Do tell, was it in a patch today that I missed?
No, ISK doesn’t automatically appear, but it’s not as if a single null sec carrier ratter could not keep a nigh endless supply of cruisers on hand, especially when his targets are flying miners.
Pathetic this, pathetic that… looks like projection can be added to your list of mental defaults as well.
So I spent an hour or so digging and could not find the post I was looking for.
I remember a bullet point list of scenarios which CCP was not happy with. One was defenders forming up and having no assets to engage. One was defenders staying docked/ logged leaving aggressors nothing to engage.
There were 2-3 more that I do not remember.
So there was no double standard.
All in all the points dove tailed into the general concern about mechanics not providing satisfying gameplay all the way round.
No, ISK doesn’t automatically appear, but it’s not as if a single null sec carrier ratter could not keep a nigh endless supply of cruisers on hand
So if they have endless resources and don’t care about losses how exactly are you going to win your “path to victory”? How are you going to overcome that endless supply of cruisers and not just lose even more trying to blow up the structure?
especially when his targets are flying miners.
Stop being bad at EVE then. Nobody is forcing the target of a war to fly mining ships with no PvP defenses. Bring escorts, play smart, and don’t make yourself an easy target.
Pathetic this, pathetic that… looks like projection can be added to your list of mental defaults as well.
I’m not the one whining about how unfair it is that my zero-risk RMT farming can be interrupted by PvP in a PvP game.
While I don’t expect a psychopath who only gets pleasure from abusing others to understand, I will try to explain anyway.
There is a difference between fighting a hopeless no win scenario against stacked odds, and fighting for a chance to win against stacked odds.
If you are so certain of victory you should have no worries about the suggestion, or even support it as it will get you a few more easy targets under your guns trying to win despite the odds.
Mining and other PvE activities are a necessary part of the game. The targets of the wardec were chosen specifically because it was those activities that they were doing. I guess we should all just be shooting eachother and rushing out from our respawn mindlessly instead of playing the game in MerinWorld, but that’s not reality. I can understand that you have an issue with reality though, I hope you work on that.
You are going to have to work pretty hard at changing my words to quote me saying anything even similar to that. I’m fine with PvP, just not pointless no win scenario PvP.
You have zero chance of success, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The scenario you suggest, where the enemy has literally limitless reserves and does not care how much damage you inflict on them, is one where victory is impossible. You are not going to succeed by superior luck and skill, you are just going to self destruct your ships. And it will take very little time before the current farmer advice of “dock up forever as soon as a war is declared” becomes “don’t bother trying to kill the structure, just dock forever”.
If you are so certain of victory you should have no worries about the suggestion, or even support it as it will get you a few more easy targets under your guns trying to win despite the odds.
First of all, I’m not certain of victory, because I don’t have infinite ISK to spend on a war. I am responding to your hypothetical scenario, the one you use to argue that the current war mechanics make victory impossible, and pointing out how your proposal offers you zero hope of victory in that scenario. You only have a chance of victory against more realistic attackers, the kind that you can already fight off and force to end the war.
Second, the current structure mechanics are ****. Any proposal that expands the use of the structure system is a stupid idea that should be shot down on sight.
Mining and other PvE activities are a necessary part of the game.
Mining and PvE in helpless floating targets with zero escort, however, are not necessary parts of the game. Nobody is stopping you from running a corp mining op with 5 barges, 10 general PvP ships to kill anything that bothers you, and 5 ECM ships to jam any hostile tackle and ensure that your barges escape. You are still producing minerals that you can use for manufacturing and keep the EVE economy going.
What you actually mean is that risk-free mindless PvE farming is an essential part of the game, and anything that reduces the ISK/hour that you feel entitled to must be stopped.
You are going to have to work pretty hard at changing my words to quote me saying anything even similar to that. I’m fine with PvP, just not pointless no win scenario PvP.
You already have a way to win in the current scenario. What you don’t have is a way to press a “make PvP go away so I can RMT in peace” button where the game mechanics enforce your safety once you successfully press the button. It is perfectly clear from your demands that you want risk-free farming, whether you admit it voluntarily or not.
This is EVE. The right approach is to stack the odds in your own favour.
Defenders have the ability to do so if they choose to. Survival of the fittest in action, as a fair fight is already one that both sides didn’t prepare enough for.
There should be no fair fight in EVE and that is the way that wardeccers approch the game. Defenders can too.
