These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#521 - 2014-09-11 16:56:02 UTC
Does anyone remember the fanfest story of how "jetcan" mining came to be?

the very core of the story was the creativity of the EvE player base to take one thing that was designed for something totally different and turn it to their advantage, there is the aspect of prolonged mining using the can, and the aspect of griefing using the same mechanic, neither of which were intended in the original Idea of a jet can.
the point I'm trying to make is a simple one, and it is one that's been stated ad nauseum in these forums:

"if a player doesn't want to fight, or pay, they will find a way within the game's mechanics to not do it"


That's the bottom line, you can offer suggestion after suggestion and each time, the player base will find a way around it, and if there's no way around it?, then they will go somewhere else because they will be left no choice.

I think that these corps who just go down a list and dec everyone in that list, or dec just because a corp member flies through local are idiots and deserve to loose their isks, you can take less than 5 minutes to look at a corp or alliance war history and see if you'll get a gudfight or if you'll be wasting your isks, it is not rocket science, or even hard math, just common sense.


jhmo
o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#522 - 2014-09-11 18:05:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
If it were intended, there wouldn't be the option of an official surrender. The very fact the surrendering exists is reasonable proof that surrendering and not corp-hopping is the intended manner of getting out of a war.
Once again, a surrender is an official method of offering something in exchange for being left alone. It's an aggressor controlled mechanic.


Im not sure Im seeing the point youre trying to make here.


Quote:
If a corp is small enough that they can fold it up and start again on a whim, they aren't a good target for extortion. No matter what gets changed, those people will never fight and thy will never pay you to leave them alone. There are and always will be other methods of dodging a dec, and they will continue to use them. If you want to extort someone PICK A TARGET WITH SOMETHING TO PROTECT.


We've been through this once before already. A corp "with something to protect" is NOT "a good target." In an extortion scenario, youre looking for people who can't reasonably be expected to muster enough force or motivation to fight back. Most low-end, small mining corps can come up with200-300m isk. That's what it's all about. (AGAIN)

Quote:
Your lack of ability to select a good target is not everyone else's problem.


And I see you're back to the ad hominem attacks. The last resort of a failed debater.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#523 - 2014-09-11 18:06:26 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:


Not really - there's a subtle difference here - you can always force people to fight (or at least to die) you just gank them. What seems to be happening here is that people want to force other players to actively choose to die as opposed to escaping that situation.


Nope. I dont care of none of them die, unless it's of boredom. There's a whole subset of "war-deccers" that are in it purely for extortion money. Deny your target(s) content, make them pay to once again be able to undock and go about their business.

Quote:
That's entirely true. Unlike tax code loopholes though, games are supposed to be inherently fair to all players. So you cannot replace one broken mechanic with another one and call it fixed.


I don't know that I agree with the notion that games are inherently fair to all players. Just doesn't look right sitting there next to HTFU.

Quote:

So? Why does that mean I should actively choose to lose? Keep in mind, there are three outcomes here - I'll rank them in order of my preference
1. you lose, I win
2. No one wins.
3. I lose, you win

If I can't win, and I have the option to make sure you don't either, I'm damned sure going to exercise it.


You forgot the 4th option - Everybody wins! That's right folks, contact your friendly neighborhood aggressor and tell them you're interested in an amicable surrender. The deccer gets paiD, you get to go back the life as normal.... EVERYBODY WINNNSSS EVERYBODY WINNSSS!!!!




Thats so, so wrong, if I pay up..I've lost...badly. Because I gave the aggressor what he wanted.

That's never going to happen.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#524 - 2014-09-11 18:10:20 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:
"But the surrender system!" Is not a very thought out argument. Wardec corps will then just use blanket deccing to extort small Indy corps with no risk to themselves.


So? Sounds like standard Eve play to me.

Quote:

Over and over again on these forums people scream and holler about how EVE is a game of decisions and consequences, and that players need to deal with the mechanics (especially when people complain about ganking), well it works the other way too. Deal with the mechanics, don't be a derp when selecting targets, and don't get pissed when you lose a bunch of targets because you didn't think it out.


All exploits are a matter of utilizing a game mechanic in a manner it's not meant to be used. Don't get mad when you're mechanic is deemed the exploit it is.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#525 - 2014-09-11 18:15:14 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:


Actually that's not an everyone wins. That's the deccer winning, as he got what he wanted. And what, aside from a loose sense of e-bushido prevents the deccer from accepting the payment and not ending the war? Oh, right - nothing. And what if they can't pay the amount you're demanding? Oh, yeah, they get to keep being wardecced.


Right, but in all honesty, if the motivation for the wardec is monetary and not "pew pew" the aggressor corp isn't going to waste any more time fooling with someone they reasonably conclude cant cough up the cash. At that point it's time to move4 on to the next corp. You fling enough poo at the wall and some of it will stick.

