These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#141 - 2016-01-13 23:36:38 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Do you realise you just described exactly how you retreat from a wardec?

It has no retreat....apart from..

Exactly. It has a retreat.


That is not retreat.. Coming back to HS to flee from would be aggressors is retreat.
Dropping to an NPC corp to get out of a wardec is quitting.

Two totally different things.

Quote:


That doesn't seem right to me, si just want to check on what is actually being described here.

This is the way Evelopedia explains it, and the way I have often seen it done.
Many corps have often used the ally mechanic in order to scare the aggressor into dropping the dec.

Quote:

No, I won't say that second bit at all.

What I will say is that the first bit once again demonstrates that this whole thing isn't about encouraging attackers to undock and defend a structure. At it's core, it is totally about being safe in highsec.

Remove the "being safe in highsec" aspect of it and you might have a good proposal. But while the core of the proposal remains trying to help people feel safe, any proposal is nothing more than a straight nerf to risk.



My apologies for assuming what you would say, but believe it or not, that is a very common.... comment, which is why anticipated it.

As far as nerfing risks and making HS safe... Not at all.

By the defender winning/essentially ending the wardec, they are no more safer than they were before as anyone else can still gank or wardec them just as is now.
However, that one lone entity, to which they proved to be able to overcome, would no longer be a 'direct' threat (direct meaning they can freely kill you at any time) for a 'duration' just as the surrender function allows you to set a duration in which you are not at risk of dec from that entity.

Now, just as with the safety duration of the surrendering, there's nothing stopping them from starting a new corp and aggressing again, apart from pride and/or attachment to their corp ticker.


See, my proposal doesn't change anything about the safety of HS.
It doesn't stop ganks or any other wardecs.

As I stated in my last comment, it is solely a means to which interaction with PVP has the potential of rendering a positive outcome that would allow you to return back to your preferred style of play.


I realize that it would hinder solo and small entity decs against larger entities, but what you have to realize is that the mechanic itself is the only thing that allows this.
If they attempted these same aggressive actions outside of HS, they would not be protected from outside influence, nor be able to continue their aggression without the risk of loss, and it would all be dependent on how well planned and executed their tactics are.
Falter or get out played in any way, your aggression is ended for a duration.
the problem isn't that a small entity is taking on a large entity. The problem is that they're relying on the security of HS, and the larger entity's inability to end their aggression as they do not have to be present when the defender attempts to defend, in order to accomplish anything.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#142 - 2016-01-13 23:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
Quote:

That doesn't seem right to me, si just want to check on what is actually being described here.

This is the way Evelopedia explains it, and the way I have often seen it done.
Many corps have often used the ally mechanic in order to scare the aggressor into dropping the dec.

Can you link the Evelopedia explanation that an aggressor can drop a wardec at anytime?

Here is how the evelopedia wars page describes ending a war:

Ending a war

To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender (Directors and CEOs can offer surrender). When the war is ended a message will be sent to involved parties confirming the war invalidation. When a war between corporations has been ended it takes 24 hours for the war cancellation to take effect. During that time players can still shoot at each other without security status loss or Concord intervention.

Surrender

Either corp can make a surrender offer to end the war. In the corporation menu, under the 'Wars' tab and the 'Our Wars' tab there under, click on the white flag icon to make a surrender offer. A new window will pop up where you can enter a message, and make an ISK offer.

If the offer is accepted by the other corp, the ISK will be transferred automatically between corp wallets, and the war will end in 24 hours thereafter. There is no war dec cool down period, so the same war may be declared again after the 24 hours.

Nothing there about an aggressor being able to drop a wardec at anytime.

So can you explain the mechanics of that since you've often seen it done.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#143 - 2016-01-13 23:45:00 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

The aggressor gets to essentially say "Naa uhh! You didn't beat me!", because the mechanic does not provide a way for the aggressor to lose.


Of course they do, because they have the player freedom to keep it going if they feel like it.

Something you want to strip away from them with a structure timer.

Sorry, but winning one timer does not entitle you to handcuff their agency in decision making for an entire week. Winning one timer does not entitle you to blanket safety.

You are entitled to nothing.


Quote:

If you can come up with something better, than by all means do so.


