| Author |
Topic |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.05 15:47:00 - [ 1]
OK, griefers don't want a change. Carebears want the whole shebang to go away. I think the current system leans entirely to the griefers side, so here is my tight-rope balancing act:
You should not be able to war dec any random corp any random time. You should have to have "deteriorating political conditions" build up first. I'd suggest a points system that changes similar to your security status, only for corp/alliance relations. Kind of like points on your drivers license:
Every corp starts out neutral (0 points) to eachother. This relationship would not show up anywhere obviously (list of relations would be 10 miles long). Then, when one corp does some act of aggression against another corp, the relationship receives a certain number of points, depending on the severity of the act. For example:
- Stealing another corp's wreck or can would result in 1 point
- Attacking another corp's ship would result in 15 points
- Podding another corp's player would result in 30 points
- Attacking another corp's POS would result in 60 points
Once the relationship builds so many points, the aggressed can declare war on the agressor. After so many more points, the agressor can declare war on the aggressed. Once a corp accumulates, say, 30 points against another corp, the aggressed corp can declare war on the aggressing corp (the one accumulating points). To prevent carebears never fighting back, keeping aggressors from getting a war, after double that number of points, so 60 points, the aggressor can war dec those they are aggressing, whether they want it or not. This should help reduce the random high-sec war dec griefers w/o eliminating wars in general. Example:
Corp X pods a Corp Y member (30 points, or steals 30 wrecks, attacks 2 ships, whatever), corp Y is given the chance to declare war on X. But if Y ignores completely, X can keep aggressing until they can war dec Y, forcing Y into war. So X attacks 2 of Y's ships (or steals 30 wrecks, etc), getting up to 60 points. X can now war dec Y. X has to work for a war, not just throw some small amount of isk around to grief random people. They have to focus on one. And Y gets a chance to pick up and leave, or stand and fight. And obviously, if X attacks Y, and Y either retaliates outside of war, or declares war and fights, Y would start accumulating points against X.
But then every week, the points a corp accumulates against another drops by some amount, say 15. So over time, if there is no hostile activity, relations will drop back down to neutral. If you are in a war, but it has been inactive, then the war can't be renewed if points for the renewing party drop below 30. After typing this, this is very similar to kill rights, just on a bigger, more complex scale for corps/alliances.
Tell me what you think! And high-sec war dec griefers, I don't care about you not liking any change, since it already favors you. Carebears, don't complain it is not enough of a change, you can't live a 100% carebear lifestyle in eve. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc |
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:15:00 - [ 2]
Nice idea. But it would take a lot of storage to keep track of all those 'points'.
Plus there is no option for you to wardec me after I smacktalked your mom in local.
One of the things I like about the wardec system is that it can be used 'for no reason at all'.
...(and I'm a carebear) |
Pink Lilly |
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:18:00 - [ 3]
I dont think most people who are termed "carebears" are really that.
The problem I have with wardec's is the stupid way the fees work.
Corp A Wardec's Corp B. Has a war for 2M isk for a week. Cancels the war right before the new fee gets imposed (Remember wardec fee's go up the longer time in play). Wait for 24 hours then re-wardeck for a small 2M fee.
So in effect you get weeks of war for tiny amounts of isk. Makes sense for the griefers as they are making money on killin "carebears".
I realize Eve is not supposed to lean torwards the PVP crowd or the carebear crowd. But from what I have sean, pvp'er (or griefers in real terms) have a distinct advantage over the "carebear" lot. |
Ydyp Ieva
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:24:00 - [ 4]
 Originally by: Jint Hikaru
Nice idea. But it would take a lot of storage to keep track of all those 'points'.
Plus there is no option for you to wardec me after I smacktalked your mom in local.
One of the things I like about the wardec system is that it can be used 'for no reason at all'.
