These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#61 - 2015-04-21 07:14:19 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
C'mon even you have to admit the sperging ISK/stats addiction is worse than it ever was. For every miner with one eye on the wallet who won't fit a tank, there's a highsec PVP/gank spanking noobs with one eye on the killboard. It used to be that a noob was left alone in lowsec (unless really being dumb or asking for it) and having a KB full of month old noobs and frigates was nothing to be proud of.
The Crimes and Punishment forum was even better, full of great tales of ganks and capers usually against people who stuck their necks out (knew what they were doing) or thought they could pull a fast one (should have known better).

Those days are gone. The kind of player you describe as being bad for the game is on both sides of the gank or highsec wardec. You know this and there's no dishonor in admitting it. I'm not trying to win forum fu contests.

We must have been playing a different game, because when I played back then, we sat 150km off low-sec gates and popped every little thing with Tachygeddons and sniper Feroxes, and rolled around the belts killing and ransoming anyone we could find. A player's age made no difference either, since everyone was pretty new.

Is it more of a numbers game today, where math and exact calculations play a bigger role in pvp? Sure. but that's evolution, not regression. No one counted their DPS and healing in vanilla WoW raids either.




So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.

Certainly you are proud of your accomplishment. If I could go back in time I would beg CCP to ensure that ship size put a limit on how many ships could lock it. But you know, the game mechanics that make kill-everything-that-moves for no reason game play has been in your favor, and you used it in your way. But every time you are bored in your gate camp, remember you have only yourself to blame.

Give yourself a pat on the back. Yay. Woopee. Hey we have someone who killed everything they saw on their overview over here. All hail!

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#62 - 2015-04-21 07:15:10 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, I never said fights should be fair, but rather that differences in strength should allow differences in response.


And what, praytell, does that mean? I bet you're about to say that weaker groups should just be allowed to be functionally immune.


Quote:
Disabling the ability to dodge is trapping someone into a dec.


No, it's not. It's keeping people from playing games with the corp creation system in order to be immune to wars.

If you want to be immune to wars, there's already a place for that. If you aren't in that place, you get to deal with wars.


Quote:

Also, why again should a player corp need to meet any standard?


Because this is a PvP game, first, last, and always. Defending yourself is not optional, or at least it shouldn't be.


Quote:
Player corps should mean what those who create them intend for them to mean and be defended as they intend them to be defended.


Not if how they intend for it to be defended is an exploit, no. Defending does not mean "push button, get free safety". Defending should mean actually playing the game.

"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.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#63 - 2015-04-21 07:16:37 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
C'mon even you have to admit the sperging ISK/stats addiction is worse than it ever was. For every miner with one eye on the wallet who won't fit a tank, there's a highsec PVP/gank spanking noobs with one eye on the killboard. It used to be that a noob was left alone in lowsec (unless really being dumb or asking for it) and having a KB full of month old noobs and frigates was nothing to be proud of.
The Crimes and Punishment forum was even better, full of great tales of ganks and capers usually against people who stuck their necks out (knew what they were doing) or thought they could pull a fast one (should have known better).

Those days are gone. The kind of player you describe as being bad for the game is on both sides of the gank or highsec wardec. You know this and there's no dishonor in admitting it. I'm not trying to win forum fu contests.

We must have been playing a different game, because when I played back then, we sat 150km off low-sec gates and popped every little thing with Tachygeddons and sniper Feroxes, and rolled around the belts killing and ransoming anyone we could find. A player's age made no difference either, since everyone was pretty new.

Is it more of a numbers game today, where math and exact calculations play a bigger role in pvp? Sure. but that's evolution, not regression. No one counted their DPS and healing in vanilla WoW raids either.




So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.

Certainly you are proud of your accomplishment. If I could go back in time I would beg CCP to ensure that ship size put a limit on how many ships could lock it. But you know, the game mechanics that make kill-everything-that-moves for no reason game play has been in your favor, and you used it in your way. But every time you are bored in your gate camp, remember you have only yourself to blame.

Give yourself a pat on the back. Yay. Woopee. Hey we have someone who killed everything they saw on their overview over here. All hail!

Yes, I'm in that small minority of players that should have been neutered a decade ago, so that EVE could have become a successful, cooperative themepark, in which players work together to make the universe a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Sorry for ruining your game.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#64 - 2015-04-21 07:17:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

You want them locked out of the game, you have said so in numerous threads.