Quote:

And by fair I mean everyone gets to operate by the same set of rules. Call it balanced if you want. The solutions proposed here are not balanced, and would lead to abuseemergent gameplay by larger, more aggressive corporations. Unless you changed the surrender mechanic so that once a surrender is offered, it must be accepted, and a cool down timer to start another war against the same corp, all you end up with is the potential for an endless wardec.


I think thats a really, really good idea! Like Ive been trying to say for umpteen pages now, not all wardecs are about blowing things up for it's own sake, sometimes it's just business. The cooldown idea is a good one.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#526 - 2014-09-11 18:15:52 UTC
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Quote:

So? Why does that mean I should actively choose to lose? Keep in mind, there are three outcomes here - I'll rank them in order of my preference
1. you lose, I win
2. No one wins.
3. I lose, you win

If I can't win, and I have the option to make sure you don't either, I'm damned sure going to exercise it.


You forgot the 4th option - Everybody wins! That's right folks, contact your friendly neighborhood aggressor and tell them you're interested in an amicable surrender. The deccer gets paiD, you get to go back the life as normal.... EVERYBODY WINNNSSS EVERYBODY WINNSSS!!!!




Actually that's not an everyone wins. That's the deccer winning, as he got what he wanted. And what, aside from a loose sense of e-bushido prevents the deccer from accepting the payment and not ending the war? Oh, right - nothing. And what if they can't pay the amount you're demanding? Oh, yeah, they get to keep being wardecced. So you are creating a situation in which the target corporation cannot actually choose to exit the war. Once the wardec is filed, they are completely at the mercy of the aggressor as to the duration of the war itself - given the changes suggessted by some people in this thread, you could then, in theory trap people in a particular corp forever - unable to leave, even if they wanted to.

And by fair I mean everyone gets to operate by the same set of rules. Call it balanced if you want. The solutions proposed here are not balanced, and would lead to abuseemergent gameplay by larger, more aggressive corporations. Unless you changed the surrender mechanic so that once a surrender is offered, it must be accepted, and a cool down timer to start another war against the same corp, all you end up with is the potential for an endless wardec.


Good post...apart from the last sentence.

What do you envisage happening if the corp can't afford the surrender fee?

Do they stay as vassals until the debt is paid off?

Or is the surrender fee just going to be a cash cow for the deccers?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Prince Kobol
#527 - 2014-09-11 18:16:31 UTC
Trixie Lawless wrote:
Arguments from all sides are getting repetitive and played out. Its real simple to deal with the current mechanics if you want to wardec....spend a few seconds to pick your targets. Its easy. Why should the deccers have it easy where they can blanket 60 industrial corps without having to think about it and then punishing people for not wanting to play their way? "But the surrender system!" Is not a very thought out argument. Wardec corps will then just use blanket deccing to extort small Indy corps with no risk to themselves.


If a Corp war dec's 60 corps what is to stop those 60 corps getting together and fighting back?

I will tell you why they don't, it is because it takes far less effort just to quit to a NPC as the penalties are non existent. The difference for most people in high sec between a NPC corp and a player created corp are so slight it is not worth fighting for.

Trixie Lawless wrote:
Over and over again on these forums people scream and holler about how EVE is a game of decisions and consequences, and that players need to deal with the mechanics (especially when people complain about ganking), well it works the other way too. Deal with the mechanics, don't be a derp when selecting targets, and don't get pissed when you lose a bunch of targets because you didn't think it out.

If you dislike the mechanics, file a petition with CCP and let them know why you dislike them, then our overlords can take your opinion into account without all the flaming and side arguments generated by some random forum. And if they decide to change it...THEN you can flame at the people who who whine about it.


What are the consequences of dropping corp and joining a NPC Corp apart from losing a tiny amount of isk in the form of Tax?
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#528 - 2014-09-11 18:18:54 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Absolutely Not Analt wrote:


Not really - there's a subtle difference here - you can always force people to fight (or at least to die) you just gank them. What seems to be happening here is that people want to force other players to actively choose to die as opposed to escaping that situation.


Nope. I dont care of none of them die, unless it's of boredom. There's a whole subset of "war-deccers" that are in it purely for extortion money. Deny your target(s) content, make them pay to once again be able to undock and go about their business.

Quote:
That's entirely true. Unlike tax code loopholes though, games are supposed to be inherently fair to all players. So you cannot replace one broken mechanic with another one and call it fixed.


I don't know that I agree with the notion that games are inherently fair to all players. Just doesn't look right sitting there next to HTFU.

Quote:

So? Why does that mean I should actively choose to lose? Keep in mind, there are three outcomes here - I'll rank them in order of my preference
1. you lose, I win
2. No one wins.
3. I lose, you win

If I can't win, and I have the option to make sure you don't either, I'm damned sure going to exercise it.