...(and I'm a carebear)
That is the current reason of problems: you don't need one to start a war. But well this systems has still a few flaws though. What stops the griefer corp to just take newbieship and suicide shoot the other corp ships. Or do they only gain the 15 points for destroying the ship instead of only attacking it. And what happens if the aggressor gets bored and stops aggressing, do they keep the accumulated points or do they degrade after time. Also in your numbers 4 successfull suicide ganks, that already griefs the attacked corps, opens up for hardcore griefing of the griefing corp. So in the end it won't realy stop the griefing wars, no matter how high you make those pointsystems cost. However it could be worked out in more detail and get a nice base to start from. |
Irn Bruce |
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:41:00 - [ 5]
There's one glaring flaw in your system. All it takes is a single suicide alt to shoot the other side's POS for enough points to be built up for the deccing corp to instantly declare war. Or 4 of them to suicide against the other corp's ships. That's really very easy to do. Even if you increase the numbers, it's still going to be done.
There seems to be a misconception regarding wars and griefing though. Griefing is specifically playing the game in such a fashion that you deliberately seek to ruin it for others, and that's your sole motivation. There are very, very few corps that actually do this. Most wardec corps do it for the isk and for their own enjoyment. Play styles in Eve are contradictory sometimes, but just because someone engages in a play style which doesn't mesh well with someone else's doesn't mean they're griefing.
For example, say corp A decs corp B. Corp B may be shut up in a station for a week, or they may lose a lot of ships. Either way, their normal activities are disrupted. They're not able to carry out research and manufacturing in their pos because they unanchored all the facilities in case the pos was attacked, and largely they're relegated to flying around in cheap frigates trying to avoid getting killed, or sitting in station playing scrabble. Corp B doesn't like this situation, and calls corp A griefers, because obviously the only reason they declared war was to ruin life for corp B.
Meanwhile, corp C, which lives in the same system as corp B, has noticed that there are a lot more unmined asteroids in the system this week. They're able to mine more ore than usual, so they have more materials available for manufacture. This means their manufacturing costs are down, and since they also build some of the same items as corp B, they've noticed those items are less plentiful on the market this week, driving prices up. While corp B may be having a bad week, things have never been better for corp C.
It's all part of the ecosystem. Everything which takes place affects a large number of players, even those not directly involved. Wars don't need changed, and I'm not just saying that because I'm someone who would be labelled a griefer just because I happen to kill people who don't want to be killed. Whatever the mechanism for declaring them, they'll still occur just as frequently. And rightly so, because they are an important part of the game, especially in highsec, where there's no other way to have an effect on a corp which has more manufacturing/economical capability than you.
If anything, wars need to be made cheaper. It's far too easy these days for every industrial corp to set up an alliance with a holding corp populated by a single alt. It's a once off cost of 1 billion, which practically makes you immune from decs by smaller or younger corps, simply because they can't afford 50mil per week. Players are richer now, meaning groups of players which would once have been corps, costing 2mil to dec, are now alliances, costing 50mil. When you consider that most carebear corps now seem to have "sister corps" where they can run to and hide if the main corp/alliance gets decced, you can all of a sudden be looking at an outlay of 150-300 million for a week, just to make sure you're at war with the people you want to be at war with. If they were just corps, and not alliances set up for the price of 2 GTCs or a couple of weeks mining with a few alts, it'd cost 12mil max. And I'm talking about a group of maybe 30 active players (yes I've seen this happen). Perhaps there is something in the commonly proposed idea that war fees should bebased on the number of players involved. However, it should purely be based on the numbers in the target corp. Say 100,000isk per week per player in the target corp/alliance? Then if you have 200 players it'll cost 20million, and not 300million if they've metagamed their way into having 3 "sister" alliances. |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:49:00 - [ 6]
Originally by: Ydyp Ieva
But well this systems has still a few flaws though. What stops the griefer corp to just take newbieship and suicide shoot the other corp ships. Or do they only gain the 15 points for destroying the ship instead of only attacking it.
And what happens if the aggressor gets bored and stops aggressing, do they keep the accumulated points or do they degrade after time.
Also in your numbers 4 successfull suicide ganks, that already griefs the attacked corps, opens up for hardcore griefing of the griefing corp. So in the end it won't realy stop the griefing wars, no matter how high you make those pointsystems cost.
However it could be worked out in more detail and get a nice base to start from.
First: I thought about attack vs destroy, because of the very concern of "grab a newb ship and take 1 shot." I didn't come to a definitive conclusion, but I'd have to lean towards destroying a ship. Because honestly, if the ship isn't destroyed, there's no real damage of any kind done to the aggressed corp to justify them being able to war dec someone. Second: As I said, points would be reduced every week by X amount (I said 15pts). If the aggressor stops aggressing before they can create a war dec, then the points will eventually go away. The way to prevent a war would be to move systems, don't hang around ganking locations (like belts), or simply dock up (which is basically what is done now) so the aggressor never gets the points. To end a war, the aggressed would simply dock up, again, as they do now, if they didn't want to fight. The aggressed corp would just be getting a bit of a warning that they have been targeted, and can try to prevent becoming war targets by staying out of gankable situations for a week (or until the aggressors get bored). And I think the added hoops to jump through would just reduce the amount of actual grief war decs (how many there are is debateable and will never really be known). Another concern was the points assigned to a POS: This is so the new system doesn't hamper low-sec & null-sec wars in order to improve high-sec grief wars. If someone is trying to take down your POS, then you certainly should be able to immediately war-dec them. And to add a slight refinement, a corporation's POS killing someone else shouldn't create points. If it did, you could just send noob ships at a pos to be destroyed until you could create a war dec. And to add to low-sec / 0.0 in general, war dec's aren't THAT big a deal there. Concord isn't gonna come nuke your butt, so all you really gain w/ a war dec is not worrying about gate guns or standings, and taking the war to high-sec. A broader answer to all concerns, yes, this is an extremely bare bones idea to fix what I (and I think many others) feel is a slightly broken system that could use some revamping. The amount of points I assigned to things, and how much you need to do what was just an example of how the mechanics would work. |
Mind Scratcher |
Posted - 2009.08.06 00:17:00 - [ 7]
Edited by: Mind Scratcher on 06/08/2009 00:40:05
Also worth considering are the mercenary corps. When contracted, they probably have no connection with their quarry, so would they first have to 'deteriote the political conditions' before they could declare the war they were paid to carry out? Or would you formalise a mercenary agreement into a game mechanic, where the contractee pays for the transferral of points to the merc corp?
EDIT: Removed stupid flaw. |
Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp |
Posted - 2009.08.06 00:28:00 - [ 8]
As long as your system has an exception that I can declare war immediately upon people whose opinions I disagree with, or pre-emptively upon people who I suspect might one day do me harm, or spontaneously upon anyone else for any reason, then I am ok with your system. |
Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service |
Posted - 2009.08.06 00:38:00 - [ 9]
Originally by: Jint Hikaru
Nice idea. But it would take a lot of storage to keep track of all those 'points'.
no more then standings, surely? if you assume that no entry in the database between two given corps = neutral, you database instantly shrinks by 99% |
soldieroffortune 258
Gallente
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 02:51:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Jint Hikaru
Nice idea. But it would take a lot of storage to keep track of all those 'points'.
Plus there is no option for you to wardec me after I smacktalked your mom in local.
One of the things I like about the wardec system is that it can be used 'for no reason at all'.
...(and I'm a carebear)
Basically this tbh. |
Tamahra
Gallente
Apina.
United Pod Service |
Posted - 2009.08.06 06:41:00 - [ 11]
if you want safety, join a bigger corp.
cry some more... |
Daedalus II
Helios Research |
Posted - 2009.08.06 07:58:00 - [ 12]
This point system gave me an idea. How about a DEFCOM sort of system?
All corps start off with DEFCOM 0 against each other (I don't know if the real DEFCOM system counts up or down, but here higher is worse). A corp can then up the DEFCOM by 1 point say every 24 or 48 hours. When at DEFCOM 5 they can declare war against that corp.
This DEFCOM value would be visible for everyone (by show info on corp) and the targeted corp could even get an automated warning when, say, any corp goes to DEFCOM 3 towards them.
If both corps set DEFCOM values against each other the timeout is reset, which means that a fast mutual escalation is possible.
For example:
Corp A and B are ****ed at each other, corp B sets DEFCOM 1 towards A.
Corp A sees this (they expected something like this would happen) and then themselves set DEFCOM 1 towards B.
The 24 hour countdown to DEFCOM 2 for B is now reset, so B can and do immediately go to DEFCOM 2.
The 24 hour countdown for A resets and corp A goes to DEFCOM 2.
And so on...
This mechanic allows carebear corps to prepare (but not totally stop wardecs), perhaps by changing corps (it will take the attacking corp at least 5 days to re-wardec the corp they jumped to), or by preparing PvP ships and training. While corps that want to have the wardec can mutually escalate the DEFCOM to speed up the process. |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2009.08.06 08:37:00 - [ 13]
NO!
Not being able to wardec a random corp would terribly suck!!
A war does not need explanations.
Sit the war out on station, join a bigger corp or stop being carebear.
You're playing an MMO. |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 12:39:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Tamahra
if you want safety, join a bigger corp.
cry some more...
Um, thank you for all the wrong conclusions about me. My corp isn't very big, but we are experienced. Our alliance is of decent enough size. I'm not looking for safety. I just think this particular game mechanic could stand some refinement. And before you make another wrong conclusion, our corp has only been randomly dec'd by high-sec griefers once (stupid ones at that. we live in low-sec, they just saw us doing a trade run to jita). And they ended up taking a LOT more in loses than us. And to clarify, there are 2 types of "high sec griefers" I'm talking about. The more important ones I think the system needs to change to stop are the true "griefers", those just war decing to get some laughs at making newbs and small corps miserable to the point of quiting the game. To a lesser extent, I don't agree with high-sec pirates. Like the corp that dec'd us. They just wanted a war-dec so they could pop a freighter in high-sec w/o a massive suicide gank. IMO, low-sec was created for pirating, high-sec was created for if you don't want to deal with pirating, and random high-sec war dec's are a work around to the system as it was intended. But again, that's just a disagreement the use of current mechanics (chicken pirates basically, go to low-sec). But my change is mainly aimed at true griefers, as high-sec pirates are easy enough to deal with. |
Tiny Tove |
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:13:00 - [ 15]
Sounds like a Merc nerf. |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:25:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Mind Scratcher
Or would you formalise a mercenary agreement into a game mechanic, where the contractee pays for the transferral of points to the merc corp?
EDIT: Removed stupid flaw.
IDk about fitting it into my idea, but on a side note, I kinda like the idea of having formal mercenary contracts  |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:28:00 - [ 17]
merc contracts? You mean 2 corps could contract each other for having lots of pvp for free? :))
Whats would be the difference between wardecs and merc contracts? |
Tiny Tove |
Posted - 2009.08.06 13:30:00 - [ 18]
|
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 14:17:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
merc contracts? You mean 2 corps could contract each other for having lots of pvp for free? :))
Whats would be the difference between wardecs and merc contracts?
Merc contract: Set up a contract where corp X pays corp Y to attack corp Z. Money is held in escrow until the objective is complete. Objective could be # of ships destroyed or amount of isk damage, etc. Perhaps make the merc corp give a nominal deposit to make only those serious about carrying out the contract accept (don't want a corp accepting a merc contract for free and then do nothing). Someone in Corp X would have to have the skils trained to put up a corporate contract. This has completely morphed the topic of this thread, but here's why it is better: Current system: Corp X for whatever reason hires Corp Y to attack Corp Z. Either X "promises" to pay Y, and Y has to take their word, or X pre-pays Y, and hopes Y does the job. Neither is good there. Assuming that goes well, Y war-decs Z and attacks. Z may never know who hired Y, so X can potentially attack Z without Z ever knowing. New system: X declares war on Z. X creates a contract for a merc corp to attack Z. Offer is 1 billion isk, which is immediately deposited into escrow. Y accepts the contract, with a 200 mill (or whatever) deposit going into escrow (similar to collateral on a courier contract). Y is brought into the war after a 24 hr notice (Corp Y has been contracted by Corp X to join the war efforts against Corp Z...). The contract would state some sort of goal, lets say 1 billion isk damages. Y would have until the end of the contract period to complete the contract. If completed, Y gets the 1 billion reward + their deposit back. If Y fails, they get no reward, and lose their deposit. Potential problems: -War ends before contract ends: The merc corp would have to be able to figure out how long is left in the current paid for war time from the contract. Otherwise, they could accept a 7 day contract when there's only 1 day of war left paid for. Perhaps the length of the contract would be the remaining war time, and that time would be constantly changing in the contracts (similar to an auction). And if the war is extended, the contract would maybe have an option for both sides to accept to be extended through the next paid war time. -Dec'd corp gets notice a merc corp has been hired, docks up for the rest of the war dec (or were docked up to begin with), and merc corp has no way to complete contract: IDK how to get around this one. You could make the merc corp's deposit so small that if they lose it, not a huge deal. Was just risk/reward, and you got stuck w/ the risk. But then why have deposits in the first place if they are so small they don't matter. So then People could just accept merc contracts and then change their minds with no real loss. Ideas? I just like the more formalized setting, it takes some of the payment / performance risk out of the equation for the hiring and hired corps, and it makes sure if someone wants to war dec another corp, the war dec'd corp will know who is really attacking them. |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2009.08.06 14:37:00 - [ 20]
so how do merc contracts fix the wardeccing "problem" (which isnt in my opinion)??
Today I just wardec a corp at will, tomorrow I create a nub char and contract my main corp to bash a corp at will... |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 14:49:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
so how do merc contracts fix the wardeccing "problem" (which isnt in my opinion)??
Today I just wardec a corp at will, tomorrow I create a nub char and contract my main corp to bash a corp at will...
Like I said, this is something that morphed away from the main topic of this thread. Somone mentioned merc contracts, and I ran with it as a completely new and independent idea. You don't have to tie the 2 ideas together, since what I thought up as a new merc contract would pull you into another corp's war, however they formed it (current system, proposed system, any other system). |
Nika Dekaia |
Posted - 2009.08.06 15:32:00 - [ 22]
The unconsensual PvP aspect is one of the reasons why EVE is EVE. The wardec system is in need of a overhaul, but core elements have to be kept.
I still don't see, where you allow me to wardec a corp that smacktalked. Since this can't be logged, it would require human interaction on a case by case basis - therefore it's not feasible.
Or what about corps that will try to not provoke you in those ways warranting points. Like a corp of macrominers. Or scammers.
|
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 16:18:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
The unconsensual PvP aspect is one of the reasons why EVE is EVE. The wardec system is in need of a overhaul, but core elements have to be kept.
I still don't see, where you allow me to wardec a corp that smacktalked. Since this can't be logged, it would require human interaction on a case by case basis - therefore it's not feasible.
Or what about corps that will try to not provoke you in those ways warranting points. Like a corp of macrominers. Or scammers.
If someone is smack talking you, and you want to war dec them, don't be lazy. Go shoot them up until you have the points to dec them. If they run and hide, it honestly has the same result as just using a war dec to start with. The main benefit to the aggressed corp is it gives them the ability to cling to gates, move round quickly, and if they want to run away to another system before they become full blown war targets. it also increases the cost of a war indirectly, since you will have to sacrifice some ships in suicide ganks if you chose to shoot up ships & pods in high-sec to accumulate points. A workaround is to steal a lot of wrecks & cans, exchanging isk loss for time loss. |
Irn Bruce |
Posted - 2009.08.06 16:38:00 - [ 24]
Originally by: Chi'kote
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
The unconsensual PvP aspect is one of the reasons why EVE is EVE. The wardec system is in need of a overhaul, but core elements have to be kept.