No, I want them to not get to have their cake and eat it too.

I want conflict to be promoted by the game mechanics, not stifled.

If conflict being a thing means not playing the game to you(or to anyone), then you're what's wrong with EVE Online.


Quote:

As for not fighting, we did 4 roams looking for Marmite


Wait, what? Why would you "roam" looking for Marmite? Go to a trade hub.


I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.

So mister genius suggests that going to Jita where they have ships to pick from and all their RR alts stationed is a good idea when I am better off picking them off in the pipes, which was why they ran. My guys did that a few times said damn this lets play GTA 5, these are people who have done a lot of PvP, not people who talk about it.

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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#65 - 2015-04-21 07:18:06 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.


Yeah, God forbid that people shoot other people in a PvP game. Much less have fun doing so.

"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.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2015-04-21 07:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why is "we're cancelling your war now" inherently different from "we're cancelling your relative peace now"? Why is one more allowable than the other?


Because loss is supposed to happen. It's pretty much the entire point of this game.


Quote:

So long as wardecs are arbitrary why can't dodging be equally so?


Because wars are intended, and if you don't want them, you already have an option, NPC corps.

What you want is the best of both worlds via an exploit. You're flailing wildly to try and justify this overpowered advantage, but the truth of the matter is that if you don't want wars, you do not belong in a player corp. Player corps are for players.

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss. Places in which wardecs have no meaning play host to the greatest amount of loss per person living there. Eliminating wardecs would probably be one of the least impacting things to happen in terms of loss for any equivalent mechanics change. We're also not dealing with a mechanism of guaranteed loss. CCP themselves noted that a number of decs end without loss due to both evasion and inactivity. We could count that inactivity as some sort of moral victory for the attacker, but really it's just another contributor to alt proliferation.

As for wars being intended, if all "dodging" is unintended, why is it still possible? It should be mechanically simple to restrict it, so why is it not happening?

Also exploits are against the EULA, if this is an exploit it should be handled by the GM's. If it's not being handled by the GM's, it's likely not an exploit.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#67 - 2015-04-21 07:19:56 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Damn I could have bet ISK on these responses.


Are you going to bite ankles, or are you going to rant about the good old days like a hipster? Pick one.



I'm going to point out again that you are a broken record repeating the same crap over and over again.

Are you an NCO? I bet you are the kind that shows up early for PT in shined boots the day after coming back from a deployment and expecting everybody else to love you for that and want to drink your sweat.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Dudebut
Doomheim
#68 - 2015-04-21 07:20:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
alexclone1 wrote:
Who is there to hire when all the pvpers are in the war decing alliances? Where is there to go? What is there to do?

Sadly i had spent too much $$ for a corp website that never saw the light of day because once i relized the war dec mechanics, it was no longer worth it to be a successful large (50+) high sec corp.

I have no issues fighting, but a 50 man corp spread in euro/american tz simply cant do jack about the HUNDREDS of experienced pvpers camping your stations with nothing better to do.

I would love to have a conversation in the comments from both sides. Perhaps there is some middle ground?

Sorry to hear you were unable to successfully start a corp in highsec. Without all the details it is hard to determine where you went wrong, but it is true that there are hundreds of successful corps in highsec and more created every month. That said, it is non-trivial (as it should be) to create a vibrant and function highsec corp in the competitive sandbox that is New Eden.

There is nothing wrong with this. There are very good game design reasons why highsec corps should be under pressure from other players. Unfortunately in this case you were not able to provide the diplomatic and/or military leadership needed to successfully navigate the hornet's nest of ne'er-do-wells looking for targets, or rivals wanting to defend their operations from competitors.

If there is anything wrong with the game, it is that there is no compelling technical reason for you to start a corp in highsec. I don't know what your goals were, but if you just wanted a social place for players to hang out while they learn the game, then the game forced you to assume a lot of risk and attention from PvPers and other rival corps, while providing you with little more than a shared hanger/wallet and a chat channel. If this was your goal then I have some sympathy for you and hope CCP gets around to implementing a "social corp" or another mechanism where you can have the social benefits of a corp without the added risk of wardecs.

If you were starting a serious industrial corp then the failure of your corp was working as intended. This game is designed so you have to defend your industrial operations. If you are going to extract benefit from the Eve economy, then you need to be at risk from your competitors, including to direct pressure from wardecs. A competitive corp is not entitled to opt-out of wardecs while dumping resources and industrial goods onto the market. Doing so would limit destruction which is bad for the war economy of Eve, and targets for other players which is bad for a vibrant PvP game.