Literally anything else, for starters. Most especially anything that isn't intended to cripple the attacker just for being the attacker.

You know, something fair, instead of something to selfishly nerf the side you irrationally hate.


Quote:

.. Either way, the current mechanic is broken in a way that deters pvp, reduces retention, adds to the pool of risk averse players, and is just all around NOT FUN which is the most important factor because Eve is a GAME first a foremost.. If you can't have fun in a game, then why play?


That's a whole lot of entirely unverified, unproven bullshit to try and prop up your claim of savagely removing risk from highsec. Heck, according to CCP themselves, highsec wars are a positive factor in retention, just not from worthless carebears like you.

Never happening, no matter how many lies you throw about in your wild flailing.

People who actually want to fight back already do. If you refuse to fight back without a hugely one sided, arbitrary mechanic in your favor, not only do you not belong in a player corp, you don't belong in EVE Online 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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2016-01-13 23:47:20 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Maybe i do mean 'meaning' kaarous, but what does it really matter? Whether you agree or not with my definitions is irrelevant. Just the proposal.


It matters because, as I said, if you truly do want "meaning", you are barking up the wrong tree.

If you want more "meaning" in highsec, it doesn't have anything to do with wars, it has everything to do with player corps being useless for everything but a chat channel and a corp hangar.

"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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#145 - 2016-01-13 23:52:46 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Do you realise you just described exactly how you retreat from a wardec?

It has no retreat....apart from..

Exactly. It has a retreat.


That is not retreat.. Coming back to HS to flee from would be aggressors is retreat.
Dropping to an NPC corp to get out of a wardec is quitting.

Two totally different things.

I'm sure we are just playing with semantics here, so whatever.

They achieve the same outcome.

Retreat: withdraw from the aggression
Drop Corp: quit the war (nothing else of course) and withdraw from the aggresion
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#146 - 2016-01-13 23:55:06 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
I said that i consider a dec where the defenders never undock or the aggressors themselves dont make use of their decs to be low quality.

Yet, the defender never undocking is a perfectly valid objective of someone paying for a wardec.

Why limit what the objectives should be, just because you have a personal bias? Your preferences are no better than anyone else's, just different.

So why attempt to eliminate their preferences because of your preconceived idea of what someone else should be doing?

If you value your right to choose, then why propose mechanics that limit other people's right to choose?


As stated by all the defenders of the dec mechanic as is, the intent of a wardec is to allow legal pvp in HS.

The fact that the denial of pvp is the best strategy for the defender to take, and the fact that denial of a counteracting engagement is predominantly used by the aggressor, doesn't that make wardecs a bit redundant?

As CCP has stated, 70-80% of dec end in 0 kills.
This means that someone either folded corp/the aggressor dropped the dec, the defender never presented themselves to be shot at, or the aggressor was counter-acted and would not meet the hostile defense. (there's also the surrender function, but i'm willing to bet those are a very small margin)

This essentially goes to say that if allowing pvp is the primary goal of wardecs, it's kinda failing.

If you took all those deccers when to low sec for pvp, it would likely result in more kills than the results of their wardecs.
Likewise, if those deccing entities reverted to ganking IN HS, it would still likely result in more 'player caused' kills that the war mechanic.

I'm basically saying that the mechanic needs to change simply because of the fact that it fails at what it's designed for.
Giving the defender a method in which to end the war aggressively is the only way in which to have active participation in the wardec by both parties.

Of that 20-30%, it is not determined how many of those wars resulted in a single ship loss due to inattentiveness/stupidity, and it also doesn't factor which wars are by two entities revolving around war with each other such as RvB.
CCP essentially treats RvB as one entity despite it being two, thus their wars shouldn't count, as well as any other entities that follow this design.

So how many wars does that leave us with, in which the two entities went head to head with the specific intent of fighting it out until there was a clear victor?
10%? 5%? 1%? less that 1%?

Without having access to the records of wardecs, I cannot determine this.
CCP likely could if they wanted to dive into the specifics on a pool of, say 1,000-10,000 wardecs, but I don't know that they would go to this length. However, if they did, it would definitely show their dedication to the development of the game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#147 - 2016-01-13 23:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
I said that i consider a dec where the defenders never undock or the aggressors themselves dont make use of their decs to be low quality.

