EVE General Discussion

You just fell from sophism to plain bs, my friend.
When others make the reward, they must take the risk, fine! It's not the problem, don't make me repeat myself 7th time.
The problem is that making risk for them is risk-less for you, and it's not game design, it's a rule which is poorly balanced for no good reason. The mechanics is not the same, as one side has the ability to fight without exposure, and the other one does not, which makes it unbalanced, and no reward at certain death risk for defender make it meaningless for one side.



Current war dec is a grief dec, and I explained at least 3 times why, and to my argumentation you answer with "a wardec is a wardec is a wardec" point, "That is not Eve" point, and "They must not be able to get back at me" point, which is just ridiculous, I beg you to stop this, before I am unable to contain my urge to humiliate.
If there are no meaningful choice in a mechanic, means this mechanic is bad and must be removed - like clone grades in Rhea (which I wholeheartedly support)! But please note I'm not in favor of removing war decs, because I believe they can be made better.
And, again, I never once said "fair", I never once said "perfectly balanced", I stated it clearly that I want them to be "more balanced than they are now", which is definitely possible and healthy, and "defender must have meaningful options to take", like ability to increase cost for the attackers, mitigate the absolute risk grief dec brings, and at least some incentive to use those options - the carrot, so to speak, because there are reasons why stick-only systems never work.



Having new players established has nothing to do with the topic imo.
Rolling corp is a normal mechanism, and it doesn't need to be fixed. My comments on "stupid" were its usage to avoid wars (you may check how much wars Basil went thru without rolling corp btw), but as there are no other meaningful steps to take, players are forced to resort to stupid.
You really make me repeat myself 7th time. This time I will try to talk in reta...(khm) simple language. See what you're doing to me?

1) I do not ask for removal of war dec mechanics.
2) I do not ask for "fair", "equal", etc.
3) I ask you to not assume that eve for you is what eve for everyone is, no self-entitlement please. If you think it's "designed for something", it's not true. Even if it's true, that something can always be changed with ongoing design effort, so claiming "eve is X" is wrong no matter what X is.
4) The current grief dec mechanics is not balanced on the only scale that matters - risk/reward. Creating risk for defender costs almost nothing, brings infinite risk, and no reward, while attacker has no risk at all, and all the reward he's willing to claim. Avoiding it is rational choice, because...
5) The current grief dec mechanics is meaningless. Let's say defender picks up the glove, fleets up, and... what now? Or defender brings allies, they fleet up, and... what now? Nothing. Attackers got nothing to protect, they sit at undock, and dock up should anyone appear nearby. Or, if they can, wreck that fleet for pure griefing fun and extend the grief dec for another decade. This makes fighting irrational, and people are mostly rational (I have doubts about you currently, but still trying to reason so far).
5) I do not ask for perfect system. But it can surely be improved, surely there is a way to introduce meaningful decisions, surely there is a way to make it more meaningful and more balanced, and surely doing this would be a boon, so why not? Are you that afraid of risk?

Or you can buy PLEX and grief dec someone for 4 months.
Nobody is forcing you.

No

If players want 'an identity', they join a corp and part of the cost of doing that is potential war.

This game should not be catering to 'casual', it's already playable 'casually' by people who live all over (low sec, for example, is easy to be 'casual' in because you can never be bubble or denied station access)

In the same way I am a PVE player but understand that the core of the game is PVP (and adapt myself to this reality accordingly), the 'solo/casual' player should understand that this is a game where you CAN go solo or casual, but you'd get better benefit from being more social and devoting more time to the game. Changing the focus of the game to cater to people who aren't even fully invested, in the name of money (ie hoping for more subscriptions) is a recipe for disaster.\

Every game I've played (MMO or not) that tried to cater to the casual crowd (starting with Mech4) ended up not doing well. There was a reason why there was an 11 year gap between the last mech4 expansion and the launch of mechwwarrior online, and I'd rather not go through that kind of thing with EVE. Niche games should 'cater' to it's niche community 1st and let everything else just be icing on the cake.