There is nothing stopping you from trying again. Start a new corp and pay more attention to the risk of wardecs. Spend some effort developing plans and doctrines to deal with the threat, and work on making friends to help defend you or find mercenaries that will do that for a fee. Perhaps grow a little slower by spending more time on that and less on spamming invites in rookie systems just to get your numbers up quickly and you will have more success.




That is the best reply in this thread. Nice one.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#69 - 2015-04-21 07:20:22 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Dana Goodeye
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2015-04-21 07:20:50 UTC
i think its not too hard to handle a some wardecs. move your ships to an another station, make insta undocks, tacticals on the station, on the gates, and if your corp cant handle pvp, fleet up, head to losec, and mine, explore, rat there..
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#71 - 2015-04-21 07:21:36 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.


I support every mechanic that increases risk, especially to those who try to avoid it to carebear all day long.

I do not support people who would rather not play the game than deal with risk.


Quote:

So mister genius suggests that going to Jita where they have ships to pick from and all their RR alts stationed is a good idea when I am better off picking them off in the pipes, which was why they ran. My guys did that a few times said damn this lets play GTA 5, these are people who have done a lot of PvP, not people who talk about it.


So basically, because you couldn't get easy kills against people who were prepared to deal with you, you just stopped playing the game.

*golfclap*

"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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#72 - 2015-04-21 07:22:51 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Damn I could have bet ISK on these responses.


Are you going to bite ankles, or are you going to rant about the good old days like a hipster? Pick one.



I'm going to point out again that you are a broken record repeating the same crap over and over again.

Are you an NCO? I bet you are the kind that shows up early for PT in shined boots the day after coming back from a deployment and expecting everybody else to love you for that and want to drink your sweat.



You don't do PT in boots, yeesh. Whether they let or not, that's a really good way to get a bigass blister.

"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.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#73 - 2015-04-21 07:23:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
C'mon even you have to admit the sperging ISK/stats addiction is worse than it ever was. For every miner with one eye on the wallet who won't fit a tank, there's a highsec PVP/gank spanking noobs with one eye on the killboard. It used to be that a noob was left alone in lowsec (unless really being dumb or asking for it) and having a KB full of month old noobs and frigates was nothing to be proud of.
The Crimes and Punishment forum was even better, full of great tales of ganks and capers usually against people who stuck their necks out (knew what they were doing) or thought they could pull a fast one (should have known better).

Those days are gone. The kind of player you describe as being bad for the game is on both sides of the gank or highsec wardec. You know this and there's no dishonor in admitting it. I'm not trying to win forum fu contests.

We must have been playing a different game, because when I played back then, we sat 150km off low-sec gates and popped every little thing with Tachygeddons and sniper Feroxes, and rolled around the belts killing and ransoming anyone we could find. A player's age made no difference either, since everyone was pretty new.

Is it more of a numbers game today, where math and exact calculations play a bigger role in pvp? Sure. but that's evolution, not regression. No one counted their DPS and healing in vanilla WoW raids either.




So you are in that small minority of players from that time that CCP should have put the kibosh on before your play style became epidemic and caused this great game to never get beyond niche status.

Certainly you are proud of your accomplishment. If I could go back in time I would beg CCP to ensure that ship size put a limit on how many ships could lock it. But you know, the game mechanics that make kill-everything-that-moves for no reason game play has been in your favor, and you used it in your way. But every time you are bored in your gate camp, remember you have only yourself to blame.

Give yourself a pat on the back. Yay. Woopee. Hey we have someone who killed everything they saw on their overview over here. All hail!

Yes, I'm in that small minority of players that should have been neutered a decade ago, so that EVE could have become a successful, cooperative themepark, in which players work together to make the universe a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Sorry for ruining your game.



You ruined your own. I still managed, and I'm still here.

There is a new play style emerging though.



Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#74 - 2015-04-21 07:23:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss. Places in which wardecs have no meaning play host to the greatest amount of loss per person living there. Eliminating wardecs would probably be one of the least impacting things to happen in terms of loss for any equivalent mechanics change. We're also not dealing with a mechanism of guaranteed loss. CCP themselves noted that a number of decs end without loss due to both evasion and inactivity. We could count that inactivity as some sort of moral victory for the attacker, but really it's just another contributor to alt proliferation.