You forgot the 4th option - Everybody wins! That's right folks, contact your friendly neighborhood aggressor and tell them you're interested in an amicable surrender. The deccer gets paiD, you get to go back the life as normal.... EVERYBODY WINNNSSS EVERYBODY WINNSSS!!!!




Thats so, so wrong, if I pay up..I've lost...badly. Because I gave the aggressor what he wanted.

That's never going to happen.



Up to you, pay up or dock up for the week. Reminds me of the folks who militantly refuse to pay CODE for mining permits out of principle. And they die, and die, and die, or they stay docked up while CODE is in system and qq because the permit-holders are taking all the ice.

At what point does one finally say, "gee, a lousy 10M could sure save me a lot of headaches..."


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#529 - 2014-09-11 18:19:09 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Im not sure Im seeing the point youre trying to make here.
That these are 2 different mechanics you are confusing.

Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
We've been through this once before already. A corp "with something to protect" is NOT "a good target." In an extortion scenario, youre looking for people who can't reasonably be expected to muster enough force or motivation to fight back. Most low-end, small mining corps can come up with200-300m isk. That's what it's all about. (AGAIN)
Well quite clearly they are NOT good targets, since they evade you with ease. You want to bully a tiny corp with no hope of defeating you out of isk, and you are surprised when they use the fact they are that tiny against you. HTFU noob.

Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Quote:
Your lack of ability to select a good target is not everyone else's problem.
And I see you're back to the ad hominem attacks. The last resort of a failed debater.
How in any way is that an ad hominem? If you pick a target and they are small enough to disband and reform, then your target selection was flawed. That is not a problem for the community to resolve, that is a problem with your method of selecting targets. Simply put: Your target was too small.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#530 - 2014-09-11 18:21:29 UTC
If you want somebody dead in Eve and cant kill them you are inferior to them.

/thread.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Prince Kobol
#531 - 2014-09-11 18:24:42 UTC
Some people seem to have a need to have a reason why somebody should war dec somebody else.

The reason could be a multitude of different things ranging from wanting to kill a bling mission runner, stop a Corp from mining, having a bad day and wanting to take out there frustration at the first person they see or because they simply didn't like the name of somebody, what ever the reason, it is completely irreverent.

The cold hard fact is Eve is PvP game. The developers have created a mechanic to allow other players for what ever reason they chose, to shoot at other players legally. The reason for

I really do not understand what is hard to understand here.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#532 - 2014-09-11 18:25:35 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
If a Corp war dec's 60 corps what is to stop those 60 corps getting together and fighting back?

I will tell you why they don't, it is because it takes far less effort just to quit to a NPC as the penalties are non existent. The difference for most people in high sec between a NPC corp and a player created corp are so slight it is not worth fighting for.
Actually, the main reason is that they probably aren't interested in grouping up with randoms for a blob war against a war machine. And chances are if they tried, they'd simply end up with spy corps joining in their mini coalition to destroy them even further. That and their obvious lack of strategic ability which is exactly why they'd be picked in the first place.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#533 - 2014-09-11 18:27:34 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
The cold hard fact is Eve is PvP game. The developers have created a mechanic to allow other players for what ever reason they chose, to shoot at other players legally.
Evasion is also PvP. And CCP have also created a mechanic which tiny corps can use to evade the wardec entirely. Pick your targets better.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Prince Kobol
#534 - 2014-09-11 18:28:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


If you pick a target and they are small enough to disband and reform, then your target selection was flawed. That is not a problem for the community to resolve, that is a problem with your method of selecting targets. Simply put: Your target was too small.



Size is irrelevant. Whether a corp has 2 members or 100 or 250, for the majority of of a corps members the penalty for dropping into a NPC corp is virtually nil.



Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#535 - 2014-09-11 18:29:38 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Trixie Lawless wrote:
"But the surrender system!" Is not a very thought out argument. Wardec corps will then just use blanket deccing to extort small Indy corps with no risk to themselves.


So? Sounds like standard Eve play to me.

Quote:

Over and over again on these forums people scream and holler about how EVE is a game of decisions and consequences, and that players need to deal with the mechanics (especially when people complain about ganking), well it works the other way too. Deal with the mechanics, don't be a derp when selecting targets, and don't get pissed when you lose a bunch of targets because you didn't think it out.


All exploits are a matter of utilizing a game mechanic in a manner it's not meant to be used. Don't get mad when you're mechanic is deemed the exploit it is.




Oh god here we go again...

If you're so convinced it's an exploit..

Have you petitioned it?

If not why not?

If yes, what was the answer?

