These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec War Deccing is Utterly Broken.

First post
Author
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#101 - 2014-01-26 15:17:13 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Individiuals always win lawsuits against multinational corporations.


What?

We're comparing large corporations to small corporations. The war dec mechanic has nothing to do with individuals, nor is it intended to.

So comparing a large corporation to an individual is beyond pointless.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#102 - 2014-01-26 15:33:58 UTC
Marie Trudeau wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
You blame the system, but the issue is the attitude of those who aren't willing to fight.


That is just it Angelica.

You know I love you but there are people in this game and in the world who do NOT want to fight. In truth, they just want to be left the **** alone. Changing the mechanics as the distinguished lady from Minnesota (who is just as off her rocker as her namesake) has suggested would either force people to fight or cost them a "prohibitive" 500m ISK per week by dropping into an NPC corp or they would just dock up or just quit playing. A mechanic that discourages people from logging in is no bueno.

I know this is hard for a lot of people to understand. This game is supposed to be about fighting each other but that's not ALL that it's about.


I would say that EVE is a game about competition among players, and cooperation among players. Because it's a video game, there are more people into the "shooting" competition than are into the other forms of competition in the game, but everything in the game is fundamentally competitive/cooperative -- not just combat PvP.

It's probably a bit too easy for corps to evade, but the reason for that is that CCP understands that there are some players who really are carebears -- that is, they don't want to be involved in combat PvP at all. No incentive will change their behavior. If EVE were restructured as a game where anyone over 6 months old could be wardecced at any time, the true carebear players would either find a way around that (like they do under current mechanics) or simply avoid playing. The idea that you can change the behavior of these players through incentives is false -- and CCP understands that. These are "hard" preferences we are dealing with here, and EVE, as a game, is designed to accommodate that playstyle as well as the combat PvP playstyle.

As for NPC corps and the question of why everyone isn't subject to the same mechanics, the answer is the same. Some people are simply carebears. Being in an NPC corp has disadvantages, even for carebears (e.g., no POS), and generally is a more limited experience than being in the world of player owned corps. But, again there are players who prefer that tradeoff, and CCP has always made it available to them. It's fine that they are not subject to the wardec mechanic, because there are tradeoffs there which these players have bought into by staying in an NPC corp. Forcing these carebears out of their NPC corps and into small player owned corps so that they can be wardecced will simply cause them to logoff, perhaps permanently if it is a common occurrence. Yes, players who are more diverse and rounded in their gameplay will shake their heads at this, noting that they should HTFU and L2P and so on, but, again, the reality is that there are players who will not change their playstyle because they do not find it fun to do so --> the bottom line is that you cannot force a playstyle on people that they will actually play. You can, however, by forcing a playstyle on them, force them into a hard decision as to whether or not to continue playing -- either for as long as the war lasts, or, again depending on individual thresholds, permanently.

Far better for the game to accommodate different playstyles, with the NPC corps, and their disadvantages, for people who want a more limited play experience.


Well put, Marie. I think it's a good thing for CCP to appeal to a broad base. You may not like these "carebears" but chances are they don't like you either.

The OP is not a good idea. Abolition of wardecs lessens that broad base.

Other ideas suggested in this thread, in an attempt to push people into a situation they simply do not want to be in, lessens that broad base as well.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2014-01-26 15:34:40 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
You blame the system, but the issue is the attitude of those who aren't willing to fight.


That is just it Angelica.

You know I love you but there are people in this game and in the world who do NOT want to fight. In truth, they just want to be left the **** alone. Changing the mechanics as the distinguished lady from Minnesota (who is just as off her rocker as her namesake) has suggested would either force people to fight or cost them a "prohibitive" 500m ISK per week by dropping into an NPC corp or they would just dock up or just quit playing. A mechanic that discourages people from logging in is no bueno.

I know this is hard for a lot of people to understand. This game is supposed to be about fighting each other but that's not ALL that it's about.

Yes, there are people who don't want to fight, no matter what. They have a spot in the NPC corps. You won't find a mechanic that'll make it possible to make both groups happy and the only way to make those happy who don't want to fight or learn how to survive is to remove wardecs completely! What I was talking about is that people discourage others to even try it. Not everybody who doesn't want to fight doesn't want it because that's how he rolls. At least as many people would fight, but have no clue and don't get encouraged, because their CEO is an *******.

We'd keep much more players if there weren't losers creating new player corps and not properly teaching them. No new players wants to get killed all day, but that's nothing that HAS to happen. Teaching is key. If more people get taught properly, less people would drop out of the game!

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2014-01-26 15:45:00 UTC
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
but there's no proper disadvantage from running and hiding and no advantage to staying and fighting


Is it weird that I agree with you?
It is, because it's not true.