Yet you will note I never said fair fight.
I said path to victory.
Fighting for a chance at victory against the odds is not the same as fighting pointlessly with no chance of victory at all
Good news then, as you seem to hate that someone would dare disagree with you in a public forum…
If they have that path to victory and still dock up, you will never see me support them. Despite my own preferences in gameplay, I fully support the idea of PvP so long as there is something to fight for and the mechanics are balanced.
I don’t care what the actual mechanics of victory are so long as they are reasonable, which is why I suggested using a low barrier of entry capital ship rather than a structure as well, and extending war timers upon the destruction of that ship until the end of any timers on assaulted structures so that there is opportunity to destroy them. It could be something else entirely, it just has to have a reasonable chance at success.
I can imagine you aren’t certain of victory with the amount of hand holding you need along with the cherry picking of soft targets you enjoy.
Thing is, while the aggressors may have enough ships as to be effectively limitless, they likely don’t have unlimited bodies behind keyboards making any given fight possible to win. The issue at stake was never about winning a single fight, or even several fights. It was about ending a war against the will of the aggressor. Preferably without having to stalk them in real life until they quit EVE, because that sort of thing does not end well for anybody. It’s just not healthy and I’m still a bit creeped out that you think that’s normal behavior for a game.
So you think every mining op in high sec should be 5 guys who enjoy what they are doing, accompanied by 15 other guys who rarely if ever get to enjoy their own playstyle? EVE should just suck for 3/4ths of the industrial playerbase.
I highly recommend you get to your career of making license plates quickly with the lowest body count possible to prevent you from ever coming anywhere near being in charge of designing a game, or really any sort of social endeavor.
I must have missed the patch. Everything you have suggested so far other than the part about stalking people IRL has depended entirely on their charity in ending the war.
Sure, wasn’t a contention in what I wrote (ie. I wasn’t calling out that you meant that at all).
Then GTFO. EVE’s mechanics are not supposed to be balanced. Unfair fights are part of the game, sometimes you just get crushed by someone stronger than you.
Thing is, while the aggressors may have enough ships as to be effectively limitless, they likely don’t have unlimited bodies behind keyboards making any given fight possible to win.
Why not? Limitless ISK buys limitless bodies. And if they have such limited body count then why can’t you beat them under the current system? If it’s a single player up against a 100-man corp then just fly in 50-man fleets at all times. Who cares if they show up and try to fight, you just collectively press F1 and go back to whatever you were doing.
Preferably without having to stalk them in real life until they quit EVE, because that sort of thing does not end well for anybody. It’s just not healthy and I’m still a bit creeped out that you think that’s normal behavior for a game.
Out of game intel is part of EVE, and involved in some of its most celebrated events. Don’t like it? GTFO.
So you think every mining op in high sec should be 5 guys who enjoy what they are doing, accompanied by 15 other guys who rarely if ever get to enjoy their own playstyle? EVE should just suck for 3/4ths of the industrial playerbase.
Yep. Deal with it. EVE is a PvP game, the concept of a “non-PvP” player should not exist.
But it’s not like this is your only choice. EVE has plenty of PvP players. Why are you stubbornly insisting on making a “pure industry” corp instead of getting some PvP players involved with your corp? The fact that you suck at building a corp does not mean that CCP needs to give you more safety.
I must have missed the patch. Everything you have suggested so far other than the part about stalking people IRL has depended entirely on their charity in ending the war.
No, you’re just a sheep ****ing idiot. Charity is ending a war because you’re feeling kind and don’t want to kill the defender anymore. Losing a war is finding that the defender fights back harder than you can deal with, getting camped into station and ganked every time you undock, and begging them to let you end the war so you can go bother an easier target. The only charity involved is the defender deciding to allow the attacker to end the war instead of continuing it forever until the aggressor is utterly destroyed in retaliation for their attack.
Bless your heart, sweetie. You are very special.
Mechanics need to be balanced. Mechanics have nothing to do with losing to superior numbers or tactics. If you don’t believe mechanics should be balanced why are you even here fighting anything? You should be fine no matter how biased a thing is suggested.
You really don’t comprehend simple concepts do you? I will try again because I feel like maybe you just need smaller words to understand. Perhaps you should go get your crayons and draw this out as a picture If it would help.
