them becoming over-reliant, demonizing ALL protection in ANY form for the sake of making someone stronger is nothing but your misinterpretation of Nietzsche. If what you were asserting was true, then the best thing we could do for our kids would be to throw them into a prison block with all of the sexual predators. Any who survive will be strong, and any who die, well, they were just weak. SOME protection is a "good thing", for our kids, and for the game. The matter we are discussing is how much protection new players need, not whether or not any protection is needed. Otherwise, you are advocating the removal of high and low sec space and just making the whole game 0.0 and anyone who can't handle it should be discarded as weak. Even if this was the best way to create "strong" players, it would be a disaster in terms of new player retention and as a business model for a MMO.

Quote:

Instead, you want to game to be changed for people who might or might not have stayed,
ignoring the long time consequences completely.

You have no actual ground for anything, tbh. EvE always had lots of new players leave early
and it still works. People still join and stay.

Keep dreaming you're the good guy.

You're just the selfish ******* only believing what he wants to believe,
ignoring actual reality.


If you *really* want to make more players stay, then you should go and check
out what's actually wrong ... like i did. And it's not them getting killed.

New players mostly KNOW what the game is about,
because it is advertised as that !

Dismissed.


LOL! Should I start with the arrogance of your last line, or the laundry list of baseless, unsupported statements working up to it? I'll just go in order from top to bottom.

* Please do not presume to know what I want. I never said I wanted a change. I am not ignoring long-term consequences.
* Yes, Eve has lots of new players who leave early. Lots of new players leaving early is a good thing? From whose perspective?
* You are the good guy, I am not. Got it.
* I am selfish, you are not. I ignore reality, you do not. Got it.
* You know what's wrong, I do not. Got it.
* Everything you needed to know about survival in Eve, you learned from a 30 second promo. That's awesome bro.
* What are you dismissing? Me? This thread? Change in general?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Oswald Bolke
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2013-11-06 18:24:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Oswald Bolke
Jythier Smith wrote:
The best part of this game is starting a corporation, getting going with making a name for it, and as soon as you do anything that even remotely bothers anyone, you're wardec'd and going to lose everything.


see the thing is, im my experience as a BNI member the wardec isn't a "hey you made us mad" or "hey we wan't your system" often it's a "licence to blap" and people wardec so they can fly around anywhere and get kills. I wouldn't say it makes player leave eve, but it really can allow people to "pick on" another corp, with harassment gank tactics etc. rather than an actual somewhat even war like we saw with test and goods.

I'd love to see wardecs give money directly to the corp who was wardeced or have each kill have a fee off it to the belligerent party, as a penance for them declaring war on somebody

that would make somebody think about it more carefully
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#97 - 2013-11-06 18:27:30 UTC
This thread sure lasted more than it should have, exactly 7 pages more.. should have been locked even before the OP had posted it's that bad.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#98 - 2013-11-06 18:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Mythrandier wrote:

No, you have merely spouted strawman arguments back up by nothing more than your opinion, hyperbole and ad hominem attacks.

But carry with your smug self importance. I find it rather amusing given your posts utter lack of content. :)


Hmm. No, I have not.

Making baseless statements like the one you made above requires no effort, so my reply reflects that. If you can't be bothered to back up your accusations with citations and a sound argument, then why bother to post? Were your feelings hurt or something?

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#99 - 2013-11-06 18:29:04 UTC
Non consensual pew is what makes EvE special, those leaving EvE because of it mean fewer uninformed people petitioning for nerfs to the game (as has already been happening) and harming the game I love.

Additionally....

- Put war dec fees in an escrow bucket and pay it out to the defending players for aggressor ship value killed. (i.e. come at me bro!)
- Increase NPC corp taxes to 50-60% to incentivize (not force) people hiding out forever in NPC corps to get into player corps
- Auto-undock players from stations after 15 minutes who don't respond to a 'Stay docked?' prompt within 10 seconds. (i.e. afk blue ballsing is not cool, your actively playing the game or your not -- logoff!)
- Auto-uncloak players after 15 minutes who don't respond to a 'Stay cloaked?' prompt within 10 seconds. (i.e. see above)
- Players leaving or disbanding a corp remain in corp stasis for 1 week. (i.e. you can run but you cant hide)
- Put a 15-second delay on local chat, combined with the upcoming interceptor warp changes this would mean we could actually bag targets without resorting to logoffski's
- Get rid of the mechanic setting a suspect flagged persons jet cans as takeable by all. The poor little bears already have a green safety setting to prevent going suspect by taking from it right? Lets get can flipping back for christs sake.

On the flipside double wardec fees, which will further make the proposed escrow fees compelling to folks fighting back.

Would you like to know more?
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#100 - 2013-11-06 18:29:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I think that corporations should revolve around war more. Now, I don't mean that I think there should be more wars, I mean that anything done in the corp UI (joining a corp, creating a corp, managing the bulletins or MoTD, etc, etc) should be a constant reminder that war is looming. That way no one is going to freak out when it happens.

The whole war issue is an issue of educating the playerbase. If you can't defend your corporation you shouldn't have made it and recruited members in the first place. If people understood this then war would be more interesting for all involved. There would be less small corps, and more corps would have measures in place for during war time, and the defenders would enjoy it more because they are prepared, and the aggressors might get the occasional fight as it should be.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf