open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Corp hopping to avoid a War Dec. Exploit , lame or fine?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

ShardowRhino
Caldari
Torque Theory
Posted - 2008.05.14 14:35:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Sunwillow Auryn
My enjoyment of EVE comes from character development and testing my ships & set up against PvE opponents. I play to relax and don't want to go through the stress and adrenalin of PvP (which I suck at anyway and always lose - and have zero desire to actually learn to get better at).

Someone above (I forget who, sorry) posted an idea about having the aggressor set goals for victory, and if they failed to achieve them they would lose the war and be unable to dec the same corp again until they had spent as much time in peace as they had been at war - the example given was 1 bil isk value of ships destroyed. I think that's a great idea and would definitely make random war decs less likely to happen, especially if the loser had to pay reparations to the winner - that's what happens in real world wars isn't it?


First off, Character development?? What do you do after you can hop into a BS and solo L4s? You clearly don't need recons,EW,capitalship skills,interceptors,hacs..hell anything but cruisers to solo L1s,Cruisers for L2s,BC for L3s and BSes for L4s. theres no real need for development after that.

But to the real point here, the idea of creating massive objectives for the wardecing corp to meet. That to me is complete nonsense. A corp that is wardeced just has to sit in a station for the week to prevent the wardecing corp from meeting any crazy objectives that some random person sets up. What if the target doesn't have a billion isk ,even if they chucked everything out an airlock?

What if they refuse to fight? No war has ever been won by not fighting it. There has never been any safezone you can sit in and still win. You lose by not fighting,by attempting to stop the aggressor. If such a thing is to be added we need to be able to shove wartarget ships out of the npc stations so the aggressor gets a real chance at winning. You shouldn't be rewarded for sitting inside a station at the end of the week.

There could be a contract type where the attacked corp can chose to pay a "ransom" or "fee" in order to call off the wardec. The isk that is paid goes to the attacking corp's wallet. In trade the attacker cannot redec the corp within X amount of time. That amount of time will be set in weeks or months and negotiable. The aggressor can choose a time frame and the target can ask to get it changed but final say goes to the attacking ceo.

Of course this system will be purely optional when it comes to a wardec,not a set rule. That way people that don't want to fight have a real means of negotiations where the attackers cannot go against their word. THe game can take a snapshot of the decing corp's roster. those players in the corp at the time are not able to participate in a war against the target for the endurance of the treaty.

however you can always try to negotiate with the wardecing corp. Either give them the pewpew they are looking for or isk to pewpew at another corp. I'm sure most aggressors would want to keep their word since it will help get them more ransoms.

if you want to pvp with economics thats where mercs come in. If you know people that actually pvp you can ask them and replace their losses, they might just take up your offer.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.05.14 15:04:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Originally by: Farrqua
You have not proven anything. You keep dancing around the issue and you offer no solutions. I think you are afraid to really tell us what you want to do because you will probably will get blasted right off the forums.

I have already done that in the past, and I don't care for the flamers and trolls and what they say, because for every one of those there are at least three players that agree with what I say. I have never been affraid to tell what I want, and there's plenty of posting history to prove that.

Originally by: Farrqua
All you have shown is your personal vendetta towards players you perceive as Griefers. From what I have read from your previous posts, you seem to be leaning very hard to restricting PvP and pushing your own agenda.

Read my candidacy FAQ:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=763232&page=1#2

I want MORE PVP not less.


I am sorry young lady but I am not flaming nor trolling. You are being a little defensive.




Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:23:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: ShardowRhino
The idea of people remaining WTs even if they leave a corp could go either way. Either a griefer could still hunt someone down that tried to avoid fighting by leaving the corp OR a griefer that is in a corp that was wardeced will get to be hunted. The griefer that abandoned his corp wouldn't be able to get away with what he did to **** off the decing corp. Instead he has to watch his back.

Since we are dealing with computers and not a council or police force there is no way to go after someone 15minutes after he steals your ore. He gets away with it and no one is keeping track of how bad this guy is. Theres no detective tracking the guy down and no database to show what crimes hes commited and gotten away with.

There is no other way to deal with such a person 15minutes after he steals your ore, other then a wardec. BUT he can also use the same broken mechanic that fluffy carebears can use to avoid empire justice.


Which is exactly what I've been saying all the time.

Originally by: ShardowRhino
All in all you cant screw over one group without screwing over others. If someone is trying to get elected into some council in eve, someone shouldn't be pushing for ways to destroy the game.

If you think my vision will destroy the game, you have been seriously misinterpreting my posts.