I still don't see, where you allow me to wardec a corp that smacktalked. Since this can't be logged, it would require human interaction on a case by case basis - therefore it's not feasible.
Or what about corps that will try to not provoke you in those ways warranting points. Like a corp of macrominers. Or scammers.
If someone is smack talking you, and you want to war dec them, don't be lazy. Go shoot them up until you have the points to dec them. If they run and hide, it honestly has the same result as just using a war dec to start with. The main benefit to the aggressed corp is it gives them the ability to cling to gates, move round quickly, and if they want to run away to another system before they become full blown war targets. it also increases the cost of a war indirectly, since you will have to sacrifice some ships in suicide ganks if you chose to shoot up ships & pods in high-sec to accumulate points. A workaround is to steal a lot of wrecks & cans, exchanging isk loss for time loss.
This doesn't work, because you would have to shoot yourself in the foot by screwing up your sec with suicide ganks to get the points. Also, smack talkers tend to be the ones already hiding in station, so by them running and hiding, you're only going to make the smack worse. At least if you can just dec them you can at least shoot them on sight when they come out and get some satisfaction out of it. Likewise, if they're hiding in stations smack talking, there are no wrecks and cans to steal. And ISK loss isn't the problem with suicide ganks, it's sec loss. For every single GCC you get in highsec it takes hours of ratting or missioning to get the sec back. Not to mention if suicide ganks were required to get wars, there'd be millions of suicide ganks happening, and all the bears would moan again. |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2009.08.06 16:54:00 - [ 25]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 06/08/2009 16:55:24
not to forget, getting smashed by concord for shooting smackers would induce only moar smack, who wants that? |
Nika Dekaia |
Posted - 2009.08.06 17:40:00 - [ 26]
As Irn Bruce said, there are still loopholes which make the idea bad. It gives even more warning to a corp you want to wardec. Originally by: Chi'kote
If someone is smack talking you, and you want to war dec them, don't be lazy.
Having to put effort and time into a smacktard, giving him more stuff to smack about, is really NOT what I want to do. ("You wanna wardec me, noob? Try to steal my wrecks, haha.") If the required pionts to dec are set too high, it would end most wardeccing, 'cause it's too much of an effort. If you set it too low, it wouldn't change anything, really. |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 17:58:00 - [ 27]
Originally by: Chi'kote
If someone is smack talking you, and you want to war dec them, don't be lazy. Go shoot them up until you have the points to dec them. If they run and hide, it honestly has the same result as just using a war dec to start with. The main benefit to the aggressed corp is it gives them the ability to cling to gates, move round quickly, and if they want to run away to another system before they become full blown war targets. it also increases the cost of a war indirectly, since you will have to sacrifice some ships in suicide ganks if you chose to shoot up ships & pods in high-sec to accumulate points. A workaround is to steal a lot of wrecks & cans, exchanging isk loss for time loss.
This doesn't work, because you would have to shoot yourself in the foot by screwing up your sec with suicide ganks to get the points.... Likewise, if they're hiding in stations smack talking, there are no wrecks and cans to steal....
