These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Dodging Wardecs

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page5253545556Next pageLast page

Dodging Wardecs First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Xuixien

Solar Winds Security Solutions

Likes received: 1,997

#1061 - 2014-09-19 13:42:45 UTC

Seneca Auran wrote:

Remiel Pollard wrote:

That's a problem with your limited perspective then, not the game.

Yes...it's all a matter of 'perspective' that initiating, maintaining, and accepting surrender offers for a War Dec are entirely up to the whim of the attacker, and that corp rolling is the only direct way a defender has of affecting the mechanic.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I do it pretty much every time someone decs this character's alliance. This is my locator character, I need to keep his standings high.

And I do it in a faction battleship what's more, either a Navy Apoc or a Rattlesnake.

It's possible, and it does happen. But since it requires more than zero effort, carebears write it off as not even being an option.

What?! An alt!? EVE is a game of cold, hard, inescapable consequences! You can't just go and make a new character to get things done without inconveniencing or exposing your main character!

Oh wait...you absolutely can. And it's not only tolerated, but actively encouraged and touted as a feature of the game.

Gee..I wonder if that might have more to do with why 'War Decs' are a broken and toothless mechanic than carebears not wanting to pad your killboards.

are you really saying the only option a corp has is to roll? i really have no sympathy for you.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist

Grog Aftermath

Doomheim

Likes received: 156

#1062 - 2014-09-19 13:47:00 UTC

Xuixien wrote:

you keep throwing this word "harassment" around. while deccing might be considered harassment by some dictionary definitions, it is in no way harassment by any judiciary meaning of the word.

no one is really advocating harassing other players, or even really making it easier to do so. all we're advocating is a meaningful consequence to dodging out of pvp. right now there is no such consequence. you are literally whining about the idea that you cant dodge pvp costfree.

in the past, dodging wardecs was often considered a bannable exploit, but repeatedly deccing a corp was never considered harassment. something to chew on.

A war-dec is not harassment, but people were using the old system for that purpose.

It's why we have the system we have now.

But CCP have already said with the present system, that dodging war-decs is a legitimate tactic, so complain away if you must. But they did change it for a reason, so it's unlikely they will change it back.

Remiel Pollard

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8,858

#1063 - 2014-09-19 13:47:16 UTC | Edited by: Remiel Pollard

Aivo Dresden wrote:

Would you all be fine then with a defending party being able to 'opt out' of a war for the same cost that went in to the war dec? See it as a buy out, a surrender fee. The surrender is automatic and happens 24h after it's been put through. It cannot be declined.

Is it really so hard to understand that some people just have no interest in shooting at, or getting shot at by other players.

I don't think this is the best solution. As I've stated on numerous occasions, I don't think the problem is with the wardec mechanics, or the corp mechanics. I think the problem lies in the lack of any good reason to commit to a corporation in high sec, and the ease with which one can be created without that something to commit it to. Merely creating or joining a corp just to avoid NPC taxes is legitimately confounding to me.

“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

Kaarous Aldurald

Black Hydra Consortium.

Likes received: 16,296

#1064 - 2014-09-19 13:48:53 UTC

Aivo Dresden wrote:

Some consequence needs added, and badly. If you were to add this, some punishment would have to be added for dissolving the corp or leaving, as the surrender function remains unused currently primarily because it requires more effort and isk than almost zero, which is what the dec dodge exploit requires.

Quote:

Is it really so hard to understand that some people just have no interest in shooting at, or getting shot at by other players.

Is it really so hard to understand that some people don't care?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Hiply Rustic

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 390

#1065 - 2014-09-19 13:48:54 UTC

Jenn aSide wrote:

Hiply Rustic wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Hiply Rustic wrote:

It's not nonsense. Someone leaving a corp, or the corp folding, in no way prevents non-consensual PvP. In Hisec all it does is prevent one method for having consequence-free non-consensual PvP, something that was never promised to anyone in Hisec, anywhere, ever.

Who other than you said anyting about non-consensual pvp. I don't care if anyone fights or dies, I'm saying the zero consequence mechanic is dumb.

A player corp should have to deal with a war situation in some fashion that has potential costs. The way it is now, a small player corp doesn't have to deal with a war, just drop, fold, reform. It literally takes a couple minutes. Such a thing isn't in keeping with the spirit of EVE.

A wardec is non-consensual PvP. Sorry, too obvious? Everyone in this thread is talking about non-consensual PvP, Jenn. Yourself included.

You're conflating issues in order to make what you think make sense in your own head. That's the only place it makes sense btw lol.

The issue for me isn't the pvp aspect. I've dodged pvp under war decs. I was soooo funny seeing that Marmite dude complain in local about my Stabbed machariel getting away from him gate after gate between Jita and Amarr (I told him "shoulda brought a hictor, Hoe" lol).

