These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wardec idea iteration on another idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#221 - 2016-01-15 22:40:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Yeah, because structure fights totally aren't about dicking around with timers until the other guy has to sleep eventually.

Roll

Do you even play this game?


That's what vulnerability timers are for.
Besides, be bashing a structure while you're asleep is no different than you bashing lone targets while the rest of my corp is offline.



Quote:

If you're going to claim that there were no losses suffered, then you cannot claim they were effected. That's too much hypocrisy for even you.


Again, intentionally taking my comments out of context to fit your agenda.
They were effected because even without losses, their interaction with preferred activities were still slowed if not halted.
If they attempt to deny you kills, than they're spending less time undocked doing what they want to do, or are spending their time trying to kill their aggressors, to which they receive no response unless the response is pure overpowering force.


Quote:

You lie. You have stated repeatedly that your only goal is to nerf aggression.


Never once have I made that claim.
You're either projecting, or getting me confused with someone else.
The only time i've mentioned nerf is in consent that such a suggestion would potentially nerf one man and small entities, as they wouldn't be able to risk freely deck large entities.


Quote:


... are you serious with this? "Waah, I didn't "win" like I wanted to, and I NEVER GOT OVER IT." You have got to be kidding me.


You are literally here complaining about a change that you consider unfair because it would allow you to lose and how you're some special little snow flake that has rights that are more important than those of your target.
You can B*tch that I'm crying about not being able to win, but you're literally crying that you don't want to lose.

Quote:
The current mechanic is simple and fair. It's pure player freedom, and that's why you hate it so much.

No, I hate that it ignores one player's freedom in order to delegate it to another player.
You're using a mechanic which allows you to use your player freedom, and that freedom trumps the freedom on your intended target.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#222 - 2016-01-15 22:59:06 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

That's what vulnerability timers are for.


This is the part where I ask if you actually play this game.


Quote:

Again, intentionally taking my comments out of context to fit your agenda.


It's perfectly in context.

You claim that the majority of wars lead to no casualties.

Then you do a 180 and claim that those should count against the aggressor anyway, despite literally nothing actually happening.

You are a colossal hypocrite, who will lie his ass off to get that one more nerf against the real players. You can contradict yourself twice over in the same paragraph and not even notice at this point, you flip flop like an IHOP chef.

Quote:

Never once have I made that claim.


Again, you lie. It was no less than three of your deleted ranting posts from the previous thread.

The only reason you are here is to nerf wars because you think they aren't "fair" to the people playing the game wrong.


Quote:

You are literally here complaining about a change that you consider unfair because it would allow you to lose


As you always do with literally everything, you lie.

I am against this because it savagely curtails player freedom, cripples smaller and solo groups, and does so all to serve a bastardized sense of e-honor you are using as a smokescreen to justify one more nerf.


Quote:

No, I hate that it ignores one player's freedom in order to delegate it to another player.


And yet another entry from of your endless parade of lies.

It does nothing of the sort. The defender loses nothing unless he fails to defend himself. They have every single option the aggressor has, plus the grievously unbalanced ally mechanic. They have MORE freedom in their actions than the attacker does in this mechanic.

"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
#223 - 2016-01-15 23:02:05 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

This totally presumes that your idea of what a war must be is the correct view.

There is no correct view. People are free to declare war for a whole host of reasons and until you get past thinking only of the large wardec groups, your proposal will never be balanced and even if you can get past the blinkered thinking, then there's still no need to put mechanics in the way.

You want to restrict the play of some players, but in the process affect the choices that everyone else in the game has.

But, this is all circular and there's nothing more to be gained rehashing the same stuff over and over in this thread, so I'll stop in this one now.

There'll be another thread I'm sure.



That presumption is based on the claims made by Kaarous that others have shown a consensus with.

That claim is that wardecs are there for the sole purpose of allowing legal pvp in HS.
Based on that claim, my presumptions are fair.

I'm willing to concede that my proposals may not be balanced, but I never said it was perfect.

I'm also not thinking of large wardec entities... I'm thinking about the average war, regardless of who the aggressor is.

I also do not wish to restrict the play of some players, but rather to remove the restrictions on their targets.
Those players will always be able to wardec, and the defenders will always be forced into a wardec.
If it restricts the aggressor, that restriction is based solely on their ability and/or willingness to commit.

Regardless of how we feel about this, I think we can agree that neither one of us is right, as CCP has not released any results regarding wardecs thus we have nothing to go on.
If that ever happens, we can likely come back to debate this topic further.
Until then, I agree that this thread is going in circles and should have ended by now; but we're all pretty stubborn on our opinions.

I'd like to say that it was a respectable, logical debate, but as long as Kaarous is involved logic and respect are thrown out the window, as he presents neither.

