These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

First post
Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#21 - 2015-10-31 01:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
@ Pedro

1) This is something that is open to discussion. We can do anything with it from vulnerability timers, to entosis contests or damage mitigation. Whichever way its done, there will be several phases of 'breaks' and timers in between assaults that will allow the owners to organise themselves.

Personally i dont want vulnerability timers. I dont think they are necessary when the bash could instead be a 2, 3 or 4 step process with timers between each step. But if vulnerability timers are preferred and make this idea better then we can do that.

2) Corp hopping is a separate issue. I'd personally solve it with corp hop-cool downs and the proposal that a corp less than 7 days old cannot anchor a structure of this type. Plus making corps more expensive to make.

3) There is no absolute safety in this mechanic. It is everything we have now, plus the option of ending a dec early by un-docking and exposing yourself to the very people who want to kill you. And not only that but it encourages the aggressors themselves to come out and fight rather than play station games. It does not prevent conflict, it will accelerate conflict and destruction compared to what we have now.

Black Pedro wrote:
Wars are here to stay. They are needed to remove structures in highsec. For citadels this apparently will now take more than 7 days forcing someone who just wants to clear a citadel out of their system to have to renew the war at least once. CCP is not going to make it so that if you manage to shoot my WHQ while I am sleeping at some point during those 8-14 days, your structure is 100% safe.


In my proposal the WHQ owners will have a matter of days to respond and timers to tell them when to respond.

Ive been part of war decs that have taken more than 7 days to destroy a POS. If you're that serious about removing a structure, you'll extend the dec. If your not, you wont. Meaningful choices need to be made.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#22 - 2015-10-31 02:05:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


This especially. With the way citadels are turning out, any way to pre-emptively end the war stands to make it impossible to actually destroy structures in highsec. Which is so unacceptable that it's hard to put in words.


Im not as skeptical. Large structures should attract the attention of large aggressors and will need powerful groups to maintain and defend.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#23 - 2015-10-31 03:01:02 UTC
1. CCP have said Citadels will be destroyable in a few days. you might have to wait for the initial timer for them to be Vulnerable, but they will not then go into a week long reinforce according to the information we have. They were addressing WH concerns at the time but it seems applicable to all areas of space.

2. Citadels take over 24 hours to remove, so can not dec dodge. So no changes to war decs are needed at all till we see how this plays out. It may be that War decs actually become too powerful and no-one but the most powerful groups will be able to anchor a citadel or any other structure in highsec at all, (at which point CCP will likely revise their systems if it's getting obviously dominated by a few established groups).

So TLDR version. Lets let the new structures come in, see what happens, then actually start talking about changes again.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2015-10-31 07:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Daichi Yamato wrote:


In my proposal the WHQ owners will have a matter of days to respond and timers to tell them when to respond.

Ive been part of war decs that have taken more than 7 days to destroy a POS. If you're that serious about removing a structure, you'll extend the dec. If your not, you wont. Meaningful choices need to be made.
At Eve Vegas it was announced that citadels will have a 24h reinforce timer and then a further 6 day reinforce timer. That means it is now mandatory to extend a wardec to remove a structure, even an undefended one. Your proposal would also mean that during those 7 days I also have to continuously guard a button, and if I can't log in for whatever reason to protect it when it comes out of reinforce, say because it is in the middle of the week and I am at work or sleeping, then the defenders can invalidate the war without my consent and their structures are 100% safe.

This makes wars useless for people who only play only on weekends, and makes defended structures even more difficult to remove by giving large operations an ability to "opt-out" of the war and secure their structures by swarming a button. I see little-to no-chance of CCP ever implementing this, not as Citadels are currently planned.

I get where you are coming from, and perhaps such a proposal makes sense in a game where there are no player-owned structures in order to give players things to fight over. But we have those reasons now - they are the structures - and many more than just the citadels are planned to be released. I am sure that CCP like the rest of us is hoping like the rest of us that an ecosystem of player-owned, and destructible structures is going to fix some of the perceived problems with wars and is waiting to see what happens before looking at iterating on wars again.

But again, wars are needed to attack structures. There is no point in having another layer of protection for defenders on top of the significant advantages that are being built into the new structures. We are suppose to fight over the structures, not play some contrived mini-game to even earn the right to try to fight over a citadel.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#25 - 2015-10-31 14:02:03 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


Your proposal would also mean that during those 7 days I also have to continuously guard a button, and if I can't log in for whatever reason to protect it when it comes out of reinforce, say because it is in the middle of the week and I am at work or sleeping, then the defenders can invalidate the war without my consent and their structures are 100% safe.


Im not worried about this. POS owners have been anchoring structures in hi-sec for years with the risk that people can attack their stuff in the middle of the week. Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors.

People have still been putting up POSs and people will still make wardecs to take down citadels.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-10-31 14:28:32 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors.

This is the biggest reason I support this kind of idea, it gives the defender a way to strike back.

As things are currently the attacker usually risks very little, usually only the ships they are flying during the war, when declaring war and the defender risks much more, often times POS towers, anchored structures, and POCOs along with any ships they happen to be using during the war.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2015-10-31 15:10:35 UTC
I've subscribed to this thread as I'm interested to see how the discussion progresses from here. Even after hearing points raised by both sides, I have to say it'd be interesting to see how this system would play out if given the chance. I don't think the outlook would be as grim as some suggested, and things can always be tweaked later.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#28 - 2015-10-31 15:37:56 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:


Your proposal would also mean that during those 7 days I also have to continuously guard a button, and if I can't log in for whatever reason to protect it when it comes out of reinforce, say because it is in the middle of the week and I am at work or sleeping, then the defenders can invalidate the war without my consent and their structures are 100% safe.


Im not worried about this. POS owners have been anchoring structures in hi-sec for years with the risk that people can attack their stuff in the middle of the week. Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors.

People have still been putting up POSs and people will still make wardecs to take down citadels.

The problem isn't that the attacker has something at risk - I actually support that. The problem is that the defender's structures are now immune to attack by any attacker who cannot babysit a WHQ for 7 days.

CCP isn't going to release something like that. That isn't engaging game play: declare war to remove your bitter rival's citadel only to log in the next weekend to find that they and their structures are now immune to you because you were not able to to show up to that 4am reinforce timer. It stifles conflict and provides too much safety. Disputes over structures should be settled by a fight on-grid with that structure, not prevented from happening because someone couldn't defend a WHQ.

I can tell you that I would not declare war with my small corp under that situation. Even if I did, I am not capable of being online to defend a structure for 7 days straight making it likely that my opponent would be immune to us by the time the final reinforcement phase of a citadel rolled around. Instead, I would be forced to join one of the large wardec alliances (or hire them) who are capable of defending their WHQ 23.5/7.

This will not hinder the large wardec alliances - it will make them stronger by forcing the smaller entities to consolidate with them and further magnify the discrepancy in the capability of the two sides of a wardec. Sure, once in a blue moon a nullsec entity will come by and smash their WHQ disrupting their operations for a week, but the rest of the time it will just be business as usual for them which will be booming as the smaller guys will all have been put out of business.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#29 - 2015-10-31 15:41:42 UTC
I am not going to bother to quote those who want can read the topic.

Daichi Yamato, while I agree that size always will play a role you simply cannot dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion that centers around ways to get more players out into space and fighting instead of hiding.

Moving on to more general.

War decs in this game have always fascinated me.
On the aggressors side we have a group of players that for all practical purposes are UFC fighters, trained for and hardened by battle.
On the defenders side we have players that are essentially the EvE equivalent of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Along comes the UFC crowd and throws Bill and his buddies into the ring and then when they slide out under the ropes and hide somewhere all we hear is complaints about how unfair it is and the never ending string of bad ideas on how to force them into the fight or grossly and unfairly limit their gaming experience.

In real life I wonder how many of you would try to stay in the ring for 10 rounds with Rhonda Rousy, and how many of you would be crawling out under the ropes and looking for a place to hide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey

That's different and you are just being stupid you may say, and I disagree this is exactly the situation that many players in the game face when they are war decced. They are placed into a ring with an adversary they have no chance of defeating and then you wonder why they will not fight?

If you want fights then dec those who want to fight. If you want those you dec to fight then you have to change the system so they have a realistic chance of success. Hire mercs to fight for you and my response is go dec the mercs yourself, fight them and leave the rest of us out of it.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2015-10-31 16:15:50 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
If you want fights then dec those who want to fight


The debate/argument will get there anyway, so I'll try to preemptively posit a few of the common points that go back and forth, to save us all the time and trouble later.

A: EVE is, at it's core, a PvP game. Anytime, anywhere. Consensual or not, PvP is coming for you, and it's what makes this game great.