Yet, the defender never undocking is a perfectly valid objective of someone paying for a wardec.

Why limit what the objectives should be, just because you have a personal bias? Your preferences are no better than anyone else's, just different.

So why attempt to eliminate their preferences because of your preconceived idea of what someone else should be doing?

If you value your right to choose, then why propose mechanics that limit other people's right to choose?


As stated by all the defenders of the dec mechanic as is, the intent of a wardec is to allow legal pvp in HS.

Yes, the intent of the mechanic is to allow legal fighting in highsec.

The intent of how players utilise that is totally up to us.

There are two separate aspect here:

1. Mechanics: the in game rules that allow us to interact with the game
2. Players: how we choose to use those in game rules

The intent of the mechanics serves the sole purpose of giving people the ability to legally shoot each other.

However, that threat of being shot at can be a very powerful motivator and the very reason someone might choose a wardec over an alternative.

Nothing limits the choices we can make and that's great.

Edit:
I don't think we are necessarily defenders of the dec mechanic as is. I've seen posts in the past by Vimsy, Kaarous and Black Pedro acknowledging that the wardec mechanic has issues. I also believe the current mechanics could be improved.

I'm not defending the current mechanic as such, just weighing up the proposals that are put forward to see whether they are an improvement or not. To date, none of them have been an improvement and I haven't been able to come up with an improvement either.

Quote:
This essentially goes to say that if allowing pvp is the primary goal of wardecs, it's kinda failing.

You don't know this and CCP's view even under the older system was the it wasn't broken.

Allowing legal fighting is achieved 100% of the time under the mechanic.

Whether fighting actually occurs is up to the individual players involved and in that case, there's no way to say, since the objectives of using the mechanic aren't fixed in stone.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2016-01-14 00:02:10 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Quote:

That doesn't seem right to me, si just want to check on what is actually being described here.

This is the way Evelopedia explains it, and the way I have often seen it done.
Many corps have often used the ally mechanic in order to scare the aggressor into dropping the dec.

Can you link the Evelopedia explanation that an aggressor can drop a wardec at anytime?

Here is how the evelopedia wars page describes ending a war:

Ending a war

To end a war, either the war bill must not be paid, or either corp must surrender (Directors and CEOs can offer surrender). When the war is ended a message will be sent to involved parties confirming the war invalidation. When a war between corporations has been ended it takes 24 hours for the war cancellation to take effect. During that time players can still shoot at each other without security status loss or Concord intervention.

Surrender

Either corp can make a surrender offer to end the war. In the corporation menu, under the 'Wars' tab and the 'Our Wars' tab there under, click on the white flag icon to make a surrender offer. A new window will pop up where you can enter a message, and make an ISK offer.

If the offer is accepted by the other corp, the ISK will be transferred automatically between corp wallets, and the war will end in 24 hours thereafter. There is no war dec cool down period, so the same war may be declared again after the 24 hours.

Nothing there about an aggressor being able to drop a wardec at anytime.

So can you explain the mechanics of that since you've often seen it done.


I underlined the point showing they can allow the war to lapse, as I mentioned.

If you continue reading the Evelopedia underneath the 'Please Note' blue portion, you'll read.

Quote:
Mutual Wars

A mutual war can be ended by either side surrendering to the other. Alternatively, the aggressor can retract the war if the defender has set the war to mutual.


Likewise, an aggressor does not need to allow the war to lapse in order for it to end.
As stated with mutual wars(not sure if that is correct or a typo/wrong statement on the thread), the aggressor can freely drop the dec at any time without it being made mutual.
I used to be part of a corp that had close ties with a merc corp. Whenever they got decced, they would ally.
In many cases, the aggressor would immidiately retract the war, though it still had the 24hr buffer period.

That essentially told us they were not deccing us to fight, only to kill our vulnerable ships.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#149 - 2016-01-14 00:05:25 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

This essentially goes to say that if allowing pvp is the primary goal of wardecs, it's kinda failing.


Only by your own self serving, dishonest metric.

It exists to drive loss and bring risk to highsec, which would otherwise functionally have none bar ganking, which is mechanically limited to a pretty crazy degree.