But what I did came with the potential for failure (in that case, ship destruction). The potential for failure is one of the things that makes a thing balanced in a video game. You can NEVER fail to fold and reform a corporation. That's what makes the mechanic lame.

Right...so then

Wardecs are not the mechanic for having consequence-free non-consensual PvP in Hisec? And making it harder to force non-consensual PvPers to face consequences in Hisec isn't what the requests to change the current mechanic will result in?

I don't, by the way, disagree that if someone closes down a corporation they should not be up and running with the same name and ticker five minutes later (how you're going to enforce that, short of keeping a list of corporate names that can never be used again is beyond me...but it wouldn't bother me either). I do disagree with the people advocating for a change being made to the fundamental mechanics of either leaving or disbanding a corp.

If it's Killyouall's right to put a wardec on Notgonnahappen because sandbox, then it's Notgonnahappen's right to fold their tents because sandbox.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.

285
Par'Gellen Likes received: 285	#1066 - 2014-09-19 13:49:08 UTC I don't get it. Why are you people so worried about forcing people to PvP in high sec? Who cares? Seems pointless to me. "To err is human", but it shouldn't be the company motto...

Jenn aSide

Worthless Carebears

The Initiative.

Likes received: 16,192

#1067 - 2014-09-19 13:49:13 UTC | Edited by: Jenn aSide

Grog Aftermath wrote:

It's not just about kills it's about making life harder for PvE players, I mean let's face it, it's not hard for PvP players in high-sec when they're up against PvE players.

It is when they are up against me.

Quote:

What EVE is, is not for you to dictate, it's what CCP want it to be. Presently it caters for both PvP players and PvE players, now if CCP decided to cater for just PvP players, then they might as well get rid of CONCORD and with it they will lose part of their player base. But whatever happens it's ultimately their decision to make.

That is a narrow minded view. One not shared by true sandbox PVE players. The distinction isn't PVE vs PVP, it's mature, creative, imaginative gamer vs carebear.

I'll say it again. I am a PVE player. I choose to play this PVP game despite the fact that I personally prefer PVE. Understanding my CHOICE, I know it's my job to figure out how to not get pvp'd, not the pvp'rs (or CCPs) job to do it for me. That's why I can tell people on this forum that i prefer PVE and no one thinks me a 'coward'.

I dislike game mechanics that cater to carebear instincts. Carebear does not mean PVE'r, it means (in the context of EVE and sandbox games) someone who wants all the benefits of playing a multiplayer game with none of the downsides.

Dec-Dodging (among other stupid mechanics like how npc corps are superior to player corps) is avoiding the downsides of being in a multiplayer game like EVE and should go away.

Kaarous Aldurald

Black Hydra Consortium.

Likes received: 16,296

#1068 - 2014-09-19 13:49:50 UTC

Grog Aftermath wrote:

A war-dec is not harassment, but people were using the old system for that purpose.

It's why we have the system we have now.

You keep saying this.

Citation needed. Either prove it, or knock it off.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Grog Aftermath

Doomheim

Likes received: 156

#1069 - 2014-09-19 13:51:37 UTC

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Xuixien wrote:

you keep throwing this word "harassment" around.

They do that as a roundabout way of trying to make their rabid risk aversion legitimate. Because unless it is legitimate, absolutely nothing justifies permitting this exploit to continue.

So if they manage to establish the dialogue that PvP of any kind constitutes harassment, then avoiding is a *good* act, instead of an evil one.

It's only an exploit in your mind, it's not actually an exploit because if it was CCP wouldn't allow it.


Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. Likes received: 16,296	#1070 - 2014-09-19 13:53:08 UTC 1 Grog Aftermath wrote: It's only an exploit in your mind, it's not actually an exploit because if it was CCP wouldn't allow it. #POSbumping "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenn aSide

Worthless Carebears

The Initiative.

Likes received: 16,192

#1071 - 2014-09-19 13:54:25 UTC

Hiply Rustic wrote:

If it's Killyouall's right to put a wardec on Notgonnahappen because sandbox, then it's Notgonnahappen's right to fold their tents because sandbox.

That demonstrates the underlying incorrect thought process that is the barrier here. EVE is a harsh open world sandbox pvp game. "Killyouall" is prefectly at home in such a game. "Notgonnahappen" is in the wrong game and should be playing a consensal pvp only themepark game like Star Trek Online (which i also play).

"Killyouall's" opposite in a game like EVE is and should only be a guy named "GonnaBeatYouAtYourOwnGameWithMySmartsYouPvpHoe"

Hiply Rustic

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 390

#1072 - 2014-09-19 13:58:49 UTC

Jenn aSide wrote:

Hiply Rustic wrote:

If it's Killyouall's right to put a wardec on Notgonnahappen because sandbox, then it's Notgonnahappen's right to fold their tents because sandbox.