If people want to dock up then they dock up. The whole point of my suggestion is not to force people to fight, however there should also be consequences trying to escape wars altogether, since you know, if you are in a player corp then you also have to accept the risks of being attacked. Can't eat the cake and keep it and all that. On the other hand, the bounty that attackers place on themselves is the means that defenders can use in order to win, should they decide to actually fight back.

If people are forced to dock up then they dock up.
Like I said, your bounty will never be collected, ever. No matter how much dps you have, if your application is zero, you may consider your dreadnought a glorified freighter.
Ok here's a starting point: Attackers are sitting on undock at Jita. Now please give me a scenario in which at least 1 ISK of bounty can be collected by defender.
So right now in a grief dec attackers eat the cake, and defenders get it digested, and it will be even worse with your proposal, period.

It is not, nor is it ever risk-less for the aggressor unless the defender is a total failure at this game.

All the crap you claim that the aggressor does, the defender is not magically forbidden from doing. You can use logi, you can play station games, and you can use links and scouts.

There is absolutely no game mechanic preventing the defender from doing exactly the same thing to the aggressor that is being done to them.

Only their failures as players do that.

Hell, when you get right down to it, the mechanics are greatly unbalanced in favor of the defender of a wardec, since they can pull allies for free in functionally unlimited number, and have 100% control over whether the war happens at all.

You're just trying to disguise the fact that because some people are hilariously bad at EVE, you want the mechanics to be even more brokenly unbalanced in their favor.

**** no.

The solution sure isn't to provide mechanics that enable and encourage never learning to play. That just makes them eternal victims.

Aggressor picks the defender which cannot fight back and grief decs him, then surprised he doesn't fight back and calls him "a total failure at MY game".
You picked him to have no risk, that's why you have no risk. Pick better ones!


Except grief deccer's playstyle exposes no assets and makes him effectively invulnerable, and defender's doesn't, and even if he adopts grief deccer's methods, he achieves nothing.
All the while, defender is non-magically forbidden from doing anything he does.


If they fail to take rational choice like docking up or rolling, well, they got what the deserved, no argument here.


This argument's stupidity is getting boring.
Pulling allies for free, and what can allies do to the invulnerable attacker? Same thing defender itself can - NOTHING. Aside from scaring your risk-averse butt to death, because you cry non-stop about that allies mechanics, like it ever did something (it really is useless because grief deccer is invulnerable currently).
Is there even a point in crying, or even spewing complete bull crap about bias, when the said bias gives you invulnerability?


Yes, some people are hilariously bad at EVE. Their name is grief deccers, and quite oppositely from your insinuation, I want the mechanics to stop giving them invulnerability and incredible favor they enjoy right now.


All right, this was a response to an obvious stupid troll post, I wasn't being really serious there. Now, for the serious part.

I'm not actually a fan of "infinite allies" mechanics those risk-averse want-pew-in-hisec-because-lowsec-scary bunnies are crying and crying and crying non-stop about, overheating their rapid tear launchers, and popping whineosural beacons whenever there is something approaching the grief dec topic; even though that system is non-functional and never seen actual use. So take it away for all I care, it's just as meaningless as a grief dec is. None of the wars I had used that system, and due to meaninglessness and invulnerability of the grief deccer I never saw a point in using it.
That said, I can imagine it being abused, should the invulnerability be taken away from the grief deccer (my god, that is just one step away from actual war, scary!!!). So take it. Modify it, remove it, tinker with it, give CCP a proposal! I don't mind war decs as long as they aren't grief dec from invulnerable grief deccer, even if I can't call in allies at all, or have to make them war dec the grief deccer and expose themselves equally.

Whilst this is true, until something is done to change the similarities between High Sec Corps and NPC Corps then nothing that has been suggested here will work.

CCP need to make a decision. They either need to nerf the hell out of NPC Corps or make High Sec Corps actually worth fighting for.

Corp A sits on Jita undock and docks every time there is a chance to lose ships.
If there's no risk, they wreck Corp B at no losses and return to Jita undock.

Nobody wants a fair fight, neither grief deccer, nor defender - it's safe to say that a fight will not happen, unless one side overwhelms, and the other side will just dodge the fight altogether.

Thus the whole bounty system will forever stay on zero payout.


It's exactly what happens now, it's happening because of a grief deccing, and nobody here seeks fairness, just meaningfullness.