These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dodging Wardecs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#221 - 2014-09-10 14:48:05 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The Wardecc mechanic is working exactly as intended. It is a way to force corporations into PvP in highsec without CONCORD assistance. Those of us in 1 man corps (such as myself) are not interested in that type of PVP. The wardecc mechanic was never intended to allow you a vendetta against an individual player. The solution is simple, target larger corps that cannot easily disband. If you target 1 man corps they will quite properly disband, and leave you 50 million ISK poorer and none the wiser for it. Fundamentally some people here seem to think that they have some right to force everyone into highsec PvP without CONCORD assistance, which never was, and probably never will be, a reality.


Nonsense.

EVE is a multiplayer non-consensual pvp game. It doesn't matter what you aren't interested in (though that kind of extreme selfishness says something about the kinds of players invovled here). It matters (or should matter) what you can defend against.

The "war dec large corps only" thing is actually another high sec meme in disguise. It's a re-tread of the old "if you want pvp, go to low or null sec because that's where people are interested in pvp" meme High Sec types used to lean on like a crutch... till even they realized it's stupid lol.

That inane meme was countered by reminding the 'not in my high sec' crowd that they had chosen to play a pvp game and that high sec is fair game for all forms of pvp. It's still true and a '1 man corp' isn't exempt from this truth. I beleive that eventually CCP will come to it's sense and realize that making the rule set consistent down to the individual player level (ie removing dec-dodging) is the best thing for the game as it will create those kinds of emotional hooks that actually keep good players playing a game like EVE.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#222 - 2014-09-10 14:52:09 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The Wardecc mechanic is working exactly as intended. It is a way to force corporations into PvP in highsec without CONCORD assistance. Those of us in 1 man corps (such as myself) are not interested in that type of PVP. The wardecc mechanic was never intended to allow you a vendetta against an individual player. The solution is simple, target larger corps that cannot easily disband. If you target 1 man corps they will quite properly disband, and leave you 50 million ISK poorer and none the wiser for it. Fundamentally some people here seem to think that they have some right to force everyone into highsec PvP without CONCORD assistance, which never was, and probably never will be, a reality.


Nonsense.

EVE is a multiplayer non-consensual pvp game. It doesn't matter what you aren't interested in (though that kind of extreme selfishness says something about the kinds of players invovled here). It matters (or should matter) what you can defend against.

The "war dec large corps only" thing is actually another high sec meme in disguise. It's a re-tread of the old "if you want pvp, go to low or null sec because that's where people are interested in pvp" meme High Sec types used to lean on like a crutch... till even they realized it's stupid lol.

That inane meme was countered by reminding the 'not in my high sec' crowd that they had chosen to play a pvp game and that high sec is fair game for all forms of pvp. It's still true and a '1 man corp' isn't exempt from this truth. I beleive that eventually CCP will come to it's sense and realize that making the rule set consistent down to the individual player level (ie removing dec-dodging) is the best thing for the game as it will create those kinds of emotional hooks that actually keep good players playing a game like EVE.






Well, I can't speak for others, but I definitely prefer high end PvE content like incursions to PvP. And I have definitely experienced both. From the masses of people in 1-man corps and NPC corps it seems that a lot of the playerbase agrees with me. You can still suicide gank us, which means that PvP is still present. What you are unable to do, and with good reason, is to use wardeccs to force us to engage you in full PvP without CONCORD in highsec. It seems that you are unhappy that most of the players prefer the PvE focus of highsec, so you have decided to force them all into full bore PvP. Count me out, I'll happily stay in my PvE focused highsec and avoid wars that I have no interest in fighting.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#223 - 2014-09-10 14:59:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


And yet, the "challenge" of selecting a target that won't disband their corp seems to be too much for you to handle. We're not asking for a themepark,


Yes you are, however you are too emotionally tied to what you want to acknowledge that this is what you are asking for. It's no different than in real life when some politician says we must do this thing that they want 'for the children'.

Quote:

I'm even in favour of most of the ideas to pevent dec dodging and limit NPC corps, it just shouldn't be the ONLY change.
Case in point, the barrier other than anxiety you are displaying here is prejudice. You don't like 'gankers' and think they have it too easy. As someone who has spent 7 year successfully dodging them,I disagree, if it was too easy they'd have caught me by now, I don't do any genius moves against them, I just don't make myself a target. Anyone could do that, but rather than expect some responsibility on the part of the gamer who chose to play EVE, you think that the other guy playing EVE within it's rules (the ganker) is doing something wrong.

They aren't, you are.

Quote:

Simple question: You do understand that it's possible for a game to be too easy for an aggressor too, right? Just because they are inflicting space violence doesn't mean they should have to put zero thought into that process. That's what I want to avoid. Limit wardecs AND limit dec dodging/NPC corp benefits.