B: People who don't want to PvP won't. Wardec 'em, gank 'em, whatever. They'll dodge wars, stay in NPC corps, or just dock for a week and play another game. They can have any reason to not want to PVP, and all of them perfectly valid. Whether it be for lack of funds to lose ships, lack of understanding of the game mechanics leading to frustration instead of learning, a genuine disinterest, or a keen knowledge of the problems having a red killboard may have in future corp applications.

A: Well people should be forced to PVP. It's the #1 attribute of player retention for the game, whether they want to admit it or not. People who PvP stay, people who level up Ravens don't. This game's strongest suite is PvP, and the quicker people are introduced to the best part of the game, the better the chances of retention, and better they don't develop unrealistic expectations of safety in EvE. Kick 'em out of newb corps after two weeks and tax them at 95%, let them wander blindly through the game alone and scared, it worked for me so it will work for them!

B: In the end this is still a game. While all points above might be completely true and valid, there are still those that won't fight and you can't make them. You can't make people do something they don't want to do. They'll simply take their subscription and walk. And while telling people to GTFO makes for good taglines, it's no secret that no company wants paying customers to walk away, and that a diminished player count in subtle ways hurts all players. You don't need to cater to anyone, but you shouldn't be trying to savagely punish people either.

A: They need a good shove because the community isn't doing them any favors. They community tells them that lowsec is certain death, that goons are evil, mining is a good way to make money, and that they should be able to plex their account every month if they're good at EvE and that's what they should strive for. So if the community won't be helpful, the game mechanics should substitute. Get them into some sort of battle - heck, have them start off in FW! Retention will go through the roof. But they can't stay safe in NPC corps their entire life. It goes against the principles of EvE.

And round and round it goes. By the way, *disclaimer*, neither side is my opinion as I'm open to hearing anything that'll drive up subscriptions. But that's what I hear most often.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#31 - 2015-10-31 20:43:21 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:

Im not worried about this. POS owners have been anchoring structures in hi-sec for years with the risk that people can attack their stuff in the middle of the week. Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors.


That's not a problem. Advantage should belong to whomever takes the initiative. Adopting mechanics that pre-emptively punish people for just daring to be the attacker is why highsec is such a mess to begin with. Worse still, ones that setup a barrier.

If the corp I'm attacking doesn't have a citadel, why on earth should I need one? Why should asymetric warfare, like with small wardec corps and one man shows, stop existing? (because that's what this would do, put the mechanic out of reach of smaller groups where the most interesting gameplay is to be found right now)

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-10-31 20:47:03 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
snip


It almost seems like your comment speaks for the merit of aggressors and the wines of defenders.
I know you said you're non-biased in this manner, but I'm just stating what it appears to be.

Having said that, it's very obvious to everyone that wardecs are HEAVILY in favor of the aggressor.
There are those that disagree with me, but they have a biased towards leaving wardecs how they are.

But look at the evidence.
Small entities are less protected from wardecs than large entities, as it is cheaper to wardec them.
Why do we protect the large entities that should be capable of defending themselves better?
This is proven by simply looking at the wardecs hosted by Marmite, Public Enemy, Pirate, what whatever entities.
The vast majority of their wardecs are targeted on small entities and/or entities with a high number of carebears and/or newbros.

The evidence goes even further to show that it heavily favors the aggressor by simply looking at the large entities in Eve, and how they're wardecced by small entities. It is very hard for a large entity to defend themselves against small entities, mostly consisting of War alts. The aggressor pays for everything with a toon in the safety of a NPC corp, uses neut scouts, and catches targets of opportunity.
This same strategy is also used by large entities like Public Enemy against small entities.

In both cases, the engagements are determined by the aggressor.
The only way to catch an aggressor is to use a VERY well planned trap.
We're talking, bait barge with log on trap. However, even this is not likely to catch them, as they most likely have a scout that is aware of all the activity your entity has been performing in order to set up.

That being said, even if you do manage to catch them, they're either going to counter you with a large fleet (as they likely outnumbered you to begin with) or the damage that you are going to cause will be insignificant.
At best you might catch a pirate cruiser, T2 cruiser, or T3 cruiser.
That might sound like a good hit, but most of the time, defending yourself only helps to cause the wardec to last longer, so they can catch more targets of opportunity to make up for their loss.

The most used and effective strategy of aggressors is to not log in until they have a prime target.
The most used and effective strategy of defenders is to not log in until the wardec is over.

It's a pretty bad game design when the best way to play is to not play at all.