Originally by: ShardowRhino
It is not anyone's fault if new players want to set out and make their own corp. Been there, done that myself but we knew the risks the entire time. Your idea of jacking up wardec costs in addition to the current system and trying to justify everything(regulate) is equal to the government spoon feeding people while keeping them hogtied.

"RISK VS REWARD", something people obviously don't even have the prerequisite skills for.

I never said ANYWHERE that I want to increase wardec costs. Quite the contrary, as increased wardec costs would not solve this problem in any fashion, and also works both ways.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:25:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Farrqua
I am sorry young lady but I am not flaming nor trolling. You are being a little defensive.

I never said you were.

I was clearly referring to my post history, how I always voiced my opinions on game mechanics in the past, and all the things that happened months ago.

Lucy'Lastic
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:49:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Lucy''Lastic on 14/05/2008 16:55:20
I found this post from ages ago.it is old and needs updating but there is still some useful stuff in there.

lots of ways to deal with war a dec

do that or leave for an npc corp imo


Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:52:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Sariyah on 14/05/2008 16:54:53
Forcing PvPers to PvP less (and thus carebear more if they want to play) is a very dangerous PoV. Radical groups like this shouldn't be allowed to destroy Eve.

- It's happening because people want to play and have fun. Also it's one way to make Isk, a heluva more interesting for many than mining / ratting / missioning / manfacturing / trading etc. and that sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me.
Locking highsec people in a safe shell where no one can touch them is so against Eve philosophy. Don't change the game fundamentally rather than fixing and enhancing it.
Any small to medium carebear (includes all safe isk making activities) corp with mostly new people (less than a year old) will consider any wardec griefing, this word is so biased it's not even worth using it. If you want more safety for highsec people then CCP should also, naturally, lower their potential profits as possible. You can't control the market but you can control the belts in highsec, mission bounties/loot/rewards and possibly more; sure make wardec fees 100-200m or whatever, but also make profits like half or 1/4 from what they are now. After all with less wardecs people lose less so their wealth will be still constantly increasing with virtually no chance to go down unless they gamble it all.
Hell, have a PvE flag if you wish that you turn on forever and then you can't jump into lowsec or interact with others only with the outcasts like you; then the risk is 0. Means also the reward should be set to 0. Seems like perfectly logical and balanced. Point is, reducing risks while maintaining rewards is a bad thing for every game. Been there, trust me.

Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
I found this post from ages ago.

lots of ways to deal with war a dec

do that or leave for an npc corp imo

that should be stickied in c&p as well.

Problem is that probably at least 95% of the people we "need" protected don't read forums, or fail to understand a perfectly beautiful guide like that. So they need to be protected against their own ignorance, which is a hard task to perform; but there seem to be people that think CCP should do it.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:00:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: ShardowRhino
If you saw a 2week old nub cruising in 0.0 ratting it up would you not pop him if he isnt blue? I doubt few will say "oh i feel sorry for the nubkin so ill let him keep his shiny new bs,aww how cute!". What would really happen is that little nub will be screaming "****!!!" as you and a gang have you way with his ship. While hes crying about you attacking him and asking why hes now floating in an egg your not going to show mercy, your going to pop him or attempt a ransom. If you still say you would, remember you cant blow up ships with your mining lasers anyways.

Why would I want to shoot at another player? Remember I'm the one that has NEVER fired on another player even if that resulted in the destruction on my vessel. As a player, I'm a pure pacifist. Maybe that changes with faction warfare, we'll see. Note that as CSM, I want to encourage PVP, before you get any funny ideas like so many other posters have before.

Originally by: ShardowRhino
Remember there are players that are mercenaries. Those players would NEVER have justification for a wardec if you change it to some fluffy system you want to install. They are not the ones being given the justification to use a wardec. That playstyle is Dead once your idea is put in game.

Mercs would be a way for a weak group to get some help. Also if your so interested in saving the endangered carebear your corp could make a life of being an equalizer.

Actually mercs would have justification, as they are accomplishing a strategic objective for which they are rewarded by the corp that hired them. So that would be a justified wardec. Which is clearly defined so in my earlier post.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:12:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 14/05/2008 17:14:46
Originally by: Sariyah
Forcing PvPers to PvP less (and thus carebear more if they want to play) is a very dangerous PoV. Radical groups like this shouldn't be allowed to destroy Eve.

Agreed 100%. Fortunately I'm nothing like that.

Originally by: Sariyah
- It's happening because people want to play and have fun. Also it's one way to make Isk, a heluva more interesting for many than mining / ratting / missioning / manfacturing / trading etc. and that sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me.

That would be a perfectly valid reason.

Originally by: Sariyah
Locking highsec people in a safe shell where no one can touch them is so against Eve philosophy. Don't change the game fundamentally rather than fixing and enhancing it.