Whether people are too big cowards to undock during that period isn't relevant(they don't belong in player corps anyway), what matters is that their risk level was raised. That's what it means to bring PvP to highsec, to bring risk where otherwise there would be none, because highsec is not supposed to be as safe as it presently is.


Quote:

Giving the defender a method in which to end the war aggressively is the only way in which to have active participation in the wardec by both parties.


As you always do, you lie.

Once Citadels come out, participation by both parties is likely to rise drastically, as highsec corps actually have a reason to exist and something to defend.

The problem with everything you're claiming isn't that the defender doesn't have a way out. It's that the defender has entirely too many ways out, and nothing they need to defend to keep an optimal playstyle.

That will change soon. If you actually do want to see more conflict, instead of using that as an obvious lie for your previously stated goal of handicapping all aggression in highsec(and it's in your post history plain as day from the other thread, so don't bother denying it), then you will be happy once Citadels force carebear corps to get out there and defend something in order to PvE optimally.

"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.
#150 - 2016-01-14 00:06:40 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

That essentially told us they were not deccing us to fight, only to kill our vulnerable ships.


That is fighting. No matter what e-honor bullshit you want to claim.

Killing your vulnerable ships is both deserved on your part, and an intended part of this 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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#151 - 2016-01-14 00:18:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

This is the way Evelopedia explains it, and the way I have often seen it done.
Many corps have often used the ally mechanic in order to scare the aggressor into dropping the dec.

Can you link the Evelopedia explanation that an aggressor can drop a wardec at anytime?


I underlined the point showing they can allow the war to lapse, as I mentioned.

If you continue reading the Evelopedia underneath the 'Please Note' blue portion, you'll read.

Quote:
Mutual Wars

A mutual war can be ended by either side surrendering to the other. Alternatively, the aggressor can retract the war if the defender has set the war to mutual.


Likewise, an aggressor does not need to allow the war to lapse in order for it to end.
As stated with mutual wars(not sure if that is correct or a typo/wrong statement on the thread), the aggressor can freely drop the dec at any time without it being made mutual.
I used to be part of a corp that had close ties with a merc corp. Whenever they got decced, they would ally.
In many cases, the aggressor would immidiately retract the war, though it still had the 24hr buffer period.

That essentially told us they were not deccing us to fight, only to kill our vulnerable ships.

Not paying the bill to renew after each 7 days is not the same as "The aggressor can drop the wardec at any time".

As per your quote, they are clearly two separate things:

The aggressor can drop the wardec at any time, though having a 24hr buffer where fighting can still occur.
They can also simply not fund the war past the first week, with the same 24hr buffer.

So the also not pay the bill, isn't the claim that the wardec can be dropped at anytime.

You then claimed:

This is the way Evelopedia explains it, and the way I have often seen it done.

I'm just trying to clarify the mechanics here because the point was made that an aggressor can get out of a wardec at anytime, but the defender is locked into it.

That wouldn't be equitable and something I would be proposing change for, but it just isn't my understanding of the mechanic. As far as I'm aware, once the war starts, the same mechanics apply to both parties.

However, if you've seen it done often, when was the last time that an aggressor dropped a wardec at anytime and who was involved in the war?

In relation to mutual wars, are you claiming that this is what you see happen often? When was the last one?

I thought mutual wars were essentially just an RvB thing and no one else uses them. So you often see defenders make a war mutual and then the agressor drops the war?

Any chance you can explain the actual mechanic that you've seen often (the steps involved)?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#152 - 2016-01-14 00:29:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Of course they do, because they have the player freedom to keep it going if they feel like it.

Something you want to strip away from them with a structure timer.

Sorry, but winning one timer does not entitle you to handcuff their agency in decision making for an entire week. Winning one timer does not entitle you to blanket safety.

You are entitled to nothing.


To Scorpio...