The advantage of the structure system is that it suggests logging in to attack or defend the structure, as opposed to just not logging in.
However, not logging in will always be a possibility to defend yourself, for very small entities that wouldn't be able to attack the structure, but they would still have the opportunity to pull in an ally that is capable of attacking the structure.


Here's a couple of stipulations I think should be on the structure.


  • Structure is bought from CONCORD. It's an isk sync and is a bit costly.
  • Structure must be placed in the defender's home system. Being the aggressor means you're taking to war to the target, and the defender should NOT be forced to come to them.
  • The structure requires fuel. The fuel is essentially the cost of the wardec, and only carries enough fuel for one week.
  • The structure can only be fueled or attacked AFTER is has been hit with entosis, and both entities are well informed that an entosis has been activated on the structure. This means the defender can attack if the attacker uses entosis to refuel, or the attacker can refuel if the defender uses entosis. refueling takes time as well, much like refueling a jet, as attacking the structure also takes time, it's only fair.
  • Entosis makes the structure vulnerable and/or refuelable for 24 hrs. (suggestion, not a requirement)
  • Structure is invulnerable while anchoring, as it will be the 24hr alert to the defender.
  • To the advantage of the aggressor, the structure can be recovered and re-used on another dec, if it isn't destroyed. This gives incentive to the aggressor to defend the structure for 1) to keep the war going and 2) to be able to re-use the same structure on another dec.
  • To the advantage of the defender, destroying the structure will go to the advantage of the defender by instantly ending the war (apart from the 15min aggression timer) and will force the aggressor to incur the cost of another structure in order to start another war.
  • The wardec system will still have a surrender function.
  • The structure DOES NOT have self defense. It must be defended by active pilots, in ships.
  • The structure CANNOT be repaired while it is anchored. It must be repaired through station services.
  • There are no invulnerability timers. It's invulnerable by default and entosis is what makes it vulnerable. If you're willing to start a wardec, you better to be willing to defend the structure 23/7. War doesn't end simply because you're asleep.


The listed points help to make wardecs more balanced for defenders, while also giving aggressors some unique opportunities, but in both cases, logging in and becoming involved in PVP will be suggested as the best option.

So, instead of not playing, the wardec system will favor activity and give both sides a purpose and/or goal.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-10-31 20:50:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:

Im not worried about this. POS owners have been anchoring structures in hi-sec for years with the risk that people can attack their stuff in the middle of the week. Meanwhile the POS owner has had little way to strike back at their aggressors.


That's not a problem. Advantage should belong to whomever takes the initiative. Adopting mechanics that pre-emptively punish people for just daring to be the attacker is why highsec is such a mess to begin with. Worse still, ones that setup a barrier.

If the corp I'm attacking doesn't have a citadel, why on earth should I need one? Why should asymetric warfare, like with small wardec corps and one man shows, stop existing? (because that's what this would do, put the mechanic out of reach of smaller groups where the most interesting gameplay is to be found right now)



If you establish that SOV is essentially your flag, and a sign stating that you're capable of a higher level of warfare, then perhaps the aggressor would then be allowed to place the structure within their home system (based on my above listed points.)
This gives a small entity an advantage over a large, SOV holding entity, but still easily crushed, if the SOV entity is willing to put forth the effort to do so.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#34 - 2015-10-31 20:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Joe Risalo wrote:

Small entities are less protected from wardecs than large entities, as it is cheaper to wardec them.


Disingenuous as usual.

Small corps are far, far safer. That's why wardecs cost more against larger groups, because you have a better chance of catching then off balance if there are more people.


Quote:

The evidence goes even further to show that it heavily favors the aggressor by simply looking at the large entities in Eve, and how they're wardecced by small entities.


The "evidence", as it were, shows that the aggressor is so much the weaker party in these instances that people are forced to conglomerate.

Before the cost nerfs, there were far, far more smaller groups roaming around highsec than there are right now.

Quote:

It is very hard for a large entity to defend themselves against small entities, mostly consisting of War alts.


And here you contradict your basic claim, because you don't actually have any real point, you just want an already weak mechanic nerfed even harder.


Quote:

In both cases, the engagements are determined by the aggressor.


Good. The initiative should belong to whom took it. If you don't like being prey, make the choice to stop being prey.


Quote:

That might sound like a good hit, but most of the time, defending yourself only helps to cause the wardec to last longer, so they can catch more targets of opportunity to make up for their loss.


Yeah, it's almost like PvP players are allowed to have some small amount of agency in their decisions, huh? Better nerf that til they don't have the ability to make choices you don't like, right?