Simple answer: not in a video game, no. That's that protectionist 9helicopter parent) instinct of yours I mentioned earlier. EVE already presents the player with all the manual tools they would ever need to succeed, but for some of you that's not enough, there needs to be some kind of mechanical safeguards too. THAT is themepark think but you don't realize it.

Video games (like all interesting stories) are about conflict. Thinks that artificially limit conflict artificially limit how good a game can be. So while you think 'making things harder for gankers' is 'balance', it's actually just boring.

For me and the REAL PVE jocks in this game, dodging the gankers and making them cry IS the game, the sweet sweet isk we get from completing pve content is just icing on the cake.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#224 - 2014-09-10 15:01:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE is a multiplayer non-consensual pvp game. It doesn't matter what you aren't interested in (though that kind of extreme selfishness says something about the kinds of players invovled here). It matters (or should matter) what you can defend against.
PvP != Pew pew.

Explain to me how a station trader can be forced into being shot. Wardeccing a 1 man corp, and it disbanding, is PvP in itself. The wardeccer made the move to dec the corp, the owner of the corp respponded by avoiding the dec. That is PvP in itself.

Jenn aSide wrote:
The "war dec large corps only" thing is actually another high sec meme in disguise. It's a re-tread of the old "if you want pvp, go to low or null sec because that's where people are interested in pvp" meme High Sec types used to lean on like a crutch... till even they realized it's stupid lol.
That's not what's being said. What's being said is "if you want a fight, wardec someone with something to protect. If you wardec someone with nothing to protect they can and will avoid you.".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#225 - 2014-09-10 15:04:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sometimes the reason for a wardec is simple extortion. Pick a small hisec mining corp, dec em, either blow up a couple of barges or keep em stuck in station for a day or two.... then send your monetary demands. Sometimes the reason is simple griefing. Sometimes it's just for the fun of picking on the little guy. I know of one corp who, upon getting their first blops, decced and hotdropped some newb mining corp - because they could now. My own corp once dropped 3 bombers, 2 recons, and the blops itself on a single AF because we were bored and wanted to drop something. Should we have "picked a better target?"

Ive been reading this thread, and it's quite clear some of you just dont get it. "Choose better targets" wtf?? Lucas, take your ball and go home. Roll
LOL. So go after a corp with something to extort them for. A group with pocos or a pos or even just a good use of their offices is unlikely to avoid you. A group small enough to disband and recreated on a whime is not going to be able to pay you anything.


Young, small mining corps pay out pretty well, actually. You WANT to go after the smaller fish when pulling off extortion. Too big and they may fight back, sn extortion dec is after a 1-sided war, and not looking for billions in payoff, a few hundred mil a few times a week pays for blops fuel and buffers the SRP fund nicely.
Quote:

So yes, pick better targets. Stop whining that the weakest softest targets don't want to submit to being your fodder. They are using available mechanics to escape your attacks. Get over it.


First of all, you just quoted my first and only post in this thread so far, so as someone else has said, drop the loser's tactic of the straw man. There are no whines in my post, Im merely attempting to show you how your logic is flawed, or at least give you a glimpse of the rationale behind wardeccing "bad targets." IOW, Im very softly throwing you a clue in the hopes you can catch it.

In any event, where do YOU get off telling ME to pick what in, like, your opinion, mannnnnn are "better" targets?



\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#226 - 2014-09-10 15:05:09 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The Wardecc mechanic is working exactly as intended. It is a way to force corporations into PvP in highsec without CONCORD assistance. Those of us in 1 man corps (such as myself) are not interested in that type of PVP. The wardecc mechanic was never intended to allow you a vendetta against an individual player. The solution is simple, target larger corps that cannot easily disband. If you target 1 man corps they will quite properly disband, and leave you 50 million ISK poorer and none the wiser for it. Fundamentally some people here seem to think that they have some right to force everyone into highsec PvP without CONCORD assistance, which never was, and probably never will be, a reality.


I am a Miner. 99% of the time I cannot be doing with combat pvp. When and If I want to combat pvp. I will go Null / lo / WH to do it. That does not mean everyone else should be the same. I am a target for anyone who wants to target me. Good for them. I am a certified coward, and will do my upmost to deny them everything I can.

This includes WD dodging. A mechanic I will freely and have freely used. Honourable? who gives a hoot. My game, do what I like. Yet even then I am telling you the mechanic is broken. Hypocritical? certainly. But until CCP realises it belittles the value of Corps, I will continue using every available option open to me.

This is not about choosing targets. Would be if it was a whine post, but it certainly isn't that. So please stop with it already.


Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#227 - 2014-09-10 15:05:50 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Well, I can't speak for others, but I definitely prefer high end PvE content like incursions to PvP. And I have definitely experienced both. From the masses of people in 1-man corps and NPC corps it seems that a lot of the playerbase agrees with me. You can still suicide gank us, which means that PvP is still present. What you are unable to do, and with good reason, is to use wardeccs to force us to engage you in full PvP without CONCORD in highsec. It seems that you are unhappy that most of the players prefer the PvE focus of highsec, so you have decided to force them all into full bore PvP. Count me out, I'll happily stay in my PvE focused highsec and avoid wars that I have no interest in fighting.


EVE should have killmails for rats, if it did I could guaranty you that you're pve pails in comparison to my mighty career of destroying hundreds of thousands of imaginary space pirates.

What I don't believe is that my preference for PVE should make me EXEMPT from the consequences of my choices in this game. It's the consequences that are fun (for me).

I'm not looking to 'force' anyone to do anything (as no one can force me to do anything i don't want to, i've avoided fight after fight even under war decs by FLYING MY SHIP and thinking), I think a game should have a fairly consistent rule set and I find it distasteful that CCP seems to think that some player's 15 bux is worth some amount of coddling. What's GOOD about EVE is that it treats most of us like adults that can handle the consequences of playing a video game, what's bad about EVE is that it doesn't treat everyone like that.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#228 - 2014-09-10 15:08:22 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The Wardecc mechanic is working exactly as intended. It is a way to force corporations into PvP in highsec without CONCORD assistance. Those of us in 1 man corps (such as myself) are not interested in that type of PVP. The wardecc mechanic was never intended to allow you a vendetta against an individual player. The solution is simple, target larger corps that cannot easily disband. If you target 1 man corps they will quite properly disband, and leave you 50 million ISK poorer and none the wiser for it. Fundamentally some people here seem to think that they have some right to force everyone into highsec PvP without CONCORD assistance, which never was, and probably never will be, a reality.


I am a Miner. 99% of the time I cannot be doing with combat pvp. When and If I want to combat pvp. I will go Null / lo / WH to do it. That does not mean everyone else should be the same. I am a target for anyone who wants to target me. Good for them. I am a certified coward, and will do my upmost to deny them everything I can.

This includes WD dodging. A mechanic I will freely and have freely used. Honourable? who gives a hoot. My game, do what I like. Yet even then I am telling you the mechanic is broken. Hypocritical? certainly. But until CCP realises it belittles the value of Corps, I will continue using every available option open to me.

This is not about choosing targets. Would be if it was a whine post, but it certainly isn't that. So please stop with it already.




+1, especially the bolded parts. REAL PVE JOCKS unite lol.

And there is nothing wrong with using it as long as it's legal. It just shouldn't be legal.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#229 - 2014-09-10 15:10:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yes you are, however you are too emotionally tied to what you want to acknowledge that this is what you are asking for. It's no different than in real life when some politician says we must do this thing that they want 'for the children'.
I'm not asking for anything. I'm in favour of it remaining as is. The OPs whining about targets running away is irrelevant. I'm certainly willing to accept certain changes though, but only if they are properly balanced.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Case in point, the barrier other than anxiety you are displaying here is prejudice. You don't like 'gankers' and think they have it too easy. As someone who has spent 7 year successfully dodging them,I disagree, if it was too easy they'd have caught me by now, I don't do any genius moves against them, I just don't make myself a target. Anyone could do that, but rather than expect some responsibility on the part of the gamer who chose to play EVE, you think that the other guy playing EVE within it's rules (the ganker) is doing something wrong.
Some of the largest killboards in the game are owned by mass wardeccers, and to make that possible they pay pocket change compared to what they can loot from it. They don't need to think about it, they don't need to make decisions, they don't need to compromise. So yes, I think they have it to easy. I think they should have to actually make choices between targets in EVE rather than just deccing "everyone".

Jenn aSide wrote:
Simple answer: not in a video game, no. That's that protectionist 9helicopter parent) instinct of yours I mentioned earlier. EVE already presents the player with all the manual tools they would ever need to succeed, but for some of you that's not enough, there needs to be some kind of mechanical safeguards too. THAT is themepark think but you don't realize it.
LOL. That pretty much says it all. In your mind it can never be too easy for an aggressor.

And they are using a manual tool. They don't automatically disband and reform, their tool is no more mechanical than the wardecs themselves.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Video games (like all interesting stories) are about conflict. Thinks that artificially limit conflict artificially limit how good a game can be. So while you think 'making things harder for gankers' is 'balance', it's actually just boring.
And again, not all conflict is "pew pew" conflict. Why even bother having PvE at all if all you want is an arena game?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#230 - 2014-09-10 15:11:24 UTC
Quote:
if you want a fight, wardec someone with something to protect.


Like Mining Ships, High Sec POSES, POCOS and PvE ships.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#231 - 2014-09-10 15:15:27 UTC
Just make it where they war follows that pilot till the wardec is up for renewal. Yes you could still "dodge" the wardec but you would be waiting 7 days to do so..