This is precisely my point.
kaarous is stating that I am entitled to nothing, yet basically stating that deccers are freely entitled to not lose.
As you've stated you do not get involved in wardecs, this is essentially what they have come to in HS.
Self proclaimed elitists dictating that they are entitled and their targets are not.
It used in the vast majority of cases solely based on the fact that the defender cannot end the aggression, thus the aggressor can kill as they see fit with no risk of reprisal to which they have to meet, as they have no assets in which the defender can attack apart from their pvp ships that will remain docked in station as long as you pose a threat.
The ability to use scouts in HS that are immune due to bubbles not being allowed, cloak not being necessary, and CONCORD intervention allows them to engage any target of opportunity without threat of hostile reprisal.
If their scouts see a hostile counter-action coming, they will immediately flee.

It all goes back to my point that the current mechanic allows, those who do not wish to fight, to dictate engagements at their leisure and there is nothing the defender can do about it except dock up and wait for them to get bored.



Quote:
Quote:

If you can come up with something better, than by all means do so.


Literally anything else, for starters. Most especially anything that isn't intended to cripple the attacker just for being the attacker.

You know, something fair, instead of something to selfishly nerf the side you irrationally hate.

Than propose something better?
If literally anything else is better, than throw something out there?
You're not here to have a discussion about wardecs, you're here to bash any proposals that would change wardecs in anyway that you do not see as favorable for YOU, and will say ANYTHING in order to do so.

As pointed out in the last thread, You said that PVE players were entitled to nothing, than flipped your story and said they were entitled to PVE, and you're now again saying they're not entitled to anything.
Yet, this time, you've even gone a step further and suggested that you ARE entitled whilst they are NOT.

So, if you have nothing of merit to add to the discussion, which you don't appear to have, then step off and let Scorpio and whomever else handle the discussion, as they provide meaningful insight and aren't here simply to bash every idea on the sole sake of their personal agenda.

Quote:

That's a whole lot of entirely unverified, unproven bullshit to try and prop up your claim of savagely removing risk from highsec. Heck, according to CCP themselves, highsec wars are a positive factor in retention, just not from worthless carebears like you.

Never happening, no matter how many lies you throw about in your wild flailing.

People who actually want to fight back already do. If you refuse to fight back without a hugely one sided, arbitrary mechanic in your favor, not only do you not belong in a player corp, you don't belong in EVE Online in the first place.


The 70-80% of wardecs that end with no kills is verification that the dec mechanic deters pvp.

The KNOWN FACT that players drop corp during decs combined with the CCP'S FACT that lack of player interaction is detrimental to retention shows that wardecs reduce retention.

The known fact that players can develop a sense a aversion to loss coupled with the KNOW FACT that the defender cannot win a wardec proves that wardecs add to risk aversion.

ALL of these KNOWN FACTS are proof that the wardec mechanic is NOT FUN; otherwise more decs would result in kills.

If you choose to ignore all the facts about wardecs coupled with the related factual outcomes, that's up to you.

Also, CCP HAS NEVER spoken of the relation of wardecs and retention.
As I explained on the last thread, which you conveniently seem to have forgotten, CCP has only released information regarding the effects of GANKS and GRIEFING, to which wardecs are considered neither.


Now, up until you started posting again, the conversation was rather civil. The arm flailing and lies didn't pop up until you came in.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#153 - 2016-01-14 00:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
The 70-80% of wardecs that end with no kills is verification that the dec mechanic deters pvp.

Really?

How much pvp would have occured in the absence of the wardecs?

If it deters pvp, then that would imply that more pvp to have occured in the absence of the wardecs. Do you have those figures?

Isn't it also a reasonable conclusion that the 20-30% of wars that result in kills actually increase pvp in highsec by all of those fights that wouldn't have happened otherwise?

Quote:
The KNOWN FACT that players drop corp during decs combined with the CCP'S FACT that lack of player interaction is detrimental to retention shows that wardecs reduce retention.

The known fact that players can develop a sense a aversion to loss coupled with the KNOW FACT that the defender cannot win a wardec proves that wardecs add to risk aversion.

Can you link where CCP have said that pvp is the only player interaction that is a ' rich experience' (which is what CCP have said increases retention and that involves a number of things from what I have seen).

Nothing about a wardec hinders rich experiences in the game and dropping to an NPC Corp during a war doesn't hinder rich experiences for players already experiencing them. Why would it?

