Yep, they should give wardeccers back some tools to support smaller groups and hunters.
4 Likes
Excellent, yeah like i said give em some tools not being able to dock at stations near their targetsâŚyou really got that one spot on 
good that you agreed on this
Sure, if that was seen as a good thing. Should apply equally to both parties as all mechanics do. So neither party can dock, except in their own Citadels.
Thatâd be fine. I donât see it ever happening, but sure, Make it so no one can dock.
So why should the defenders be penalized when its the agressors that is the ones acting like terroists ? Can you give me that logic then you might have won the grand prize in this discussion
1 Like
A while back, my Alliance was wardecced by a solo player. One of our guys had been a complete douche in local; and using the wardec mechanics as was his right, the one guy wardecced our alliance.
Despite our advice to some of our members, they continued to operate stupidly right where he was known to be and they lost ships (we told them we werenât going to support anyone in the war, because he was right to wardec us). He got his revenge and we totally deserved it.
He did nothing wrong. Just a solo guy, who took what action the game provided for him to take, in order to get revenge on the douchebaggery of one of our members.
He didnât deserve to be punished by not being able to dock. If anything, we did.
Thatâs where often proposals on wardecs are not balanced (like this proposal here). They are blinkered by thinking only of how to hurt the large wardec groups, without considering how they impact small groups and solo players that use the wardec mechanics for âlegitimateâ reasons (there is no such thing. Every corp is free to use them how they like).
This particular proposal (ie. attackers canât dock) is based on a view that somehow only the defenders have a right to blob the attackers, while the attackers donât have that same right. Itâs a typical selfish, short sighted approach that totally ignores the impact on everyone else, just to impact groups you donât personally like.
But Iâm all for it. Whatâs good for the goose is good for the gander. If that one guy who wardecced us wasnât allowed to dock, then we shouldnât be able to either.
5 Likes
Even if your first statement seems like a reasonable act to still having the mechanic in the game which i didnât want to take away from the first place, still it wouldnât hurt this guy seeking revenge from some stupid thing in local, if he repeatedly dont try to war deck a lot of other corps in the process. What these suggestions are applied is to terrorists that constantly is aggressive on a lot of corps and bullies em in the process. So in that case if a security loss will not hurt this guy as an example that bad in the long run since he will only get -0.3 or -0.5 in security loss for that week. This since he chooses to not uphold the peace in the region.
Even if i think the second option not being able to dock is perhaps the weakest suggestion (but still vital since wardeckers cant fight properly) in this matter but still he can always plant a neut spotting out if the coast is clear then sit like 5 jumps out and get in to finish the job or be able to wait on the trading routes where he can dock like the other wardeckers do.
1 Like
Great to see you agree. No one able to dock. Fine. No problem.
1 Like
Yeah i know what you´re after so i dont bother for your little fishing trip and no i think you need reading glasses. Its quite obvious that youâre one of them trying to get favours for your shitty gameplay
Iâm not fishing. Whatâs progress if not for compromise.
You want no docking. Sure, no problems. I donât think it will ever happen, but itâs a non issue. Itâs fine. No docking is perfectly ok (if never implemented).
Problem solved.
1 Like
Yeah dont think either that they will bother to program all that stuff. But what you really want is a favor for the aggressors that still have the big advantage with neuts and spies that constantly can be changed. So think the security loss and bigger payment for the war will settle this quite nice
Nope. Iâve never been part of a wardec group. Never will be. Itâs not my thing.
But thereâs no favor, one way or the other. Defenders can use spies. Defenders can use neuts (weâve done it in the past against wardeccers). Itâs the same for everyone, as it should be.
So no problem. I agree with you. Ban docking. It would be totally fine. As long as I, as a defender in a wardec, have that same ban to keep the mechanics even. I donât need any special treatment and neither does anyone else.
As for security loss and bigger payment, itâs not going to happen either.
In 2012, when CCP last changed the wardec mechanics, they changed the cost structure of wars because wars werenât being used enough in their view. The current structure could probably be adjusted, but Iâm sure CCP will get around to that.
Youâll have total agreement from me if there is an equivalent mechanic for defenders. As long as the mechanics are the same all around, totally agree with you.
None of these ideas will ever be implemented, because they run counter to what EVE is, but sure. I totally agree with you. Wardeccers should pay more for wars and defenders should pay to be able to drop Corp during a war. Attackers should lose security status for declaring war and defenders should lose it for staying docked, or for not logging in.
Youâve solved all the problems. Carebears will cry foul at your proposals, but that is the way of carebears anyway.
1 Like
Yep as i expectedâŚFunny thing that your profile in game are saying youâre a dirty boy and here youâre coming to try to put favors in the terrorist hands as an solution to this. Well some have to be care bears and some has to be assholes that is the way of Eve. But doesnât say you cant be either of em and why should Eve try to strive for even more assholery when it seem clearly that is what they are being manipulated to do. A balance must be in order so both parts can have fun in which way they choose
I totally agree with you. Have all along.
Itâs good that we can agree. Balance all around. Same mechanics for all.
This agreement is fun. Have we solved it now?
Wait what? It says what now?
As far as I remember it says something about things going well until they exploded. Nothing about being a dirty boy.
You sure?
Well the balance isnât in order so i would say no the problem isnât solved but good you agree to this post
Totally man. I agree. Balance all around is a good thing. Same mechanics on both sides. So glad you agree with that.
Real progress.
Still trying to work things around well as i expected from scumbags like you
Donât know what you mean. Iâm a scumbag for agreeing with you?
Now itâs confusing. People were scum for disagreeing with you, now they are scum for agreeing with you?
Ah well. Iâll just continue to agree with you. I mean, Iâll be scum either way, so what does it matter. Glad we can agree on the whole wardec thing though.
No youâre agreeing to disagree with my statement just to get favor to the terrorists hands. But yeah im glad that you see this Wardeck thing as a farce atm making killers run freely in Faction controlled area just to pay a small fee and can use shitty mechanics
Nah. I agree with you. Stop them from docking. Put up the prices. Hit them with security status loss.
I agree with you.
And I also totally agree with your statement that there needs to be balance. So equal mechanics for defenders.
Iâm totally in agreement. Balanced, same mechancis all around just like youâve been saying.
Nope totally got me wrong there and what balance is it there if the aggressors already have the upper hand. Its like you want to put a 70-30 favor down to 35-15 and the issue will still remain. Cant see your logic for agreeing there. But yeah if the defenders can dock in their base then we might have settled some things