Sorry Kaarous, but you are detrimental to the argument against change as you continuously attack the individual, intentionally take things out of context, refuse to admit when you're wrong, as provide no meaningful arguments as to why it shouldn't change.
I'm willing to debate anyone else and respect them in doing so (see conversation with Scipio), but in your case, I consider you little more than a troll.... My apologies, but you've left me with no reason to think otherwise.

Scipio, great conversation.. I look forward to discussing more if we're ever given any results regarding wardecs and/or after we see the effect of the new structures regarding decs.
Until then, I agree that this thread has been beaten to a dead horse, just like all those before it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#224 - 2016-01-15 23:11:49 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I'm willing to concede that my proposals may not be balanced, but I never said it was perfect.


There's no may in that statement.

You are not, nor were you ever interested in balance, despite your constantly shifting claims to the contrary.


Quote:

I also do not wish to restrict the play of some players


No one believes you. That's literally the only thing you are here arguing for, handcuffs on the attacker just for having the gall to engage in aggression in highsec.


Quote:

as CCP has not released any results regarding wardecs thus we have nothing to go on.


Still going with this lie I see.

Because anyone who actually bothered to watch that video without trying to push their agenda knows full well that wars are a positive retention driver for new players, almost as much as ganking is. And you know how we know that?

Because CCP Rise said it out loud for the whole world to hear it.


Quote:

I'd like to say that it was a respectable, logical debate, but as long as Kaarous is involved logic and respect are thrown out the window, as he presents neither.


Why on earth would I show respect to the likes of you, especially given your nigh constant trolling on this topic? You're just here selfishly trying to break this game to favor yourself. You've even admitted that you aren't interested in game balance, but you still have the gall to try and dictate changes to other people's playstyles.

That's goddamned reprehensible.


Quote:

but in your case, I consider you little more than a troll.


Well, you're late to the party. I've had you chalked up to being a troll for a while now. Especially the part where you said you weren't going to bother posting here, and then posted for six straight pages.

I wonder how long you'll "give up" this time, troll boy.

"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
#225 - 2016-01-15 23:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Again, you lie. It was no less than three of your deleted ranting posts from the previous thread.

The only reason you are here is to nerf wars because you think they aren't "fair" to the people playing the game wrong.


I have not deleted a single post.
If it was deleted, it was done by ISD, and as a result of quoting your insults and personal attacks.


Now, as far as this "playing the game wrong" comment.


In the last thread you said this exact same thing...


You then later did a complete 180 and claimed that there was no such thing as playing the game wrong.

You have now come full circle and are again claiming they're playing it wrong.

I would Link it in order to support this claim, but I did then and you still denied it, so it would likely only result in the same.



So, from this point on, you can continue to push your false narratives, lie, bash, name call, flip statements to fit your agenda, misrepresent, and whatever other tactics you love to use, but you'll have to argue with yourself.

I'm stepping away from this thread because nothing will ever be determined until CCP provides statistics specific to wardecs, thus the thread is redundant.
Have fun arguing with yourself.


Edit...

Oh, and since you mentioned the video again, I will again state that the video is based on new players less than 15 days old and is based on the premise of ship loss and IS NOT a direct representation of the statistics of wardecs.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#226 - 2016-01-16 02:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Joe Risalo wrote:

I'd like to say that it was a respectable, logical debate, but as long as Kaarous is involved logic and respect are thrown out the window, as he presents neither.

I'm sorry, but what?

Every argument you make is based either on your own ignorance, that is to say your total lack of understanding of how war declaration mechanics actually work or outright lies, for example, your instance that there's no evidence that legal ship loss resulting from wars is a positive retention driver despite the fact there are CCP developers, on video telling the entire EVE community that it is.

People who're actually interested in discussion, but just have their facts wrong would concede the point, re-evaluate their position and if they still felt the same way approach the argument from a different direction, this time with something to support it. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

But instead of that you just maintain the same position in spite of it being shown to be totally fallacious and try and defame other people for calling you out on it.

The only possible explanations are that you don't actually care about actually being right and are just trying to push your agenda or that you have no concept of critical thinking. Neither is good.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#227 - 2016-01-16 02:57:11 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Every argument you make is based either on your own ignorance, that is to say your total lack of understanding of how war declaration mechanics actually work or outright lies, for example, your instance that there's no evidence that legal ship loss resulting from wars is a positive retention driver despite the fact there are CCP developers, on video telling the entire EVE community that it is.

This is actually the single thing he has been right on. CCP did not say that ship loss for newbies was a positive retention driver. They said that there was a correlation between the two.
Which is cause, which is effect, or if both are effects of a third cause (Like general socialisation to give a third possible cause), we don't know based on CCP's study because they didn't go deep enough into it to determine actual causes & effects.

Everything else, yes, he has no clue.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2016-01-16 03:14:10 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
for example, your instance that there's no evidence that legal ship loss resulting from wars is a positive retention driver despite the fact there are CCP developers, on video telling the entire EVE community that it is.