Simple fix
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#232 - 2014-09-10 15:18:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
]PvP != Pew pew.
Who said it was?

Quote:

Explain to me how a station trader can be forced into being shot. Wardeccing a 1 man corp, and it disbanding, is PvP in itself. The wardeccer made the move to dec the corp, the owner of the corp respponded by avoiding the dec. That is PvP in itself.


A station trader exposes himself to loss. Again, exactly who said that pew pew is the only form of conflict? Am I not typing in English?

Quote:
That's not what's being said. What's being said is "if you want a fight, wardec someone with something to protect. If you wardec someone with nothing to protect they can and will avoid you.".


And that's the problem. People doing a war dec don't need to 'want a fight', they need to want to do a war dec for whatever reason they choose. That's no one's business than there own. You don't need a permission slip to interact with other people in a video game, in this game it's the whole purpose of the game.

In a game like this, if someone makes war on you you should have to either respond (via fighting, moving, spending money to hire proxies/mercenaries or even just manual evading in space which is what I do) or surrender (ie pay a fee, imo to CONCORD not the war deccers). But they whole "drop corp, reform" thing is stupid.

At the very least the reformed corp shouldn't be able to use the exact same name, call it the cost of video game cowardice.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#233 - 2014-09-10 15:19:12 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Just make it where they war follows that pilot till the wardec is up for renewal. Yes you could still "dodge" the wardec but you would be waiting 7 days to do so..

Simple fix


No. That would certainly be game breaking, and fall directly into the WD'ers lap. That's not including that the war is against a Corp, not an individual. Even if the Individual caused the war.
Absolutely Not Analt
Carebears on Fire
#234 - 2014-09-10 15:19:27 UTC
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?

Eve is a multi player game. And you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#235 - 2014-09-10 15:21:44 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing. An alt is installed as CEO and everyone drops to NPC as usual

This already happens

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#236 - 2014-09-10 15:23:31 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing. An alt is installed as CEO and everyone drops to NPC as usual

This already happens



Guilty as charged Oops
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#237 - 2014-09-10 15:24:04 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Just make it where they war follows that pilot till the wardec is up for renewal. Yes you could still "dodge" the wardec but you would be waiting 7 days to do so..

Simple fix


No. That would certainly be game breaking, and fall directly into the WD'ers lap. That's not including that the war is against a Corp, not an individual. Even if the Individual caused the war.


"game breaking"... Really??... Being a bit dramatic are we???

If anything is broken it's the ability for corp members being able to jump from one shell corp to another 5 minutes after being dec'd. This is coming from myself who absolutely hates wardecs and would use any means to avoid them.

No it's not wardecing the player.. You chose to be part of the corporation and you're paying the price for dealing with a war... If you don't want wars be in a NPC corporation. You shouldn't be able to have the benefits of a player corp with the protection of an NPC corp.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2014-09-10 15:25:45 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing. An alt is installed as CEO and everyone drops to NPC as usual

This already happens


Which is why, as I've already come to realise and accept, the wardec mechanics themselves are not the problem. It's also not specifically the corp mechanics. It's the entire relevance of highsec corps to begin with that's the problem.

So in order to make high sec corps more relevant and community oriented, I propose a belly dancing competition whereby the winner will receive a hug from CCP Falcon himself.

No....... I don't see how this makes corps more relevant either, but the proposal stands nonetheless.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#239 - 2014-09-10 15:26:00 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Let me try taking a different tack here.

Assume that disanding corps under wardec is removed from the game. It's a done deal. If your corp is wardecd it cannot be disbanded, which means the CEO character cannot leave the corp.

Scenario: The Marmite Collective wardecs Random Corporation Number 1234567890 [RC#.] who has four members (who are all probably alts of the same player).

Question: What will change in RC#.'s response to the wardec given the new assumption?


Nothing will change. Either the main will drop to NPC corp or will just play on other alts until the war is over. I don't think any game mechanic is going to be able to force PvE players into wars that they have no interest in fighting.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#240 - 2014-09-10 15:26:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
And again, not all conflict is "pew pew" conflict. Why even bother having PvE at all if all you want is an arena game?


Just quoting this part to demonstrate when a guy knows he's wrong when he distorts the position of his opposition. I've said repreatedly that no one is saying all conflct has to be pew pew, hell, I don't even pvp much and have never been a ganker (nothing wrong with it, not my cuyp of tea).

Don't you see what you do, by trying to cling to the idea that I (and avowed and serious PVE gamer) have some kind of selfish agenda, you let yourself lie to yourself about your own argument. Those are signs of some not so good personality traits if you ask me.

Look, we get it, you can't deal with a harsh video game (and are afraid that this game will die if others have to, contrary to the 11 year history of EVE online). No big deal, but some of us actually like challenge in our hobbies and are willing to pay for that.