Again I fully agree.

Originally by: Sariyah
Any small to medium carebear (includes all safe isk making activities) corp with mostly new people (less than a year old) will consider any wardec griefing, this word is so biased it's not even worth using it. If you want more safety for highsec people then CCP should also, naturally, lower their potential profits as possible. You can't control the market but you can control the belts in highsec, mission bounties/loot/rewards and possibly more; sure make wardec fees 100-200m or whatever, but also make profits like half or 1/4 from what they are now. After all with less wardecs people lose less so their wealth will be still constantly increasing with virtually no chance to go down unless they gamble it all.

How do 5 men being in a corp yield more profit from mining and missions opposed to 5 people from NPC corps? The main advantage of being in a corp is the ability to have a POS, as well as the convenience of a corp hangar and wallet, but I'd say friends would do it for the chat channel, the fancy corp tag, and other social reasons rather than financial ones.

Originally by: Sariyah
Hell, have a PvE flag if you wish that you turn on forever and then you can't jump into lowsec or interact with others only with the outcasts like you; then the risk is 0. Means also the reward should be set to 0. Seems like perfectly logical and balanced. Point is, reducing risks while maintaining rewards is a bad thing for every game. Been there, trust me.

Again, I never said I want to get rid of PVP.

Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:32:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Farrqua
I would like to see ... the new players understand EVE. Once players understand truly what EVE is really about you will see less frivolous whines ...
If people were really told your version of what Eve is (We get to kill you anytime we want to no matter where you are) you would see a huge drop in new players joining.

Most people join to spend some time with friends mining or PvE ops for a couple of hours. All you accomplish is running them out of the game.

Originally by: Jade Constantine
.. it becomes a tool of short term conflict objective where the purpose is to inflict damage on the target and the system itself will assess the "winner" after a couple of weeks...
What the system could do is assess the wardec’ing corp a larger fee that would be the “Pot” of isk that either side would win if they are declared the winner. You could make this larger fee at least 50-500m depending on various conditions. (To be determined)

This will cut down on frivolous wardec’s and make both sides have incentive to “win” the war. If the wardec’ed group hires mercs then both merc’s and their kills are added together in the mix to see if they can win the war and get the “winning fee” to offset their costs of paying for mercs.

I’m quite sure the PvP’ing pirates will hate this idea though! Because all those people want are quick kills against lower sp characters. Fairness to them is a foreign language.

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:28:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Sariyah on 14/05/2008 18:29:45
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
I’m quite sure the PvP’ing pirates will hate this idea though! Because all those people want are quick kills against lower sp characters. Fairness to them is a foreign language.

Haha, evil honorless pirates :)
A very educative video on the subject, see why it's a problem to listen to too newb people... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9oAGnK9CU
A pretty extreme example of why newbies opinion should not matter too much in deciding where this game is heading. They simply don't know the game enough and simply keep blaming the evil agressors instead of realizing they are the ignorant ones.
Yes this is lowsec but I'm sure people in highsec have the same fake ideas of what Eve is.

Noodle Pastaman
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:57:00 - [71]
 

People do not play EVE for its hard core PVP they play it because its the only mmoprpg with space ships fundamentally.
Another space game with decent PVE would clear up ( as would an EVE server with PVP flagging)
Quite simply most the population is generally constructive and there main concept of PVP is them against themselves etc

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.14 19:16:00 - [72]
 

Shoo alt, not sure if that was a joke or I should be scared.

Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.14 19:21:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Sariyah
Yes this is lowsec ...
There is your answer: Apples to oranges.
We are talking about high sec mechanics here and how to stop griefing.

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.14 19:29:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Sariyah on 14/05/2008 19:30:36
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Sariyah
Yes this is lowsec ...
There is your answer: Apples to oranges.
We are talking about high sec mechanics here and how to stop griefing.


Petition griefing. Anyways what griefing has to do with wardecs? Back on topic plx. :)
Point is that noob never udnerstood what this game is as some don't understand it here.

He was convinced that what he got was griefing. Oh how wrong he was. As some here... simple things really, not sure why is hard to understand.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.05.14 20:41:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Sariyah
Edited by: Sariyah on 14/05/2008 19:30:36
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Sariyah
Yes this is lowsec ...
There is your answer: Apples to oranges.
We are talking about high sec mechanics here and how to stop griefing.


Petition griefing. Anyways what griefing has to do with wardecs? Back on topic plx. :)
Point is that noob never udnerstood what this game is as some don't understand it here.

He was convinced that what he got was griefing. Oh how wrong he was. As some here... simple things really, not sure why is hard to understand.