Uhh.. Your saying what the video says, not what I said.
I said that I believe wardecs hinder retention based on my experience with Eve.
I am still here,'so that effect is not based on my personal reactions, but the reactions of those around me.

The video is on the premise of ship lose, wardecs being one of MANY ways to lose your ship.
Those statistics were not based solely on wardecs, but ANY action in which there was NO CONCORD response, and DOES NOT specify the variation in retention rates of each individual form of legal kills, thus wardecs could have resulted in all or none of the lost retention when it comes to legal kills. Hell, they didn't even tell us what percentage of each group was retained.


Now again, I was NOT speaking on the relation between deaths during wardecs and retention.
To be perfectly honest, I see the retention issue to be more of a problem when speaking about those that were trapped in a wardec for an extended period and DID NOT lose a ship, as I've seen many (especially Newbros) that logged off at some point during a dec and never logged back in.

So again, that video DOES NOT counter anything I have said as it provides absolutely 0 information regarding the retention rates of wardecs.

Quote:
People who're actually interested in discussion, but just have their facts wrong would concede the point, re-evaluate their position and if they still felt the same way approach the argument from a different direction, this time with something to support it. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

But instead of that you just maintain the same position in spite of it being shown to be totally fallacious and try and defame other people for calling you out on it.

The only possible explanations are that you don't actually care about actually being right and are just trying to push your agenda or that you have no concept of critical thinking. Neither is good.


..And I have been honest.
I have admitted I was incorrect on deccers being able to freely drop a dec at anytime, as that ability is limited to mutual wars (which is more broken than the other way around).

I have also admitted that my proposal may not be the best idea, as I do not know everything.
I'm suggesting an idea because the current mechanic is broken and everyone likes to ignore it.

Kaarous has been called out several times on this thread and others for flipping his narrative to fit his agenda.
He is also completely incorrect on that video as the ONLY percentages that are given are premised around ship loss, and the only time decs are mentioned is as one of many things that fit within the realm of legal kills. Losses in low, null, and WH space also factor into the legal kill catagory as the standard was set in the video that this was determined by seeing if the aggressor was killed by CONCORD, which does not happen outside of HS. No other percentages were provided, so we have no knowledge of how many legal kills unsubbed, nor how many as a result of wardecs; but again, my premise is not limited to those that were killed.

Either you're misunderstanding my premise on this,'or misunderstanding the video, but my statements are in no way debunked by the statements within that video.
I will concede that my statements are speculation, but without wardec specific Intel (which CCP is holding back), I cannot prove my claims and you cannot disprove my claims.
That's 70-80% that I keep throwing around was released by Fozzie.
The rest of the results are under embargo and I believe the CSM is aware of the results, one of those members being in favor of change, has requested they be released... Though, I will admit I have no idea how old those results are, but I believe are well after the last wardec change.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#229 - 2016-01-16 03:30:06 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Every argument you make is based either on your own ignorance, that is to say your total lack of understanding of how war declaration mechanics actually work or outright lies, for example, your instance that there's no evidence that legal ship loss resulting from wars is a positive retention driver despite the fact there are CCP developers, on video telling the entire EVE community that it is.

This is actually the single thing he has been right on. CCP did not say that ship loss for newbies was a positive retention driver. They said that there was a correlation between the two.
Which is cause, which is effect, or if both are effects of a third cause (Like general socialisation to give a third possible cause), we don't know based on CCP's study because they didn't go deep enough into it to determine actual causes & effects.

Everything else, yes, he has no clue.


Thank you... kinda, lol...


Now, to state what we all know.
Everything stated within this thread is based purely on speculation and is highly opinionated REGARDLESS of who has said it.

With the current mechanic claims that it is broken, fine, or heavily favoring the defender are purely based on opinion as CCP has not released statistics (which they appear to be sitting on) apart from the 70-80%, as it is under embargo.

I believe it was Fozzie who claimed that not even the Devs within CCP can agree on the current mechanic, nor any changes.

The only factual claims in this thread are the 70-80%, and that aggressors CANNOT drop the dec when not mutual, but can when made mutual.

Even Kaarous' claims, of everyone that disagrees with him being a liar, are opinion as he has no evidence of such claims.

Point is, this whole argument for or against change is redundant until we have results by CCP.
Even then, there's going to be a huge opinionated debate on what to do about it.
Though, I'm not convinced CCP will ever release those results...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2016-01-16 03:32:46 UTC
Ok... I'm done talking now... We can let this thread die, lol...

I just wanted to make sure I defended myself on the whole video thing, as I am 100% certain it has nothing to do with wardecs in specific, therefore does not disprove my comments in relation to it.

You guys have a good one. Nice talk... for the most part.