This is just more war being declared with no way out. Congradulations, now nobody can win without everyone consenting to it. How shockingly not EVE is that?
Well, it would be an insult if it wasn’t an infant trying to learn how to speak to his betters. You will catch on eventually.
More particularly, if you discount someone’s argument due to some unrelated aspect… for instance if I discounted Merin’s points because he’s a psychopathic moron, rather than just pointing out how ridiculous the stance that the game should suck is, that would be ad hominem.
Attempting to support an argument with it or not, the statement that someone is a psychopath can be true. It has nothing to do with the arguments themselves though, except possibly as a motive for making them. Motive doesn’t matter if you can logically support the position. Fortunately that isn’t the case for the psychopath in this thread.
If you don’t think massive enough losses force and end to war, you aren’t very clever to say the least.
What you really want is a safe space to hide in. I realise you already stated that isn’t what you want, but I now believe you to be lying in that case. I believe you will paste anything short of a “NO MORE WAR” button as “charity of the aggressor”. You deserve all the war you get, because you are flacid like a wet paper towel and lack the minerals to survive in EvE.
Yeah it is. Join the NPC corp. Though luckily enough you can still be ganked there so it’s probably not the kind of safe space you’re after.
Fight better than the enemy and embarrass them, causing them to go hassle someone worth the trouble. Move cleverly enough to deny them any kills at all and you won’t even have to kill them, they will just stop paying for the dec (yes even alliances with a lot of ISK will stop).
The point is to make the bad guys turn tail and leg it. But that would involve fighting, and as such the hardcore PvE crowd will not be willing to fight regardless of the point. They should be in the NPC corp with the others who don’t like war anyway, so really this is only an issue for PvE people who have accidentally ended up with a player owned corp they haven’t a hope of defending. In this case I think it’s only natural they should be dog piled and weeded out, for the better good of the ecosystem.
Basically if you don’t like war, NPC corp. If you do like war, stop complaining and fight when someone graciously offers you some on the job PvP experience.
Well no, obviously not. Read it again. It was much more long winded than nuh uh and made several points regarding your lack of minerals. Perhaps you aren’t ready to accept things as they are, but you can indeed win a war by fighting. You just want to win it easily without a real fight, which is why you should be in the NPC Corp.
Charity is ending a war because you’re feeling like an act of kindness, allowing the other side to have peace even though you could keep killing them.
Defeat is ending a war because the other side has fought back too much, inflicted unacceptable losses, and threatened to continue doing so unless you end the war. No kindness is involved, only selfish desire to stop getting killed.
People like Mike want a “path to victory” because they can not defeat an enemy. They have zero chance of organizing and fighting back sufficiently that an enemy says “OH GOD MAKE IT STOP I SURRENDER”, so they have to beg for a “path to victory” that allows them to fight a single PvP battle and destroy the war structure, preferably while their attacker is offline and unable to defend it. With no hope of the kind of sustained success that could force an attacker to end a war they have to throw everything into a one-shot roll of the dice and turn a momentary battlefield victory into a CCP-enforced end to the war.
The solution here is not more pointless structure mechanics, it’s for people like Mike to stop being terrible at EVE and fight back effectively. Only bad players keep being the victim of a one-sided war.
Attackers are players right? So if attackers decide if they have won or lost, then how is that different from what I wrote? The exact same thing goes for defenders. They can freely decide for themselves if they win or lose.
Unfortunately most defenders decide they have lost, even before aggression can begin.
They have no ability to decide if they win. Merely if they fight or wait it out. Tell me how a pvp solution that does not require the charity of the attacker to end the war exists for the defender before you claim that.
You kick their teeth in, instead of just bending over and handing them the butter. You can even win by literally not fighting, just adjusting your in game strategy to a point where you are operating in an area they are not. You’ve repeatedly pretended the average deccer will keep up a war that is not profitable OR fun and thus I have called you out on your phalacy. They will not, save for a personal vendetta which is entirely up to your courtesy.
Merin summed it up nicely :
And so I put it to you that you are not willing to put the effort in to group up with other PvE guys, the ones you claim are well up for a fight if there is a point. There’s plenty of point already, you just want the goal to be packeged up and fed to you rather than having to fight tooth and nail for it
If every 20 crap little PvE corps merged into one decent one I think things might be better, but I think everyone just wants their own little private flag to wave. I maintain, if you don’t want to be wardecced OR cannot defend yourself from wardecs / operate while under wardec you should be in the NPC corp. That’s what it’s there for.
There are plenty of zero kill on all sides wars in the game to say otherwise that have gone on more than a month. There is also no such thing as “average” when war dec is started due to the hundreds of possible reasons that a war is started for.
Profitable or fun. There are plenty of reasons a corp might keep up the dec that don’t involve kills. The targets we’re talking however about are the one’s who want to PvE in peace, and thus we can assume the deccer wants kills rather than personal reasons, which I did mention.
Averages work better the more data they’re based upon. But realistically the vast majority of wars are for kills pure and simple, so that’s the average deccer.
Kill them until they beg you to let them end the war. Charity is ending a war because you’re feeling kind. Defeat is ending a war because the defender kicked your ass and you want to make it stop. Defeat is not charity, it is failure imposed upon you by people who are better than you.
The problem is not that no path to victory exists for the defender, it’s that most victims of wars are worthless farmers who have zero ability to achieve victory. And the solution to that is to let them die.
So, as with the vast majority of corps targeted by war, if they choose ‘ending the war’ as a victory condition, it’s impossible unless the aggressor decides otherwise.
That’s not non-consensual, that’s fully consensual on the part of the aggressor. Sure, he can lose some stuff against his will, but actually ending the war is all up to him no matter what the defenders do.