The advantage of fighting is grown experience and possibly satisfaction. The disadvantage of running away is that it reinforces cowardness and the belief that problems can be solved that way.

i'm talking about the lack of mechanical conflict drivers

GFs and ganks shouldn't be the only reason to fight
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#105 - 2014-01-26 15:47:14 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
but there's no proper disadvantage from running and hiding and no advantage to staying and fighting


Is it weird that I agree with you?
It is, because it's not true.

The advantage of fighting is grown experience and possibly satisfaction. The disadvantage of running away is that it reinforces cowardness and the belief that problems can be solved that way.

i'm talking about the lack of mechanical conflict drivers

GFs and ganks shouldn't be the only reason to fight


You're both in the same system. Good enough reason tbh. I mean, this game is being marketed as a PvP-oriented MMO, do you really need more reasons to fight?
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#106 - 2014-01-26 15:49:01 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Billy McCandless wrote:
Individiuals always win lawsuits against multinational corporations.


What?

We're comparing large corporations to small corporations. The war dec mechanic has nothing to do with individuals, nor is it intended to.


You didnt say that in your lawsuit metaphor.

Individual or small corp, same result versus multinational.

Don't be so obtuse.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2014-01-26 15:50:55 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
but there's no proper disadvantage from running and hiding and no advantage to staying and fighting


Is it weird that I agree with you?
It is, because it's not true.

The advantage of fighting is grown experience and possibly satisfaction. The disadvantage of running away is that it reinforces cowardness and the belief that problems can be solved that way.

i'm talking about the lack of mechanical conflict drivers

GFs and ganks shouldn't be the only reason to fight


You're both in the same system. Good enough reason tbh. I mean, this game is being marketed as a PvP-oriented MMO, do you really need more reasons to fight?
I partly agree with you ... and partly agree with him.

It doesn't hurt to have more things to actually fight for/over, but it's not like there aren't any things to fight for/over already.

In the end, though, it wouldn't stop people from whining about being victims wardecs.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#108 - 2014-01-26 15:53:58 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Billy McCandless wrote:
Individiuals always win lawsuits against multinational corporations.


What?

We're comparing large corporations to small corporations. The war dec mechanic has nothing to do with individuals, nor is it intended to.


You didnt say that in your lawsuit metaphor.

Individual or small corp, same result versus multinational.

Don't be so obtuse.


A small corporation can often easily dissolve itself and "evade" the larger corp. The same is not true in reverse. Unless the feds get involved and go after you for some sort of actual crime, there's not much the other party can stop you from just dissolving yourself - especially if you are low on assets to begin with.

Yes, "obtuse."
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#109 - 2014-01-26 15:56:12 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:

A small corporation can often easily dissolve itself and "evade" the larger corp. The same is not true in reverse. Unless the feds get involved and go after you for some sort of actual crime, there's not much the other party can stop you from just dissolving yourself - especially if you are low on assets to begin with.

Yes, "obtuse."


Your grip on business law appears to be as loose, or even as non-existant as your grip on both reality and the english language.

+1 for pulling me into another one of your pointless nonsenses with no meaning.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2014-01-26 16:00:41 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
You're both in the same system. Good enough reason tbh. I mean, this game is being marketed as a PvP-oriented MMO, do you really need more reasons to fight?

eve promises more than just call of duty stuff, conflict driver are deffo needed
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#111 - 2014-01-26 16:04:22 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:

A small corporation can often easily dissolve itself and "evade" the larger corp. The same is not true in reverse. Unless the feds get involved and go after you for some sort of actual crime, there's not much the other party can stop you from just dissolving yourself - especially if you are low on assets to begin with.

Yes, "obtuse."


Your grip on business law appears to be as loose, or even as non-existant as your grip on both reality and the english language.

+1 for pulling me into another one of your pointless nonsenses with no meaning.


When you've lost the argument, insult the person. P

Meanwhile: you live in a reality where people don't chain successive ownerships of small/empty LLCs that are basically nothing but names. Yeah. Never happens. Not ever. Roll

And it's certainly not an evasive strategy. Not at all.
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#112 - 2014-01-26 16:10:36 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:


When you've lost the argument, insult the person. P


If you live by this as a rule, then you already conceded several posts ago.

Pinky Hops wrote:
Meanwhile: you live in a reality where people don't chain successive ownerships of small/empty LLCs that are basically nothing but names. Yeah. Never happens. Not ever. Roll

And it's certainly not an evasive strategy. Not at all.