I think what they are thinking is that war dec'ing is a form of griefing. From what I am piecing together is that they want to push for the idea that when you war dec some one it should be equally matched and mutual. IE each corp has the same basic SP average in combat and that both corps want the war in the first place. So in essence it is a conditional Flagging PvP. It looks like a push for a no nonconsensual PvP zone.

With that train in thought in mind the industrial corp with 50 members can't war dec a 3 man empire can flipper corp because the SP numbers don't mesh.

I sat in a NPC corp chat today and I could not believe the drivel spilling forth from these pilots that have no idea what EvE is really about. Someone asked if someone flipped my can can I petition him? And the answer from about ten players was yes. Another question about suicide ganking came up and and the same result. "It is greifing and they can get banned for ganking in empire."

Misinformation about ship fitting, specs, skills, lo sec, ransoming, game mechanics and so forth is running rampant.

Fitz VonHeise: I was suggesting a better and much more user friendly method of getting these n00bs the proper information. Or at least to help the n00bs understand the environment they are getting into so there should be no major surprises to be had. The more you understand about the nature of the game the less hassle and hurt feeling you are going to have. And it should come from CCP directly.

Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.14 21:58:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Farrqua
Fitz VonHeise: I was suggesting a better and much more user friendly method of getting these n00bs the proper information.
Well on that point we agree. I've done the same in noob systems myself.

But beyond giving better information is the issue of wardec'ing. And that is what needs some tweaking.

But we can agree to disagree and let CSM candidates and CCP work through the issues.

Cipher7
Posted - 2008.05.15 05:09:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Sariyah

Forcing PvPers to PvP less (and thus carebear more if they want to play) is a very dangerous PoV. Radical groups like this shouldn't be allowed to destroy Eve.


Negative.

Not PvP less, PvP in areas where people would be forced to face others of their own skill level, rather than just pick on noobs and whatnot.

Why do people "PvP" in highsec? Simple. Because they want to face people who can't or won't fight back.

That is quite frankly g.ay in the extreme.

And yes if I saw a newb floating around in 0.0 or lowsec I'd kill em. Why not? If they can't handle it they should go back to highsec and drink their milk and grow.

What I'd like to see in Eve is more encouragement for people to fight others who would actually be a challenge to them.

Not strictly a /flag of any sort (because that would be lame), but the mechanics should ENCOURAGE people to fight others of their own skill level, via making it more difficult to PvP in one area to push those people into a lower sec where they wouldn't have to grind cash to dec anybody.

Its not the amount of PvP that should change but the where.

Open your map and click "ships destroyed in last 24 hours."

Notice the giant red gash in the middle of the universe? That's highsec.

Notice how 0.0 is mostly calm with tiny bright spots.

0.0 should be the bloody gash.

Lowsec should be the bloody gash.

There should be battles raging across those areas.

Highsec should look like what 0.0 looks like, mostly calm and desolate.

Highsec currently is the worst place for a newb. Newbs should join 0.0 entities ASAP, it's WAAAAAAAY easier to live out there.

Highsec is for experienced players who want to milk trading or agent missions for funds to support an alt.

In my opinion that balance is totally wrong.

0.0 should be endgame not entry-level to midgame.

Hisec shouldn't be midgame to endgame, it should be entry-level game.

And lowsec shouldn't be friggin deserted, it should be midgame, there should be fledgling corps living down there.

In my opinion they should do away with sec hits in lowsec. Pirates should be REWARDED for PvPing in lowsec where piracy belongs, instead they are being pushed into highsec by a lame sec status system which forces them to PvE for sec status.

Also what this would do is encourage players to go into lowsec for a little fun, which they are discouraged from because of the dreaded sec hit and the threat of being stuck in an area where theres no commerce or way of getting resupply without an alt or corp infrastructure.

Also sec hits should be buffed in hisec.

If you kill 1 player in hisec without wardec, you should be an automatic -5 right there.

You want to do piracy, go to lowsec, thats the piracy area.

Also level 3 and level 4 missions in highsec should be moved to lowsec and 0.0 and their difficulty decreased to accomodate a PvP setup. Running a mission should be like ratting, requiring minimal skills and equipment, people should be able to do level 4's in a BC just like they can rat in a BC.

And for gods sake do away with the lame deadspace stuff so ppl can MWD around.

Raediearn
Posted - 2008.05.15 05:49:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Raediearn on 15/05/2008 05:49:16

One possible solution that is sort of a compromise for both sides:

If you leave a corp that is at war you have to wait 7 days before you can join or form another corp.

This will give people some incentive to fight for their corp. If they really don't want to fight for it then they cannot enjoy corp benefits for 7 days. After that they can do whatever they want again.


Pages: 1 2 [3]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only