If players are in a player Corp and drop just to avoid a war for a week, you think that is going to suddenly cause them to quit the game because they end access to all rich experiences because they are in an NPC Corp?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#154 - 2016-01-14 00:44:22 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

I'm just trying to clarify the mechanics here because the point was made that an aggressor can get out of a wardec at anytime, but the defender is locked into it.

That wouldn't be equitable and something I would be proposing change for, but it just isn't my understanding of the mechanic. As far as I'm aware, once the war starts, the same mechanics apply to both parties.


Obviously the defender isn't locked in, if the aggressor drops the dec.. That would just be dumb, but I realize that's not what you're saying... I'm just clarifying that isn't what i'm saying either.

YES... the aggressor can end the war at any given time (with a 24hr buffer).
The defenders will receive and Eve mail stating that the aggressor has retracted the wardec.
This is noticeably different than allowing it to lapse, as the evemail will then say the CONCORD has invalidated the war.

I would provide you with an Evemail from my other toon, but I apparently cannot see CONCORD mails via the character info out of game, though I can see my personal/corp/alliance evemails. I'm also not at a PC with Eve installed.

Based on what Evelopedia states, they can perform this action even if the war is made mutual. I cannot confirm this, as I don't know which wars I've been involved in that were made mutual nor can I confirm if the related aggressor retracted.
Quote:

Alternatively, the aggressor can retract the war if the defender has set the war to mutual.

As shown under the 'Mutual' section of the evelopedia.


Quote:

I thought mutual wars were essentially just an RvB thing and no one else uses them. So you often see defenders make a war mutual and then the agressor drops the war?

Any chance you can explain the actual mechanic that you've seen often (the steps involved)?


There are corps out there that make wars mutual.
However, in the cases I've seen, this is typically in relation to an ally joining.

As stated above, I have seen wardeccers drop wars at will, without having to wait for the week to elapse.

In the case of mutual wars, I cannot confirm nor deny that they can, but base on Evelopedia they can.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#155 - 2016-01-14 00:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Joe Risalo wrote:

kaarous is stating that I am entitled to nothing, yet basically stating that deccers are freely entitled to not lose.


You're talking out your ass.

The attacker has as much to lose as the defender, namely their ships.

Just because you can't force some meta objective of yours, and safety which is an unreasonable one at that, does not mean the attacker has some magically ability "to not lose."


Quote:

Self proclaimed elitists dictating that they are entitled and their targets are not.


I'm not entitled to **** besides the player freedom the sandbox provides.

If you want to stop me, you actually have to deal with me, instead of ******* around with a structure. Gasp and alarm, you actually have to interact with another player.


Quote:

Than propose something better?


I already have, and interestingly enough CCP seems to have listened. Optimal PvE play will most likely be slaved to having an anchored Citadel, which was one of the major premises of my posted ideas on the matter.

The defenders don't fight right now because they have no reason to, and too many ways to get out of it while still retaining optimal income ability.

That looks to change in the near future.


Quote:

You're not here to have a discussion about wardecs, you're here to bash any proposals that would change wardecs in anyway that you do not see as favorable for YOU, and will say ANYTHING in order to do so.


Such projection.

It is you who is not here to have an honest discussion, just lie your ass off and shift goal posts in ANY way you can to justify nerfing something you personally dislike.

Hell, you outright admitted at the start of the previous thread that you will always considers wars to be broken unless they are hugely in favor of the defender and result in a large net buff to highsec safety. You have literally no credibility here, all you have is an axe to grind.



Quote:

The 70-80% of wardecs that end with no kills is verification that the dec mechanic deters pvp.


It proves nothing of the sort.

It does show that a lot of people would rather not play than have any risk injected into their mindless farming, but that's nothing new.

Oh, and as for "fun".

No one cares if it's not fun for you. That's the beauty of non consensual PvP, you don't have to like it, but you do get to deal with it. That's 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.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#156 - 2016-01-14 00:50:25 UTC
shut up joe, your just pulling stuff out of your arse at this point.

structures will be a conflict driver, for successfully defending one, you get to keep it.
thats plenty for what they offer.

why is it that this notion you should also get further artificial advantages over the aggressor such a trend now?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#157 - 2016-01-14 00:52:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
YES... the aggressor can end the war at any given time (with a 24hr buffer).
The defenders will receive and Eve mail stating that the aggressor has retracted the wardec.
This is noticeably different than allowing it to lapse, as the evemail will then say the CONCORD has invalidated the war.