A certain poster in here seems unable to even acknowledge that this question has even been asked. But never mind, maybe you can answer it?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#536 - 2014-09-11 18:34:08 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
That these are 2 different mechanics you are confusing.


I think most reasonable folks believe that the existence of 1 of these mechanics (the surrender option) gives evidence that the other mechanic (corp-swapping) is unintended and thus an exploit.


Quote:
Well quite clearly they are NOT good targets, since they evade you with ease. You want to bully a tiny corp with no hope of defeating you out of isk, and you are surprised when they use the fact they are that tiny against you.


So your argument now is that using the corp-swapping exploit counts as "evasion" and a failure on the part of the aggressor? What did you think of the drone exploit a few weeks ago? Were the people who died to that supposed to be unsurprised that they died with ease?
Quote:

HTFU noob


More ad hominem. Umadbro?.

Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Quote:
Your lack of ability to select a good target is not everyone else's problem.
And I see you're back to the ad hominem attacks. The last resort of a failed debater.
How in any way is that an ad hominem? If you pick a target and they are small enough to disband and reform, then your target selection was flawed. That is not a problem for the community to resolve, that is a problem with your method of selecting targets. Simply put: Your target was too small.[/quote]


Simply put: sometimes it works. It like having a job in sales... you're willing to go through 99 turn-downs because you know that there's that 1 in 100 somewhere thats going to pay off.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Prince Kobol
#537 - 2014-09-11 18:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Lucas Kell wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
If a Corp war dec's 60 corps what is to stop those 60 corps getting together and fighting back?

I will tell you why they don't, it is because it takes far less effort just to quit to a NPC as the penalties are non existent. The difference for most people in high sec between a NPC corp and a player created corp are so slight it is not worth fighting for.
Actually, the main reason is that they probably aren't interested in grouping up with randoms for a blob war against a war machine. And chances are if they tried, they'd simply end up with spy corps joining in their mini coalition to destroy them even further. That and their obvious lack of strategic ability which is exactly why they'd be picked in the first place.



War Machine.. lmao

It is not Low or Null sec.. They are not fighing the CFC or NC.

Most HS War Deccing Corps are small in size, they certainly would not be able to take on 60 corps as given in the example. Even if you had 30 guys in T3 + logi, against 100's of guys in nothing more then frigs they are still going to lose ships.

In that kind of fight a couple of T3's will make sure they lose the isk war and bruise quite a few ego's.

I would of thought somebody in the CFC would appreciate how effective new players in nothing more then frig can be.

Unfortunately because of people like you telling people it is just easier to drop corp and wait out the the war they miss out on what is the most enjoyable aspect of the game.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#538 - 2014-09-11 18:37:06 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:

Oh god here we go again...

If you're so convinced it's an exploit..

Have you petitioned it?

If not why not?

If yes, what was the answer?

A certain poster in here seems unable to even acknowledge that this question has even been asked. But never mind, maybe you can answer it?


I haven't petitioned it because it's an obvious and"out in the open" enough tactic that Im sure CCP is well aware of it already. Hopefully conversations such as this will bring it more to the forefront of their balancing.


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#539 - 2014-09-11 18:37:19 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Some people seem to have a need to have a reason why somebody should war dec somebody else.

The reason could be a multitude of different things ranging from wanting to kill a bling mission runner, stop a Corp from mining, having a bad day and wanting to take out there frustration at the first person they see or because they simply didn't like the name of somebody, what ever the reason, it is completely irreverent.

The cold hard fact is Eve is PvP game. The developers have created a mechanic to allow other players for what ever reason they chose, to shoot at other players legally. The reason for

I really do not understand what is hard to understand here.


Absolutely np with what you're saying, unfortunately the guys shooting? they hate others making them miss.


Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Prince Kobol
#540 - 2014-09-11 18:41:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Drago Shouna wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Some people seem to have a need to have a reason why somebody should war dec somebody else.

The reason could be a multitude of different things ranging from wanting to kill a bling mission runner, stop a Corp from mining, having a bad day and wanting to take out there frustration at the first person they see or because they simply didn't like the name of somebody, what ever the reason, it is completely irreverent.

The cold hard fact is Eve is PvP game. The developers have created a mechanic to allow other players for what ever reason they chose, to shoot at other players legally. The reason for

I really do not understand what is hard to understand here.


Absolutely np with what you're saying, unfortunately the guys shooting? they hate others making them miss.




Your absolutely right.

As others have said, there are many ways to accomplish this, none easier then just sitting cloaked up in system and laughing at the them in local.

Unfortunately it is so easy just to drop corp and suffer very little as a result coupled with people like Lucas Kell telling them to do this, they do not consider any other option of which there are many.

The result, we have more and more people just sitting in NPC corps getting bored as they just mission or mine and end up leaving without ever experiencing the best that the game has to offer.