Really? Because according to past QENs and other various reports, high-sec is responsible for more pvp losses than any other area of space in the game.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Yes, I'm in that small minority of players that should have been neutered a decade ago, so that EVE could have become a successful, cooperative themepark, in which players work together to make the universe a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Sorry for ruining your game.

You ruined your own. I still managed, and I'm still here.

There is a new play style emerging though.

I did? I'm still doing just as well as I always have. Even better today than in the past, actually. Each time I adapt makes me even more competitive against the players who refuse to adapt a single time.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#75 - 2015-04-21 07:26:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I made bold and underlined a statement that works both ways, you seem to support cloaky afk camping, these people do exactly that.


I support every mechanic that increases risk, especially to those who try to avoid it to carebear all day long.

I do not support people who would rather not play the game than deal with risk.


Quote:

So mister genius suggests that going to Jita where they have ships to pick from and all their RR alts stationed is a good idea when I am better off picking them off in the pipes, which was why they ran. My guys did that a few times said damn this lets play GTA 5, these are people who have done a lot of PvP, not people who talk about it.


So basically, because you couldn't get easy kills against people who were prepared to deal with you, you just stopped playing the game.

*golfclap*




he was not getting kills against people that he was prepared for, because they kept running away and enjoying the same BLOPs free and bubble free that everybody else in highsec enjoys.

Lots of cake going around there sarge.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#76 - 2015-04-21 07:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss.


No, but since they decided to give everyone a button to turn off one of the better means of inflicting loss, wars have improved in importance in that regard.


Quote:

As for wars being intended, if all "dodging" is unintended, why is it still possible? It should be mechanically simple to restrict it, so why is it not happening?


It was officially an exploit for some time, until people like you cried so hard that CCP flip flopped on it.

I want that decision to be revisited.

"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.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2015-04-21 07:30:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And what, praytell, does that mean? I bet you're about to say that weaker groups should just be allowed to be functionally immune.
It simply means options other than fighting. We don't need wardec mechanics to support immunity though, alts ensure that regardless of wardec rules.

Quote:
No, it's not. It's keeping people from playing games with the corp creation system in order to be immune to wars.

If you want to be immune to wars, there's already a place for that. If you aren't in that place, you get to deal with wars.

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight. Realizing a battle may not be worthwhile should never be a notion you cannot act upon.

Quote:
Because this is a PvP game, first, last, and always. Defending yourself is not optional, or at least it shouldn't be.

And part of PvP is picking your battles whenever possible. Maneuvering to not have to defend yourself should always be an option. Not being a target is just as much PvP as shooting at a target.

Quote:
Not if how they intend for it to be defended is an exploit, no. Defending does not mean "push button, get free safety". Defending should mean actually playing the game.
If they "push button, get safety" that would indicate it was not intended to be defended would it not? Not defending seems to actually lead to more playing the game.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#78 - 2015-04-21 07:35:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.


So does the defender. Or is there some trick I'm missing where being the attacker means I can't get hit back?


Quote:
If they "push button, get safety" that would indicate it was not intended to be defended would it not?


Then they do not belong in a player corp in the first place.

"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.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2015-04-21 07:36:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Wardec's aren't the sole means of loss.


No, but since they decided to give everyone a button to turn off one of the better means of inflicting loss, wars have improved in importance in that regard.


Quote:

As for wars being intended, if all "dodging" is unintended, why is it still possible? It should be mechanically simple to restrict it, so why is it not happening?


It was officially an exploit for some time, until people like you cried so hard that CCP flip flopped on it.

I want that decision to be revisited.

Wardecs in any characterization I've seen were never as good at inflicting loss as they were at being ignored by those who suffer no real change from them or being used as an excuse to play something else for a week by those who did.

And I feel the decision was correct as it came alongside pricing that made the cost of a dec inversely proportional to the most obvious indicator of potential capacity, raw numbers. CCP emphasized the ease of attacking smaller numbers with this mechanic, without those outs it creates what I believe to be a flawed perception that the only right way to play is to join the largest entity possible.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2015-04-21 07:39:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And you get to deal with wars with the method of your choice after evaluating you capacity and will to fight.


So does the defender. Or is there some trick I'm missing where being the attacker means I can't get hit back?

You're missing where the defender has limited ability or interest, which is no less valid than the attacker's desire to hit them in the first place.