I would provide you with an Evemail from my other toon, but I apparently cannot see CONCORD mails via the character info out of game, though I can see my personal/corp/alliance evemails. I'm also not at a PC with Eve installed.

Based on what Evelopedia states, they can perform this action even if the war is made mutual. I cannot confirm this, as I don't know which wars I've been involved in that were made mutual nor can I confirm if the related aggressor retracted.

...


As stated above, I have seen wardeccers drop wars at will, without having to wait for the week to elapse.

In the case of mutual wars, I cannot confirm nor deny that they can, but base on Evelopedia they can.

The Evelopedia says the aggressor can only retract the wardec if the war is mutual, which seems to be supported by this statement by Vimsy in another thread last month:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6212173#post6212173

and with additional post in the same thread:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6212527#post6212527

Yet, here apparently the wardec can be dropped at anytime.

Both situations can't be right, so it would be great if you can screenshot one of those mails you mentioned, or forward it (I won't upload).

In the meantime, I'm going to declare war between two of my alts and then see what the mechanics are.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#158 - 2016-01-14 00:56:15 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:

why is it that this notion you should also get further artificial advantages over the aggressor such a trend now?


Because they were able to cry their way into awoxing being functionally deleted. Why stop there?

"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
#159 - 2016-01-14 01:00:58 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

Really?

How much pvp would have occured in the absence of the wardecs?

If it deters pvp, then that would imply that more pvp to have occured in the absence of the wardecs. Do you have those figures?

Isn't it also a reasonable conclusion that the 20-30% of wars that result in kills actually increase pvp in highsec by all of those fights that wouldn't have happened otherwise?


Yes, that 20-30% does show an increase of pvp in HS.
However, that's not what I said.
I was comparing the amount of pvp resulting from wardecs to the amount of pvp AS A WHOLE throughout the game IF the aggressors still pvp'd without the mechanic.

If all the focus put on wardecs was instead put into other forms of pvp (outside of HS and ganks) it's very likely that there would be more KMs and more isk destroyed as a result.
IE, in any other form, their aggression would likely have had much higher results.

Quote:

Can you link where CCP have said that pvp is the only player interaction that is a ' rich experience' (which is what CCP have said increases retention and that involves a number of things from what I have seen).

Nothing about a wardec hinders rich experiences in the game and dropping to an NPC Corp during a war doesn't hinder rich experiences for players already experiencing them. Why would it?

If players are in a player Corp and drop just to get avoid a war for a week, you think that is going to suddenly cause them to quit the game because they end access to all rich experiences because they are in an NPC Corp?


I did not say that CCP claimed pvp is the only player interaction that increases retention.
I stated that CCP claims that interaction in general increases retention, of which pvp is a factor.
CCP Rise spoke about this at the last fanfest i believe, (or perhaps fanfest 2014?)

I believe the fanfest statement was in relation to ganking.
As far as the griefing aspect, that again was CCP Rise, only in a short little snippet in which he stated that they have found no correlation between griefing and retention.
Both of which Kaarous has tried to use to deny that wardecs reduce retention (multiple times) to which I've had to explain to him that wardecs are not considered ganking or griefing (multiple times).

HOWEVER, my premise was that we all know that many players drop to NPC corps during wardecs.
CCP has claimed that reduced and/or lack of player interaction appears to be the most likely culprit of reduced retention (i believe also mentioned during CCP Rise's fanfest presentation). IE, a player that sits in an NPC corp, performing PVE/non-player interactive activities, is more likely to quit.

When combining the two, you find the a PVE player who drops to an NPC corp in order to dodge a wardec is more likely to quit.
Simple math... 1 and 1 makes 2.

Now, this isn't the case for all players... So I'm not proposing that ALL players that drop from decs also quit Eve.
What I am proposing is that some players that drop from decs will likely quit, which falls perfectly in line with CCP's statements regarding retention.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#160 - 2016-01-14 01:05:38 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

What I am proposing is that some players that drop from decs will likely quit

qualify that

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=