Please, tell me more of this fascinating tale of sweetie mice running around in your head. I'm sure Im not the only one hanging on each word.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Diska Eamod
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-01-26 16:11:39 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
So if one players version of fun is not being shot at they should be barred from pursuing their fun?

no, but in return they should not expect to have the same potential success as those who are willing to risk what they have or those who are willing to fight for success. currently the highest success can be gained dismantling starbases, reforming corp or dropping corp for many activities. this robs the players who desire opportunity to succeed to a greater degree by being bold, taking chances, making friends, playing smart or fighting for what's theirs


I agree with the idea here but the reality of it doesn't exactly seem possible right now. In general, I think players should be encouraged into player corporations and discouraged from NPC corporations. Which you are saying here. However, you are then saying that player corporations can defend themselves from wardecs by going back to the NPC corporation; thus an encouragement for NPC corporations. Something about this needs to change, and part of that something should have a lever in there so that industrial players can have a defense without becoming combat pilots.

The reason for that extra lever is that requiring industrials to have combat skills adds to required skill points to play. EvE rewards specializing but requiring industrials to fight requires diversifying. Wardec corporations are not required to diversify so the advantage is always in their hands. This needs balanced.

I don't think player corporations should be immune, but I also don't think the ability to wardec 30 corporations and sit on trade hubs is a good thing either.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#114 - 2014-01-26 16:11:55 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
You're both in the same system. Good enough reason tbh. I mean, this game is being marketed as a PvP-oriented MMO, do you really need more reasons to fight?

eve promises more than just call of duty stuff, conflict driver are deffo needed


Once again I find myself reluctantly agreeing with you.

If there were benefits to staying in your corp and fighting I am all for it as you're incentivizing people playing the game, logging in, paying their sub, etc..

If there are harsher penalties for not fighting or evading a wardec, you only incentivize (that isn't a word?) people staying docked, not logging in, and just waiting out the war. Again, no bueno.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#115 - 2014-01-26 16:13:04 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Please, tell me more of this fascinating tale of sweetie mice running around in your head. I'm sure Im not the only one hanging on each word.


i think you've lost it mate.

did you get ganked in highsec today? is that why you are here? Big smile
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#116 - 2014-01-26 16:14:49 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Billy McCandless wrote:
Please, tell me more of this fascinating tale of sweetie mice running around in your head. I'm sure Im not the only one hanging on each word.


i think you've lost it mate.

did you get ganked in highsec today? is that why you are here? Big smile


So you are conceding now, then?

Apology accepted.

You may go about your business.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#117 - 2014-01-26 16:17:00 UTC
Billy McCandless wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Billy McCandless wrote:
Please, tell me more of this fascinating tale of sweetie mice running around in your head. I'm sure Im not the only one hanging on each word.


i think you've lost it mate.

did you get ganked in highsec today? is that why you are here? Big smile


So you are conceding now, then?

Apology accepted.

You may go about your business.


No, I just pointed out that you had apparently "lost it" as you mentioned "sweetie mice" in the context of corporations.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#118 - 2014-01-26 16:17:20 UTC
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
It is, because it's not true.

The advantage of fighting is grown experience and possibly satisfaction. The disadvantage of running away is that it reinforces cowardness and the belief that problems can be solved that way.

i'm talking about the lack of mechanical conflict drivers

GFs and ganks shouldn't be the only reason to fight


You're both in the same system. Good enough reason tbh. I mean, this game is being marketed as a PvP-oriented MMO, do you really need more reasons to fight?
I partly agree with you ... and partly agree with him.

It doesn't hurt to have more things to actually fight for/over, but it's not like there aren't any things to fight for/over already.

In the end, though, it wouldn't stop people from whining about being victims wardecs.


Ah, but fighting over an ingame asset is a bit different than fighting because of it. People fighting OVER assets would probably be fighting even if those things did not exist. Take the MTU for example: people using it to bait mission runners into getting flagged were probably ninja salvagers last patch. True, the more options you have, the more fun it is, but having less options is not exactly a detterent in my experience.
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#119 - 2014-01-26 16:21:46 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:


No, I just pointed out that you had apparently "lost it" as you mentioned "sweetie mice" in the context of corporations.


The great thing about a war is each side decides its own rules of engagement.

I generally don't play by those of my enemy, you see.

But if they don't either, the rules have no meaning.

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2014-01-26 16:22:22 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
If there are harsher penalties for not fighting or evading a wardec, you only incentivize (that isn't a word?) people staying docked, not logging in, and just waiting out the war. Again, no bueno.

i'm not looking exactly to impose 'harsh penalties' on not fighting, that's silly

but if we look at pocos we can see us a good conflict driver. we put up our poco to avoid tax and make some isk off others. someone else sees it, and says to themselves "well we could be making money there instead".

they wardec, and we have two options. we can fight for our poco and the money we're making, or avoid fighting. avoiding fighting doesn't even mean 'collapse the corp', we could negotiate or hire a mercenary.

i hope that with the success of highsec pocos ccp will begin implementing more drivers soon