1) If your only way to gather points is to hit up people in high-sec, its because they don't operate in all at low-sec at all. Then I would say you should take a sec status hit. You are starting wars in a policed zone. If you want wars without major sec status hits, move along to low-sec / null-sec and don't pick on high-sec corps that obviously aren't out there for pvp. That my friend, I would start labeling griefing, and you should take a sec status hit (but again, I'm still allowing you to get your war, just creating a more fair cost of time, effort and isk). 2) If you are dealing with some person hiding in a station smack talking, then they are just some childish, immature person (or actually a child). Just move along. Do you really have nothing better to do? Are there really no better targets that can actually provide a FUN war? With people who actually shoot back with more than their keyboards? And seriously, how is war dec'ing someone and then station camping them until you get bored any different than station camping them to gank them for points until you can war dec them and continue to station camp them? You just have to pay more to do it, which you should have to do imo. I hate equating eve to real life, because 99.9% of the time it is just fail. But here I go anyway. Most countries have a police force (concord). If a person attacks another person (corp attacks corp), no matter how good the reason (other than self defense), you're butt is going to jail (sec status hit). So, if you want to attack another corp, for any reason other than self defense / retaliation, and do it in the policed high-sec regions, you should take a sec status hit. Again, not trying to make a MMO consisting of flying around in space ships the same as real life, but the concepts here should equate. Don't wine about the RL comparison, I already did to myself in my head  |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 18:02:00 - [ 28]
Edited by: Chi''kote on 06/08/2009 18:50:22 Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Having to put effort and time into a smacktard, giving him more stuff to smack about, is really NOT what I want to do. ("You wanna wardec me, noob? Try to steal my wrecks, haha.")
If the required pionts to dec are set too high, it would end most wardeccing, 'cause it's too much of an effort. If you set it too low, it wouldn't change anything, really.
I agree, you need to find the right balance in the middle somewhere. But again, are there no better things to do in eve than station camp smacktalkers? If not, why are you paying for the game? They are being immature. Be the bigger man, and move along and find a real war target, not some punk gettin his jolllies staring at a ship in station while smack-talking. Anyone who would spend their day station camping smacktalkers are no better than the smacktalkers, my 2 cents about that anyway. |
Nika Dekaia |
Posted - 2009.08.06 18:58:00 - [ 29]
Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 06/08/2009 19:00:02 Originally by: Chi'kote
I agree, you need to find the right balance in the middle somewhere. But again, are there no better things to do in eve than station camp smacktalkers? If not, why are you paying for the game? They are being immature. Be the bigger man, and move along and find a real war target, not some punk gettin his jolllies staring at a ship in station while smack-talking. Anyone who would spend there day station camping smacktalkers are no better than the smacktalkers, my 2 cents about that anyway.
I camp someone in a station because HE started it with smacktalking, therefore making him play MY game and teach him a lesson (given it's not an alt) - and I am ON HIS LEVEL? Come again? Sure I could say "Meh, dumb kid, keep smacking, I'll just do my stuff". But why? He has no right to do so. Hate to do it, but: RL. If someone insults you and your family, friends, whatever, and you can not sue him or make him stop in any civilized way (petitioning won't stop him from abuse, trust me). I then should not be allowed to tell him: I'll break your face, if you keep doing it (and do it, if he doesn't stop) - as in deccing his sorry ass. |
Chi'kote |
Posted - 2009.08.06 19:46:00 - [ 30]
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
Edited by: Nika Dekaia on 06/08/2009 19:00:02
I camp someone in a station because HE started it with smacktalking, therefore making him play MY game and teach him a lesson (given it's not an alt) - and I am ON HIS LEVEL? Come again?
Sure I could say "Meh, dumb kid, keep smacking, I'll just do my stuff". But why? He has no right to do so.
Hate to do it, but: RL. If someone insults you and your family, friends, whatever, and you can not sue him or make him stop in any civilized way (petitioning won't stop him from abuse, trust me). I then should not be allowed to tell him: I'll break your face, if you keep doing it (and do it, if he doesn't stop) - as in deccing his sorry ass.
Again, your game is station camping? I don't care why, that's one boring game. And I don't know what country you live in, but in most I know someone can call you and your mother whatever nasty slur they want to, and you can dish out whatever verbal response you want, but you never have the right to physically harm them in response. That's called escalating the situation to assault, and will have you living in an 8x8 box. But we have digressed too far into the eve vs real life game now  |
|
All Channels
Features and Ideas Discussion