Nothing lost to the wardec matters to the main characters funding the war. They won’t put more assets into it than they can bear to lose. If you did blow up every ship of the wardec corp it would not matter and does not mean the aggressor would drop the war, He is having ‘fun’. Maybe he can bear the loss of one ship a day, or 10 ships a day, the number is irrelevant. The part that is important is that he’s not going to stop just because he lost some expendable assets, because he has no skin in the game.
This does not mean he is printing ISK and ships instantly with a hundred allies all ready to do nothing but carry out his pointless high sec wars. It does mean he can lose battle after battle without feeling charitable enough to end the war.
Meanwhile, the tools you suggest to force him to drop the war don’t exist in game. You can’t look at another character’s wallet and see where money comes from. The only way to get the information to do as you suggest is to stalk someone outside the game. That’s not normal or healthy, even for EVE.
I read it, and I missed the part where they were stalked IRL to get the information to pull this off. They infiltrated the corp, got high level corp roles and transferred corp assets, socialized in game with their target and ambushed him… but no one stalked him IRL outside the game, at least not as was revealed in the article.
Not only does your link not show that, but you are also clearly delusional if you think that is the core of EVE. That was an extreme outlier, one that sparked controversy even among the hard core players of EVE. It was by no means normal or expected, nor do most awoxing style attacks end so spectacularly.
Go back and reconsider what you just wrote. Your stated belief here is that EVE should suck for 3/4 of it’s players. Not only that but the ones it does not suck for are the PVE industrialists, because they are the ones actually doing what they like in your scenario. The other 15 guys of this 20 man op have the dubious honor of watching their friends play just in case some rare event should happen. Holy hell, man. That is a serious drekload of bad game design you got floating around in your head.
Get Help before you hurt somebody.
There is no such thing as risk-free. Except declaring war. You can do that indefinitely.
Mechanics are supposed to be balanced. Fights do not care if you brought equal quantity ships or not. Comparing mechanics to fights is similar to comparing thermonuclear bombs to a pipe wrench. Both will get the job done but the pipe wrench will fix the problem and the thermonuclear bomb will make the problem (and most of the area around it) just be gone.
This is why we have a problem with war decs.
So either an attacker gets bored, or gets understanding they are outgunned and stops before their losses become too much.
If you can’t quit the ad hominem attacks then you really can’t argue anymore. You quit discussing the topic.
The mechanics are balanced. The root cause of your complaints is not mechanics, it’s that a more powerful enemy wants you dead and is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.
They won’t put more assets into it than they can bear to lose. If you did blow up every ship of the wardec corp it would not matter and does not mean the aggressor would drop the war,
How can you possibly be this stupid? Do you honestly not see the contradiction between these two statements? If the aggressor has a finite number of ships, beyond which they are not willing to invest more, then of course they are going to end the war if you blow them all up. I mean, which do you honestly think is more likely?
or
The obvious answer is #2, but you’re delusional enough to think that it’s #1.
The other 15 guys of this 20 man op have the dubious honor of watching their friends play just in case some rare event should happen.
Have you actually played EVE outside of RMTing to buy more sheep to ****? Sitting around waiting for the action is a constant part of PvP. Waiting for a target to undock, waiting at a gatecamp for something to jump through, waiting on a structure bash in case the defenders show up, waiting in a jump-capable ship for the cyno to go up, etc.
Get me more sheep, I’m feeling sexy tonight!
Please just GTFO already.
Yes, you can declare war risk-free as long as you do it with an alt corp that never undocks. The “declare war” button will never cost you anything besides the war fee in that one specific scenario. But if you aren’t going to undock then why declare a war? Actually doing anything with the war you have declared requires exposing yourself to PvP risk.
So either an attacker gets bored, or gets understanding they are outgunned and stops before their losses become too much.
I’m not really sure what the problem is supposed to be. The defender fights back and forces the attacker to retreat, winning the war. Why is this a bad thing?
If you can’t quit the ad hominem attacks then you really can’t argue anymore. You quit discussing the topic.
TBH there isn’t much point in discussing the topic with Mike_SheepLove. He’s a well-known troll who contributes nothing but whining about how his RMT operation isn’t 100% safe at maximum ISK/hour efficiency. His history of terrible arguments and utter lack of understanding of EVE’s core concepts is well established, and all that remains is reminding people of that time he got caught ****ing a sheep.
