EVE General Discussion

Maybe you should stop reading so much into things then, and pay some attention to the words…

Maybe you should. You'll notice a distinct lack of any kind of quotation marks, citation reference, or other source for your comment. So no. You said it — you have to live with it and accept that it was a strawman. If you didn't, attribute it properly and realise that it's still a strawman since you used it against someone who didn't say it.

Oh, and to answer your edit……they're fixing all of that, so why are you arguing so vehemently against it?

Why not? It's what the game is. Do you object to GTA3 teaching new players to run old ladies over for cash?

Dude this is a video game.

Words may be empty, how someone acts is not.



It was all of 1 post above mine. Thought a Forum Warrior would manage.




Because neither you nor (much more important) CCP understand that such ancient rulesets are dated, fixed or not.

You want to have WARS? Then motivate people to DO wars, not to escape them. No, putting a force collar around someone's neck won't do.
Like for most things, there's a small portion, like 15% of "all pure PvPers", a 15% of "all pure carebears" plus a 70% of "don't care, does not matter, I am undecided, I would but..."

Neither of the extremes can be coherced against their will but the undecided majority can be given some compelling reason to side for the PvP side instead of siding for the carebear side.

What is the current compelling reason for the Average Joe to enjoy and join into a wardec?

Only once CCP finds a mechanism to answer to such question, then they should dress it with a proper official mechanic.




GTA3 does not last years nor depicts you as pristine winning smart hero defining the new de facto way, it does not slowly poison your mind.



Edit:

@Shandir
Glad someone got it!

That would certainly be good, and probably would even be enough to balance the tactic with how suspect flags work. I suspect that will be entertaining.

Oh really…? Let's see:

“And the point I was making is that you can still do that. But you have to get your finances sorted. There are various options. You can make sure you win fights and loot loot (that's what it's for). That may even mean that you have to leave Jita and find better places to gank ppl because you want to prevent the general public to nick the loot. To much work? You are a terrible lazy *beep* and should not be allowed to have any wardec what so ever.” — no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.

“You can try to get somebody else to pay for the wardec. How about the enemies of the Alliance you try to gank in highsec? Get some of the nice moon goo ISK, that's what that stuff is for.” — no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.

“Have a sound business plan to finance your war afford. Good killboard stats should require a little more then the skills to fly T3 ships and having a few out of corp reppers. Heck, you might even want to find some carebears to work together with. They get protection you get ISK to fuel the war. Sounds like work? Yes, and that's the point.” — no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.

…and finally…

“Right now wardecs don't work and don't require any form of player skill on the attacker side. Both needs to change.” — no 3-man harassment corp or 100-man corp mentioned.

So no. It wasn't. Nor was it in the thread above that, or the one above that, or the one above that third one. Instead, you just threw out “Guess what, if your 3 men docking station games harass corp can't take on a 100 men corp, though luck. ADAPT and OVERCOME, join a 100 men PvP corp, take the COSTS along with the opportunity” without any kind of quotation mark; without any kind of reference; without anything implying it being cited from somwhere; and without any connection to what was said in the quote you were responding to. You said this in response to my post and you directed it at me as if I was making any kind of argument in that direction, which I wasn't. This makes it a classic strawman: you are trying to attribute a statement to someone who never said it, and then you go on to argue against this stance that doesn't even exist. Now you only dig yourself deeper by trying to attribute it to a different source where it also wasn't said. Would you like to try again or would just like to accept that what you said made no sense whatsoever in context?

There is plenty of motivation there already. Being a target is not meant to be pleasant, but that's why they are giving the target new means of dealing with the problem. They're also giving people very clear rules for what makes you a target and why.

Neither does EVE.

I appreciate you supporting my points, but your off-topic ranting and flame war with Tippia makes my post look bad by association. So either raise the bar a little, or keep your support on the down-low, kay?

---

I support wardecs, I want there to be wardecs. I want the carebears who cannot muster a defence to have to scramble for support from Mercs or suffer for a while.
I also support that wardeccing corps who pick the wrong target should get screwed hard, that a wardec corp who picks a fight with the wrong group of carebears will feel the pain twice as much as the groups they attack.

Here's one of those user cases that I think CCP uses.

"As a carebear, when I get wardecced, I must surrender, flee or muster our defences for a hard fight."
Sub-case: "When I surrender, I pay a cost for some limited protection for a while, surrendering is expensive and not perfect but it makes me safer"
Sub-case: "When I flee, I pay in time, rather than ISK. I will be unable to pursue my career as I am besieged. After a time, this will relent."
Sub-case: "When I fight and lose, it costs me - probably more than if I had surrendered or fled. I feel foolish and will have to ready myself to win next time, or make a wiser choice and surrender or flee."
Sub-case: "When I fight and win, I gain something significant, my attacker loses something significant, and my opponent will not attack me again unless they feel certain of victory."

If this happens, then you will have good, fun gameplay in EVE style. If you can't protect it, you will lose it, if you can protect it, you will prosper.

Glad you found the post with the part it explicitly quoted. Now on the next task: read the other posts off the same poster since far back the thread about the concerns similar to "please don't end up with a system that's very inhospitable for small corporations that want to wage war. Remember, declaring on a much larger entity is already a handicap in itself".

While the concern is valid, the take from only one side of it is less, and the "handicap in itself" only happens in the excruciantly rare case the aggressed corp fights back (this is the reason why few men corps attack the 100 men corps after all).




If there was plenty of motivation, then why are they changing it? Ah, because there was not motivation to fight back. If you remove the way not to fight back they'll just stay docked or log off or quit EvE. Nothing you can do about it.
See, going to a dentist is neither cheap nor pleasant but you go because it's a long term solution that works. You don't have to call off work for 28 days either.

If you get decced instead, you take the unpleasant plus the costs plus the next week it may begin again and in the meanwhile you have lost job cycles and whatsnot.

If you fight back? LOL grats you managed to kill an alt in an insured ship plus you gave him what he wanted (the spaceships pew pew) and now he'll obviously want more.




EvE does last years, with repetition comes custom, with custom comes de facto, with de facto comes standard.





I apologize for trying to present a different point of view to Tippia than his own (won't compute).
I endorse what you say and I'll see if I can find suggestions on it instead of replying to a rubber wall.

Have you guys realized yet that you're arguing with a person who literally thinks that extorting imaginary currency in a video game called EVE Online makes you a mafia crook in real life if you do it long enough?

Is there some way wardec information could be recorded to characters in a corporation in addition to the corporation itself?

For example: Corp A wardecs Corp B. Corp B surrenders to Corp A, and there is a 2 week non-aggression pact signed. Now, if players from Corp A hop corps to Corp C and redec, could their characters be marked for this non-aggression pact in addition to Corp A?

Perhaps the characters would not be booted from Corp C, and there would be no other limitation to Corp C, except those characters originally from Corp A would not see Corp B as valid war targets until their personal timers had cooled down. That way there would be no real incentive to hopping to a new corp, but also no risk of being arbitrarily booted because of a new war filed by the newly-joined corp. Is this a possibility with the code?

Neut-RR dudes will be flagged as suspects. Suspects can be shot by any player. Check the crime watch presentation for details.