God you people are despicable. With the list you posted lower down, you might as just delete wars entirely. Clearly, you want them not only to be impossibly expensive, meaning restricted only to the largest and riches corps, but also so easily dropped by the defender that they are 100% toothless. Why don't you just start putting a billion isk tax on anyone who does PvP while you at it? That's basically what you're asking for anyway.

Hell above, you want a ten minute Entosis cycle to drop the dec. So if I don't want to babysit a goddamned structure for literally 24 hours a day, I can't declare a war? Seriously, to hell with you and your crippling nerfs. Go play a game that doesn't have PvP, since that's pretty obviously what you want to happen to EVE.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-10-31 21:50:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Biased rant.


Ok... So it's better to leave the wardec system as is, thus allowing large entities to have risk free wars in order to catch easy prey at their convenience...

Your comment also goes on to say that they prey should always be the prey and have no opportunity of turning the war in their favor.
This is the problem with wardec entities. They claim the wardec is heavily in favor of the defender, yet the fact that many of the wardec entities have several wars going on at once, which would suggest that it's obviously in their favor, otherwise they wouldn't have so many at once.

I would suggest you provide an option for balancing wardecs, but that will likely turn into - wardecs are free, cannot be stopped by the defender by any means, NPC corps can be wardecced, and doing anything inside HS makes you a war target, unless those activities are PVP, but only PVP in the benefit of your entity.


Wardec entities keep using the "high sec shouldn't be safe" excuse, yet you are using HS safety, gates, and stations as your own personal safety, instead of going out into low/null and trying to fight against targets you know pose a threat.

You can consider yourself a leet PVPer all day long, while you're popping ventures, but I consider it little more than PVE.

I've personally used a solo Caracal to pop an Orca, Mackinaw, and a POD during a wardec. The ONLY risks that were presented to me were from drones, because the only tank I had was an invuln and the targets STILL weren't able to fight me off..and this was before cruiser rebalance.

So don't come at me trying to pretend that life as a wardeccer is risky or even challenging.
I've seen MANY wardecs come and go, and the only time it has ever gone in favor of the defender is when they have a large amount of isk to hire an ally or have powerful friends. In the vast majority of those cases, the deccer dropped the wardec as soon as they saw a credible threat.
Any time a credible threat is presented to the aggressor, they don't have to commit to their own war.
Imagine if the allies just said "Naa, F#ck it... We're going home!" as soon as the Nazis posed a credible threat..

What currently happens with wardecs is like CONCORD vs a criminal. It's laughably unbalanced, but at least CONCORD has a purpose.
This is a video game. Both entities involved should have the opportunities presented to them, that give them a chance to win.

Everything else in Eve gives users a chance to win. Wardecs are the only system in which only the aggressor can win.
On top of that, the only effort they have to put into winning is paying the wardec fee.
Even if they never engage the defender, they have still shut down or slowed their activities enough to say they won.
There is nothing the defender can do to counter this. Even if they're still undocking and mining/missioning or whatever else, there are still actions taken that have slowed their growth.
They can form a massive fleet and take the fight to the aggressor. To which the aggressor can respond by simply not undocking and going to play on their alts. They don't have to fight, so why should they?
However, they can still keep the wardec going by paying a minuscule amount of isk, weekly, for an undetermined amount of time, and the only way for the defender to end this is to pay surrender conditions, drop corp, OR wait until the aggressor gets bored and ends the dec because they can't catch any targets of opportunity, which is NOT a win for the defender.

Stop pretending that wardecs are challenging, and state the truth. You use it cause it's easy and think popping defenseless ships is fun and/or makes you a badass.

Opportunities need to be presented that give both entities an opportunity to win.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#36 - 2015-11-01 01:02:44 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Ok... So it's better to leave the wardec system as is, thus allowing large entities to have risk free wars in order to catch easy prey at their convenience...


It's better to not nerf an already weak mechanic. Especially nerfing it as hard as you want, where it can't serve the basic purpose.

And as far as "easy prey", people are only as easy to kill as they allow themselves to be.


Quote:

Your comment also goes on to say that they prey should always be the prey and have no opportunity of turning the war in their favor.


Sure they can. but they should never be allowed to do so with a mere ten minute entosis cycle.

If they want to turn the tables, then they should man up and fight. If they can't be asked to do that, then yes, they should remain prey, because that's the mindset they've stuck themselves in. They did it to themselves.




