These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bitter Vet - High Sec War Decs are Broken. Lets Talk :)

First post
Author
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#381 - 2015-04-22 18:04:07 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.


I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Black Pedro
Mine.
#382 - 2015-04-22 18:16:52 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.

That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec.

It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#383 - 2015-04-22 18:27:28 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.


I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.


But now we rub up to an issue with the new structures, if a corp or alliance builds a station structure and the Goons decide to remove it, if you limit the number of people who can assist how the hell can anyone build anything in hisec?

I also think that there has to be a limit to the time that entities can be war decc'd as the OP quite rightly pointed out its too much to leave it totally open ended.

I have now decided to act on this, it was OK when it was just Marmite but with another merc alliance dog-piling on us I just gave the order for people involved in the anti-ganking activities to leave their corps in Second-Dawn, I want them out and about in the pipe doing their stuff not avoiding your people. You see your war has no interest to us at all, no reason to fight you and the result is what I just did, anti-ganking activities come first.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2015-04-22 18:40:38 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.


I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.


I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#385 - 2015-04-22 18:42:55 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.


I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.


I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided.


The avoidance of wars has to be there due to the total open ended nature of such war decs, plus the dog-piling of others into the fray.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#386 - 2015-04-22 18:46:43 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.

That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec.

It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere.
Yeah, then they changed the dec fee mechanics and that small number became "whoever fancies it". Amusingly though, lowsec is pretty dead, so obviously the mechanics there don't work too well.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#387 - 2015-04-22 18:48:35 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would that highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.
I proposed a limit on wardecs. Both to offensive and assistance.
I saw that comment. My statement was more directed to the people who don't see a problem with the current system aside from the fact that wars can be avoided.
The avoidance of wars has to be there due to the total open ended nature of such war decs, plus the dog-piling of others into the fray.
To be quite honest, the avoidance of wars has to be there to stop people being prevented from playing. If you can declare war on someone and they can't get out, can't fight and have nothing to offer you that you'll accept to drop it, they are stuck paying for a game they are unable to play. I can't see CCP allowing that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#388 - 2015-04-22 19:00:40 UTC
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2015-04-22 19:07:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you removed the mechanisms for avoiding wardecs, how would highsec retain any security advantage over other regions? It would be lowsec for any pvp entity with deep pockets.

That was the initial design of the game. Even if wardecs were not avoidable, highsec would be very much safer than lowsec because you have a short and defined list of who can attack you at any given moment, as opposed to everyone in lowsec.

It is called highsec, not safesec. Knowing, and having shown to you in local, the small number of people that can shoot you legally is definitely higher security than what is found in lowsec and elsewhere.


Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.

There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.

It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2015-04-22 19:13:40 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?



If 50M a week was in any way significant to someone who's been playing for years or people who have demonstrated a tendency to sink real world money into PLEX, alts, and bought characters, I'd agree with you.

At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#391 - 2015-04-22 19:18:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?



The issue is that it really depends on your own conduct, this type of war with Marmite is utterly boring, my experienced members just have no interest in chasing around Marmites GTFO type of play, so they are all playing GTA 5. When I was around there was one roam, while I was away they did three roams and we did not get anything to shoot and were happy to lose the ships we were in. So now my corpmates are not logging in, that is at the core of the issue, I have PvP players who find Marmite so boring that they don't bother logging in and I feel bad because I got them to come back to the game, wish I had waited until the 0.0 changes had been applied, would have been better.

But I did give it 18 days and we did go look for some fights, so its just one of those things.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#392 - 2015-04-22 19:18:24 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.


Do it. I dare you.
At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about.
as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2015-04-22 19:24:12 UTC
Danalee wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.


Do it. I dare you.
At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about.
as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line.

D.

Bear


Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW.
Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#394 - 2015-04-22 19:28:39 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Danalee wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.


Do it. I dare you.
At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about.
as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line.

D.

Bear


Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW.


Wah? Can't fly through certain systems? How is that an issue? You'd be raking in isks from dropping fleets on miners and newbies everywhere at the same time?
right?

Anyhow, there are standing repair plans for that if you really think it's an issue.
Too much effort already?

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#395 - 2015-04-22 19:45:38 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't think most people really advocate for making avoiding wars in any way impossible Or even particularly difficult, rather they want there to be some consequence for things like dropping out of and closing corps. As it stands there isn't much in the way of consequences for using war evading tactics and the tactics are brutally effective.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when the justification given for the pricing and cost scaling of wars was "paying for targets". I'd you really are paying for targets should you not reasonably expect to get the targets you paid for?
The problem being that the same people want NPC corps gone. So where do players go who want to drop out of a war, and what consequences can they pay if they have nothing?