No.

You're conflating being able to force Hisec PvPers to face Hisec consequences (by dec-dodging) with believing Hisec should be in any way a PvP-free zone.

It isn't, it shouldn't be, and I've never, anywhere, ever, said otherwise. EvE isn't safe. Hisec non-consensual PvP is not without consequence. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.

Aivo Dresden

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 472

#1073 - 2014-09-19 13:59:37 UTC | Edited by: Aivo Dresden

Jenn aSide wrote:

Hiply Rustic wrote:

If it's Killyouall's right to put a wardec on Notgonnahappen because sandbox, then it's Notgonnahappen's right to fold their tents because sandbox.

And this is where you're wrong. People get to play in the sandbox however they want. No party is more entitled to a play style than another.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Citation needed. Either prove it, or knock it off.

First google hit: EVE Dev blog. Nice to see you're keeping your level of competence consistent. This is the reason we have the current wardec system.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Is it really so hard to understand that some people don't care?

Well then go shoot them, no one is stopping you. You can shoot however you want, where you want. Just accept the consequences and accept that others just as easily say NO where you say YES.

I do like how all you big mouths in here are against the possibility of declining a war for the same amount of effort it takes you all to declare one. Comedy. You want to be able to wardec anyone in the game, but when they can use an equal amount of resources to negate it, you're not having it either. Hypocrites.

33,643
Solecist Project Likes received: 33,643	#1074 - 2014-09-19 14:01:24 UTC \| Edited by: Solecist Project Dropping and reforming a corp does not afford an equal amount of resources. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Remiel Pollard

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8,858

#1075 - 2014-09-19 14:03:46 UTC | Edited by: Remiel Pollard

Again, I made a point above that the bears have been avoiding since it was first brought up. Nevermind I've tried to bring it into the discussion maybe three or four times now, we'll just ignore it and pretend like the idea doesn't exist, and just keep vehemently arguing against PVP in highsec because :harassment: and :griefing:

/thread

“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

Kaarous Aldurald

Black Hydra Consortium.

Likes received: 16,296

#1076 - 2014-09-19 14:05:39 UTC | Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald

Aivo Dresden wrote:

Nice to see you're keeping your level of competence consistent. This is the reason we have the current wardec system.

Well, now I know that you didn't read that blog before posting it.

The word "harassment" is not in that dev blog at all. Neither is "griefing", and yes I checked.

It does mention how they intend people to use the surrender function, and never once mentions dropping corp to dissolve the dec as an intended function, so we can easily determine that wasn't intended either.

Heck, they even outright say towards the end that they are considering adding consequences for leaving a corp during a war, or a timer.

You just pretty much shut down your entire side's argument.

Thanks.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Solecist Project

Likes received: 33,643

#1077 - 2014-09-19 14:06:28 UTC

Remiel Pollard wrote:

Finally you realised too. :p

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Remiel Pollard

Aliastra

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8,858

#1078 - 2014-09-19 14:08:51 UTC

Solecist Project wrote:

Remiel Pollard wrote:

Finally you realised too. :p

No realisation about it, I've been watching them ignore point after point after point for the entire thread, just picking at the bits they can manufacture an argument around, quite often stuff that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I know this thread's been pointless since the moment the ignorance began but, some things get said that are just too ridiculous to not address.

“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

Kaarous Aldurald

Black Hydra Consortium.

Likes received: 16,296

#1079 - 2014-09-19 14:10:49 UTC

And with that, I think I'll head to bed, it's a work night and I consume too much caffeine as is already.

To those of you who just had your entire argument disproved by the guy who linked the dev blog, go ahead and send him a mail to thank him.

In the meantime, my suggestion is that CCP consider revisiting their original intent to implement consequences for dropping corp during an active war.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen

Doomheim

Likes received: 2,690

#1080 - 2014-09-19 14:15:39 UTC

If a wardec mechanic is going to exist at all it should be meaningful, that means a defender shouldn't be able to use a simple exploit (drop corp) to dodge it.

Now I can debate whether wars should exist at all or not, but what I cannot stomach is a failure in logic that tries to defend the indefensible, an exploit to a game mechanic.

CCP would say this isn't an exploit, and 'working as intended', that's them trying to have their cake and eat it too. I might selfsame just say bullsh!t, and bad war mechanic is bad...

In short...

- Wars *must* follow someone who drops corp under wardec, for one week or until war ends, whichever is sooner. Anything less is an exploit and loophole.

Additionally...

- Put wardec fees in a 'bucket' claimable by the defender, based on aggressor assets killed.
- Increase NPC corp taxes to 50%. If someone wants to be safe, a premium should be paid for that.

DONE.

F

Would you like to know more?

First pagePrevious page5253545556Next pageLast page