Quote:

I would suggest you provide an option for balancing wardecs


I did. My position on the matter is well known, and far less of a bigoted one sided nerf than yours. Unlike you, I actually propose incentives for PvE groups beyond just being a bunch of cringing cowards who can't manage to be at their keyboards.

Unlike you, I don't want to lower the bar in highsec to lower than that of a Facebook game.



Quote:

Wardec entities keep using the "high sec shouldn't be safe" excuse, yet you are using HS safety, gates, and stations as your own personal safety, instead of going out into low/null and trying to fight against targets you know pose a threat.


Yeah, because we live in highsec. Turns out, living in highsec lets you use stations and gates.

Highsec should not be safe, not for you, not for me, not for anyone. But for me, i'm only as safe as you rejects let me be. Since you keep demanding that you should never have to fight back, it's no wonder that you never actually do.

Your failures to play the game correctly don't reflect on the mechanic. It just reflects on your ****** attitudes, and the fact that none of you actually belong here in the first place.

Quote:

So don't come at me trying to pretend that life as a wardeccer is risky or even challenging.



Says the guy defending miners and afk missioners, the least effort in the entire game. Roll

Like any PvP encounter, my risk is dictated entirely by the other player. If they can't deliver, then that's their fault.

"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.
#37 - 2015-11-01 01:03:36 UTC
Quote:

This is a video game. Both entities involved should have the opportunities presented to them, that give them a chance to win.


The defender already has access to each and every mechanic that the attacker does. Plus the incredibly unbalanced ally mechanic in their favor. If they can't figure it out for that, it's their fault.

The defender has every advantage but initiative.


Quote:

Wardecs are the only system in which only the aggressor can win.


A complete, and utter lie.

"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.
#38 - 2015-11-01 01:08:48 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Even if they never engage the defender, they have still shut down or slowed their activities enough to say they won.


I had to make another post just for the sheer stupidity of this statement.

If the defender never once sees the wardec corp, that should somehow reflect against the mechanic? What in the everloving name of Christ are you talking about?

Because the defender is too chickenshit to bother undocking or going about their business when there is LITERALLY NO DANGER, wars are broken?

No, it's you lamewads and your lamewad attitudes that are broken. Fix yourselves. Play the game halfway correctly before trying to tell me that it's broken.

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2015-11-01 01:48:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Even if they never engage the defender, they have still shut down or slowed their activities enough to say they won.


I had to make another post just for the sheer stupidity of this statement.

If the defender never once sees the wardec corp, that should somehow reflect against the mechanic? What in the everloving name of Christ are you talking about?

Because the defender is too chickenshit to bother undocking or going about their business when there is LITERALLY NO DANGER, wars are broken?

No, it's you lamewads and your lamewad attitudes that are broken. Fix yourselves. Play the game halfway correctly before trying to tell me that it's broken.


So it's the defender who is the chickenshit?

My bad, I was under the impression it was the aggressor, seeing as how they picked their target specifically because they knew it was easy kills instead of going on high risk roams in null or even low sec. I totally thought it was chicken **** on my last war dec, when my corp and I formed a fleet only to find the deccer would not undock and fight back, yet the war lasted another 3 weeks and they continued to not face us, but instead pick off newbros in ventures. Hell, they wouldn't even engage if there was even the slightest possibility of a trap.

So, it's my bad for not wanting to indulge there KM padding by putting myself at risk to do what I enjoy, but they're ok to dodge all situations that are not heavily in their favor.
They take every action to avoid loss, including not undocking when there's a threat, but somehow my unwillingness to fight back because I'm aware that it won't be met with any positive outcome because they won't fight it that is a possibility makes me the chickenshit.

Double standards much?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#40 - 2015-11-01 02:09:29 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

So it's the defender who is the chickenshit?


In the circumstance I was talking about, yes. But I'm sure you'll just go off on some tangent.


Quote:

My bad, I was under the impression it was the aggressor, seeing as how they picked their target specifically because they knew it was easy kills instead of going on high risk roams in null or even low sec.


And I was right. Furthermore, I love the contradictory dichotomy between this and the "you shouldn't be able to wardec 100 corps!" whine.

If they have a thousand war targets in a 150 man corp, then yes, they are not the chickenshits. Mind you that's just an example, the actual ratio is even more unbalanced in favor the defender in most cases. Marmite routinely has twenty times as many war targets as their own numbers.


Quote:

Double standards much?


Nope. You either can't or won't bother reading what I'm actually saying, so you're just punching a strawman like you always do.

"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.