PS: an ad hominem argument is one of the form “you **** sheep, therefore you are wrong”. Merely insulting someone is not an ad hominem argument, it’s just insults.
You misunderstand. If the attacker gets bored they don’t win or lose the war. The defender doesn’t win or lose the war either. It’s an old statement. War does not determine who is right only who is left. Neither of the situations actually ends a war. Nothing the defender can do will end the war if the attacker wishes it to continue. A risk-less situation. No victory. No loss. Nothing changes.
An interesting statement.
You attack the person you preform an ad hominem.
Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
If that were true then he could suicide gank. He isn’t willing to do whatever it takes, he just wants some easy and risk free kills.
or, the extremely obvious and most common #3. He goes back to his main for perhaps a day, makes sufficient money to restock his cruisers, and goes right on back to prosecuting the war because there was nothing the defenders could do to actually end the war, they just won a battle.
Are you really so stupid you don’t understand how income works? I guess you are too stupid and/or young to hold a job and realize that just because you spent the money in your wallet that you get paid again later on.
Since I’ve never RMT or abused sheep in any way outside of a greek sandwich, pretty sure everything I’ve done in EVE falls outside that restriction.
I’m sorry your EVE experience sucks so bad, but you should stop trying to project that onto everyone else. You suck at EVE, and you want everyone else to experience that suck just like you. No thanks.
Then your war should be very easy to win. If all they want is easy risk-free ganks then don’t provide them. When you fail to provide those easy risk-free ganks they will drop the war and move on to a target that will be easy to kill.
This is why you are such an obvious troll, you keep changing what this hypothetical enemy wants so that you can avoid admitting any path to victory. They’re looking for easy ganks, but simultaneously so determined to kill you that they won’t drop the war no matter how much of their stuff you kill. The only thing you seem to be able to be consistent on is your desire for risk-free RMT farming.
or, the extremely obvious and most common #3. He goes back to his main for perhaps a day, makes sufficient money to restock his cruisers, and goes right on back to prosecuting the war because there was nothing the defenders could do to actually end the war, they just won a battle.
But you’re still ignoring the question of why you as a target. Having access to income doesn’t change the opportunity costs of spending it on X vs. Y. Even if you have the ability to replenish your losses with some ISK generation on your other character why would you go straight back to the war that inflicted those losses in the first place?
Since I’ve never RMT or abused sheep in any way outside of a greek sandwich, pretty sure everything I’ve done in EVE falls outside that restriction.
Eww, really? You ate the sheep you ****ed? That’s just wrong.
No, you can’t forcibly end the war if the attacker wishes it to continue. Nor can the attacker forcibly end the war if you decide to make it mutual and utterly destroy their corp in retaliation for attacking you. But that doesn’t mean that no victory conditions exist. Each side has conditions that would result in ending the war, whether it’s a certain value of losses, an apology for the offense that caused the war, getting bored with lack of targets, whatever. If you make those conditions happen they end the war. This is how the sandbox works, the objectives and victory conditions of a war are set by the players, not by CCP.
You attack the person you preform an ad hominem.
No, that is not at all what it means. An ad hominem is an argument. Saying “**** you, sheep ****er” is not an argument, it’s just an insult. If you’re going to quote fallacies at least have the decency to learn what they mean first.
If it’s true though, it can also just be considered a statement of fact and not an attack at all.
I’m still waiting on a path to victory that does not rely on the aggressor ending the war voluntarily. The aggressor starts it and can end it at any time.
The war is not a benefit to the defender, it’s a negative effect that they wish to end. How do they go about ending the war without the consent of the aggressor.
I know you are spectacularly stupid, but that’s a pretty simple question. All you answer with is shoot them a lot and stalk them IRL until real life mental trauma on the player causes them to give consent.
No, we aren’t. It simply does not matter. It’s EVE. You get targeted because that’s the nature of the game, or did you forget that?
As much as you think a 3 to 1 mix of PvP to PvE ships are reasonable for every mining, exploring and mission running op in high sec, it’s not. This is part of what proves you are mentally damaged, reality does not match whatever it is you are perceiving.
He goes back to it because he, like you, think its funny to be a dumpster fire of a human being. It amuses him to ruin the game for others, which is very EVE. That part is fine, so long as there is a way to take his toys away when he gets too unruly.
Even worse, I just eat them and don’t get any further use out of them. You do seem oddly fixated on it however, and we have already observed how you like to project your own desires onto others…