And you do get the targets you pay for. If you pick a target small enough to fold their corp on a whim, you paid for the wrong target and they bested you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2015-04-22 19:55:09 UTC
Danalee wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Danalee wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
At this point I am seriously considering joining a merc corp because it clearly affords the easiest, least risky access to high value targets in the game. 50M a week per target is peanuts.


Do it. I dare you.
At least you'd be talking about something you know a bit about.
as opposed to the nullbears defending their risk free supply line.

D.

Bear


Only problem is I really like being able to get 2 of the best ships in the game really cheaply through FW, and I can't travel through Amarr or Caldari space, once again due to FW.


Wah? Can't fly through certain systems? How is that an issue? You'd be raking in isks from dropping fleets on miners and newbies everywhere at the same time?
right?

Anyhow, there are standing repair plans for that if you really think it's an issue.
Too much effort already?

D.

Bear


You've convinced me. Is Marmite recruiting? Where do I sign up? Is there a minimum neutral alt requirement?


Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#397 - 2015-04-22 20:00:23 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


You've convinced me. Is Marmite recruiting? Where do I sign up? Is there a minimum neutral alt requirement?



When you have joined Marmite come and shoot my POS please Big smileEvilTwisted

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Black Pedro
Mine.
#398 - 2015-04-22 20:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.

There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.

It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.

My point was that highsec is suppose to have risk, and more importantly is a place intended to have conflict. Wardecs are intended to allow that conflict to take place albeit in a slightly limited manner where you are not fighting everyone and anyone at once. That is a far cry from lowsec and a much safer environment, or "higher" security.

You were never intended by CCP, or are now required to be locked into a war. The NPC corp is suppose to be a place for you flee to if you have had enough of a war. The problem is when players gain all the benefits of being in a player corp (which are suppose to be subject to wardecs) with none of the downsides of the NPC corp by briefly fleeing to them after a wardec is declared to shed the dec.

I am not sure where you think we do not have ubiquitous wardecs right now. Any corp can be wardecced at anytime and in any number by another willing to pay the cost. All that exists now is this loophole that allows small corporations without in-space assets to dodge them trivially. Large corps and ones reliant on POSes are completely subject to the whims of highsec PvP groups as the game was originally designed - just look at the OP of this threadnaught.

It will be very interesting to see how new in-space structures change this balance. This loophole could very well close itself if carebears decide that these new in-space structures are necessary for their gameplay.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2015-04-22 20:45:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Black Pedro wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Initial design does not necessarily mean best design. The game has undergone numerous changes both good and bad depending on who you ask.

There is a short, defined list of who can attack you in lowsec and nullsec also. It's called local.

It's called high security space. Not low or null. It is intended to be safer. If a highsec pvp group can wardec me on a whim because I was seen undocking in something bigger than a T1 cruiser, how is that any different in practice than lowsec? Ubiquitous wardecs would break highsec in a matter of weeks, and considering how much of the player base is in highsec, it's no wonder CCP has gone in the opposite direction.

My point was that highsec is suppose to have risk, and more importantly is a place intended to have conflict. Wardecs are intended to allow that conflict to take place albeit in a slightly limited manner where you are not fighting everyone and anyone at once. That is a far cry from lowsec and a much safer environment, or "higher" security.

You were never intended by CCP, or are now required to be locked into a war. The NPC corp is suppose to be a place for you flee to if you have had enough of a war. The problem is when players gain all the benefits of being in a player corp (which are suppose to be subject to wardecs) with none of the downsides of the NPC corp by briefly fleeing to them after a wardec is declared to shed the dec.

I am not sure where you think we do not have ubiquitous wardecs right now. Any corp can be wardecced at anytime and in any number by another willing to pay the cost. All that exists now is this loophole that allows small corporations without in-space assets to dodge them trivially. Large corps and ones reliant on POSes are completely subject to the whims of highsec PvP groups as the game was originally designed - just look at the OP of this threadnaught.

It will be very interesting to see how new in-space structures change this balance. This loophole could very well close itself if carebears decide that these new in-space structures are necessary for their gameplay.


We have significantly fewer wardecs now than we would if they were unavoidable and NPC corps were heavily disincentivized, which is what you lot are arguing for.

If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way?
Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#400 - 2015-04-22 21:06:40 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

If me and my friends can, for a trivial price, engage anyone we want in highsec; how is that different in any meaningful way?


Yes, when you and your dinky friends wardec anyone it's game over for them isn't it Roll
You could single handedly ruin hisec for everyone!
It's not like players in Hisec are real people that can talk and maybe play the game and stuff...
Jeezus, how could we be so blind.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment