These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#81 - 2015-04-21 07:42:17 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


It's absolutely less valid, yes. Loss is supposed to happen, it is the intended state of the game, and the function by which the economy is driven.

Besides, as I mentioned, my desire is for player corps to be the optimal playstyle for personal income generation by a large margin. Even being in one would be something worth defending.

"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
#82 - 2015-04-21 07:45:10 UTC
How does one be in CODE and seldom leave the station? That's what I want to know.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2015-04-21 07:46:50 UTC
Destiny Corrupted 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? So long as wardecs are arbitrary why can't dodging be equally so? And why is the only risk an informed declarer might face, the fact that his targets might not willingly go along with their intent, too much to be dealt with?

As for the latter, you double my EHP on every ship I get in so that I'm actually twice as "safe" in reality as compared to the warped view of protection you've created and we might have a fair deal.

And why should other players be able to cancel my mining income by mining out all of the asteroids themselves, or cancel my trading income by undercutting my orders on the market? Why is one more allowable than the other?

At least the people declaring war have to pay something for it, while defense is completely and utterly free (let's not argue that the 2 million to reform a corporation is an actual cost here).

And ship EHP has already been buffed, many times. Especially on haulers and barges.

Much like a war dec defender leaves his corp, a miner can leave his system to regain his income. A trader deals with the loss of profits the same as a war dec recipient deals with the loss of any corp assets there may be. That there may be none can nullify the pains there, but if that's the case the question to be asked is why did the aggressor pay isk to gain the ability to aggress something worthless. Much like staying in a system with no ore as a miner that falls on the aggressor for failing to find a proper target.

Ship EHP being buffed for everyone doesn't create this selective protection you imagined. If I'm paying for this I want something worth it.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#84 - 2015-04-21 07:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

It's kind of like when players are getting decced out the wazoo and have to make an appeal to the player base or CCP on the mechanics of wardecs. You know, something "meta" to the game. Some people ask for changes in the mechanics then things don't go their way, others use the report button.

Same thing. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2015-04-21 07:51:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.


It's absolutely less valid, yes. Loss is supposed to happen, it is the intended state of the game, and the function by which the economy is driven.

Besides, as I mentioned, my desire is for player corps to be the optimal playstyle for personal income generation by a large margin. Even being in one would be something worth defending.

No, it's no less valid because no one is obligated to offer up their ships to create loss. Loss happens upon failure to mitigate another players attempts to take something you have. It's not a natural automatic function that happens without realized intent. And that intent should have a variety of responses. It's no less valid than tanking a ship to make it less desirable as a gank target or watching local for hostiles in null, or even using dscan in a WH.

Mechanics are set up for those who want to avoid loss to do so should they be willing to take some action towards it, and in this case the response is appropriate to the method of aggression.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2015-04-21 07:55:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, it's no less valid because no one is obligated to offer up their ships to create loss.


See, that's just a lack of understanding of the nature of EVE. Each and every player is obligated to do this. That's why non consensual PvP is a thing in the first place.


Quote:

Loss happens upon failure to mitigate another players attempts to take something you have. It's not a natural automatic function that happens without realized intent. And that intent should have a variety of responses.


You bet it is, or the NPCs wouldn't shoot back.

Quote:

Mechanics are set up for those who want to avoid loss to do so should they be willing to take some action towards it, and in this case the response is appropriate to the method of aggression.


Things like warp stabs, mining or ratting while aligned, or tanking your ship, or watching local, those are all fine.

Eliminating half the risk in highsec by playing games with the corp creation system? That is not fine.

"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
#87 - 2015-04-21 08:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, it's no less valid because no one is obligated to offer up their ships to create loss.


See, that's just a lack of understanding of the nature of EVE. Each and every player is obligated to do this. That's why non consensual PvP is a thing in the first place.


Quote:

Loss happens upon failure to mitigate another players attempts to take something you have. It's not a natural automatic function that happens without realized intent. And that intent should have a variety of responses.


You bet it is, or the NPCs wouldn't shoot back.

Quote:

Mechanics are set up for those who want to avoid loss to do so should they be willing to take some action towards it, and in this case the response is appropriate to the method of aggression.


Things like warp stabs, mining or ratting while aligned, or tanking your ship, or watching local, those are all fine.

Eliminating half the risk in highsec by playing games with the corp creation system? That is not fine.

No, no player is obligated to it, which is why observational and defensive mechanism exist. You are allowed to keep you assets to the extent of your ability to keep them from harm. The nature of eve in no way defies this. It's only a failure to understand the limits of PvP that encourages thinking otherwise.

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.

Edit: Also PvE encounters exist to be farmed at certain effort barriers. They create loss when people don't understand that, but their intend is the generation of resources and income, not loss.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#88 - 2015-04-21 08:13:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, no player is obligated to it, which is why observational and defensive mechanism exist. You are allowed to keep you assets to the extent of your ability to keep them from harm. The nature of eve in no way defies this. It's only a failure to understand the limits of PvP that encourages thinking otherwise.


I think you misunderstand.

I'm not talking about an obligation to die in every specific instance. But as a general rule, yes, everyone exists for their ship to explode, it's the major driving force in the game.


Quote:

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.


Passive... what in the hell are you talking about?

"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
#89 - 2015-04-21 08:33:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

No, no player is obligated to it, which is why observational and defensive mechanism exist. You are allowed to keep you assets to the extent of your ability to keep them from harm. The nature of eve in no way defies this. It's only a failure to understand the limits of PvP that encourages thinking otherwise.


I think you misunderstand.

I'm not talking about an obligation to die in every specific instance. But as a general rule, yes, everyone exists for their ship to explode, it's the major driving force in the game.


Quote:

Until you realize both active and passive defense are PvP can you see that the ability to interfere with the intent of others doesn't inherently create loss.


Passive... what in the hell are you talking about?

Maybe we're just dealing with the inversion of the same principle, while at any time you may find yourself outwitted and out of a ship, per the rules of the game, you may also find yourself on the winning side of your pursuit to keep your ship intact. I find neither of these possibilities to be more for or against against the nature of eve. The nature of eve is competition, and anytime you dock in the same ship you undocked in, intent to lose it notwithstanding, you "won" that round in a way. Since there are more than enough of us putting ships at risk, ours or each others, many times realizing the full extent of that risk, there is no obligation created for another individual to not do their best to mitigate their own risk. And additionally, the decision doesn't have to be all or none.

In applying to the wardec situation I feel the same. There is validity in mitigation of potential loss. That shouldn't mean corps that are purely social constructs shouldn't exist because the only valid corps are defense pacts between players. And if in a corp against overwhelming odds, playing on an alt or just not logging in should not be optimal choices.

As far as the use of the word passive, in this context I used it to mean acts that aren't directly confrontational to protect ones assets, tanking a barge, avoiding bling fitting mission ships, not overloading haulers isk wise, basically things that aren't designed to deter a specific aggression as much as to prevent aggressors from even taking notice of you.
Solecist Project
#90 - 2015-04-21 08:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
alexclone1 wrote:
Hello, i am posting with an alt.

Intro: Ive done it all: Build caps; Military Director for a Large Sov holding allaince; FC for small gang leet pvp low sec; FC for high skilled high sec mercs; mining; manufacturing.

So after my Military Director stint for over a year, i took a break from the game. Back in 2010 i was the CEO of a high sec corp. That was most fun ive ever had. We had 160 peeps in 3 months and membership was exploding.

Ive been playing eve since 2006 and back pre 2013 (i think) one had to pay a fixed fee to wardec someone which doubled every time a new entity wardec'd. This means that rarely would a corp get more than 3 war decs at once. The average war dec time was 1 week out of the month.

So i come back to do that high sec corp all over again. The problem is once my corp got to 50 guys in 2 weeks, the war decs came hot and heavy. And they werent like the old days of small corps. Now it was huge multiple war decing alliances. We didnt have a prayer. The corp was wardeced EVERY WEEK afterwards. Thus stomping us out of existance.

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?
There's usually a good reason this happens.
If you get decced constantly it's quite possible you have a badmouth in your corp.

In any case is it wrong to believe that a few can't do much against many.
LOVESQUAD would be a good example.
Even a day old noob cqn be extremely usefull in a war
and replacing his ships is cheap as well.

Most often there are also people in leadership positions they shouldn't be.

In any case would you have to be very unlucky to attract a lot of decs
without giving them any reason, because there are way too many corps to dec.

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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#91 - 2015-04-21 08:41:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Maybe we're just dealing with the inversion of the same principle, while at any time you may find yourself outwitted and out of a ship, per the rules of the game, you may also find yourself on the winning side of your pursuit to keep your ship intact. I find neither of these possibilities to be more for or against against the nature of eve.


And, so long as you're actually doing it with intended game mechanics, I have no issue with it either.

But you cannot sit there and tell me that CCP intended wars to be trivially removed by screwing around with loopholes in the corp creation mechanics. It's right there in the dev blog, the intended method to dissolve wars is the surrender function.




Quote:

In applying to the wardec situation I feel the same. There is validity in mitigation of potential loss.


If that mitigation involves actually playing the game, yes. I have no problem with people who avoid me, I spent damn near three hours a while ago hunting one guy who I just could not catch.

But flipping corps and trivializing the existence of the mechanic in the first place is not "mitigation". It's an exploit used to abrogate the need for any other forms of mitigation at all.


Quote:

That shouldn't mean corps that are purely social constructs shouldn't exist because the only valid corps are defense pacts between players.


Purely social constructs are chat channels. Nothing further need be done about that.

Quote:

As far as the use of the word passive, in this context I used it to mean acts that aren't directly confrontational to protect ones assets, tanking a barge, avoiding bling fitting mission ships, not overloading haulers isk wise, basically things that aren't designed to deter a specific aggression as much as to prevent aggressors from even taking notice of you.


Those all involve actually doing something in the game itself. Those involve making decisions and weighing choices. Dec dodging does not, it just gives you free safety, no fuss, no muss, fire and forget.

"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
#92 - 2015-04-21 08:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Maybe we're just dealing with the inversion of the same principle, while at any time you may find yourself outwitted and out of a ship, per the rules of the game, you may also find yourself on the winning side of your pursuit to keep your ship intact. I find neither of these possibilities to be more for or against against the nature of eve.


And, so long as you're actually doing it with intended game mechanics, I have no issue with it either.

But you cannot sit there and tell me that CCP intended wars to be trivially removed by screwing around with loopholes in the corp creation mechanics. It's right there in the dev blog, the intended method to dissolve wars is the surrender function.




Quote:

In applying to the wardec situation I feel the same. There is validity in mitigation of potential loss.


If that mitigation involves actually playing the game, yes. I have no problem with people who avoid me, I spent damn near three hours a while ago hunting one guy who I just could not catch.

But flipping corps and trivializing the existence of the mechanic in the first place is not "mitigation". It's an exploit used to abrogate the need for any other forms of mitigation at all.


Quote:

That shouldn't mean corps that are purely social constructs shouldn't exist because the only valid corps are defense pacts between players.


Purely social constructs are chat channels. Nothing further need be done about that.

Quote:

As far as the use of the word passive, in this context I used it to mean acts that aren't directly confrontational to protect ones assets, tanking a barge, avoiding bling fitting mission ships, not overloading haulers isk wise, basically things that aren't designed to deter a specific aggression as much as to prevent aggressors from even taking notice of you.


Those all involve actually doing something in the game itself. Those involve making decisions and weighing choices. Dec dodging does not, it just gives you free safety, no fuss, no muss, fire and forget.

I'd say CCP believes corps to be social constructs among other things, judging by their desire to make corps easier to find and mechanically less risky as well as the focus on them for social interaction and player longevity from it. If chat channels alone were a solution there would be no need to get the new players into corps.

It seems to me that CCP feels a corp is a social structure beyond a chat channel, but that's based upon interpretation of actions and could be wrong. I'm extremely unconvinced that the simple act of having a logo and a game recognized grouping is nearly as significant from a gameplay perspective as you seem to think, nor do I believe it should be.

Personally I think a wardec should be as trivial to exit as it is to enter. If 50mill (+ costs for members) to concord starts one it should end one just as easily. Since we don't have that the next best thing is dec dodging, which is better since it lacks the harassment potential for dec'ing repeatedly for isk attrition.

Last response from for for now, sleep time.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#93 - 2015-04-21 09:04:21 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Personally I think a wardec should be as trivial to exit as it is to enter. If 50mill (+ costs for members) to concord starts one it should end one just as easily. Since we don't have that the next best thing is dec dodging, which is better since it lacks the harassment potential for dec'ing repeatedly for isk attrition.

Then the fee should be refunded.

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

Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2015-04-21 09:17:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Personally I think a wardec should be as trivial to exit as it is to enter. If 50mill (+ costs for members) to concord starts one it should end one just as easily. Since we don't have that the next best thing is dec dodging, which is better since it lacks the harassment potential for dec'ing repeatedly for isk attrition.

There are ways out of wardecs that don't involve dec dodging. Whether that is to surrender, fight or hire someone to fight for you Corps do have options. Adding more options to the mechanic that doesn't just provide a near free way to avoid conflict is also something I hope CCP eventually add.

On the other hand, not every wardec fits into the 'frivilous' category that is often complained about and we have no figures to know what percentage of wars are for a genuine greivance, to gain a competitive advantage, etc. v declaring because the mechanic exists.

In situations where someone is genuinely trying to 'avenge' a greivance, or if they are trying to get rid of the competition, gain some market advantage, etc.; the dec dodging mechanism robs them of that opportunity to genuinely bring conflict against someone they have a reason to.

In that respect, the mechanic is totally to the advantage of the dec dodger and to the disadvantage of the other person/Corp. Mercs make a living off settling someone's greivance for them and the dec dodging mechanism also affects them.

So looking at it from the perspective that the war has a genuine reason to exist, the dec dodging approach is a bit too easy.
Dana Goodeye
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#95 - 2015-04-21 09:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dana Goodeye
this is just my opinion, so it might be wrong, but in my opinion, my opinion is true *.* sooo... everybody has the right to be foolish, or be an @ss... even me =P stop telling eachother how they should play the game -.- i hate the cloaky explorer hunters, the smartbombers, the instalock gatecamps, the hisec miner gankers... i mocking them in local when i can, sometimes i try to convince them to have real pvp, because its more fun, but at least i have ppl in eve to hate =D thats a good thing, doesnt it? =) and about hisec wars... handle them as you can. if youre a coward, make a new corp. if youre not a coward, but cant handle pvp, learn about dscan, and head to losec. if you can handle small scale pvp, bait your opponent with a small pvp procurer fleet with some vni and/or griffin support near by, or with a high tank pvp fitted misson runner lets say mirmy with some support near by. learn about station games, bait them with ... well even with a pvp fitted ibis, and wreck them =D we sucessfully baited the marmites some times, and they are pro at hisec station games. and the guys, who are whining about the ppl whos dont fight back... shut up, and roam in losec, morons =P well... on my ze ond tought... mkight be this wardec dodge thing is a bad one. its like when a soldier changes his uniform, and youre not allowed to shoot the same person, its silly, but as far as i know, this thing can be done for a long time. the thing, ccp still didnt changed it might be shows, they just dont want to.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2015-04-21 09:47:11 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Personally I think a wardec should be as trivial to exit as it is to enter. If 50mill (+ costs for members) to concord starts one it should end one just as easily. Since we don't have that the next best thing is dec dodging, which is better since it lacks the harassment potential for dec'ing repeatedly for isk attrition.

There are ways out of wardecs that don't involve dec dodging. Whether that is to surrender, fight or hire someone to fight for you Corps do have options. Adding more options to the mechanic that doesn't just provide a near free way to avoid conflict is also something I hope CCP eventually add.

On the other hand, not every wardec fits into the 'frivilous' category that is often complained about and we have no figures to know what percentage of wars are for a genuine greivance, to gain a competitive advantage, etc. v declaring because the mechanic exists.

In situations where someone is genuinely trying to 'avenge' a greivance, or if they are trying to get rid of the competition, gain some market advantage, etc.; the dec dodging mechanism robs them of that opportunity to genuinely bring conflict against someone they have a reason to.

In that respect, the mechanic is totally to the advantage of the dec dodger and to the disadvantage of the other person/Corp. Mercs make a living off settling someone's greivance for them and the dec dodging mechanism also affects them.

So looking at it from the perspective that the war has a genuine reason to exist, the dec dodging approach is a bit too easy.

Last post tonight for real this time.

Fighting and ransom payment both have the singular effect of marking you as a target for future exploitation, exception being that you are better than your aggressors at the latter. If not and they want easy targets you are only playing into their hands. This, and hiring mercs never seemed like good ideas to me because 1) They both successfully inflict some loss and 2) neither get you back what you actually want as a reluctant wardec recipient, the ability to go back to what you were doing now as you were before the dec. With most I'd imagine this is the goal, and not a single thing you can do other than dodge or pay ransom makes that goal a reality, one being clearly more advantageous than the other.

That does make legitimate grievances difficult to redress, but wardecs never existed with the singular point of such redress in mind. So long as a singular mechanism exists as much for "legitimate" reasons as it does for no reason at all it will find some contention in balance point and leave someone left out.

Not every dec is frivolous, but treating it as if non are empowers the frivolous ones, and treating them as if none are, which admittedly seems to be where we stand, makes legitimate ones effectively non-existent. Personally I think other methods work better for all but the terminally unaware, of which there may be many, in redressing grievances since wardecs give 24 hours warning and finite windows of vigilance. I've only lost a couple of ships outside of a wardec in highsec and none during wardecs with characters in player corps and I stayed the duration of the dec.
Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2015-04-21 10:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Fighting and ransom payment both have the singular effect of marking you as a target for future exploitation, exception being that you are better than your aggressors at the latter.

Everything I've ever read from wardeccers on the forum suggests the opposite.

In relation to fighting, if they are looking for easy targets and you present a significant threat, that seems like a good reason to avoid you in future. That takes a bit of research once a war is declared so you can check their history and try to determine their objectives.

If they have a specific reason to declare war, then avoiding them is only satisfying their objectives anyway.

So it seems, the fight option is potentially a win-win for both (for genuine wars) and at best could be a win for you if they are just looking for easy targets.

As for surrender terms, every comment I've seen from wardeccers on the forum suggests that if you surrender, you won't be wardecced again. I have no experience in that personally, but have no reason not to believe that.
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2015-04-21 10:03:39 UTC
Like 4 years ago decdodging was considered an exploit and if you did it repeatedly you could be temp/permabanned.

There is no ifs ands or buts about it. It was 100% an exploit ccp said.

Then many people cried and complained for years and eventually it got to be removed from the "known exploits" page.

Nothing about it changed, no other mechanics introduced to balance it, just was exploit for years, got many many complaints, then miracle! No longer enforced.

Its still the same mechanic as when it was enforced as an exploit
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#99 - 2015-04-21 10:04:50 UTC
I have declared quite a few highsec wars in the last few weeks, solely to attack offline POSs. Highsec wars do have value, primarily to provide risk for otherwise invulnerable highsec indy operations.

Highsec should not be risk free. An indy POS would be entirely safe if not for wardecs. Equals bad.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2015-04-21 10:13:26 UTC
Also most of the people that cried for decdodging exploit to stop be enforced turned around and screamed exploit when james 315 used it to shed the carebear wars when he started bumping. Lol

Good for the goose?? Actually the mechanic was and still is exact same. ... exploitable