IF people want to put up structures to make ££££ out of them then these NEED to be wardeckable; otherwise its the first person who spams one up on a moon wins and fk everyone else… then they stop playing… ANYONE with half a brain cell can see this is true.
HOWEVER it was not the point of utter safety for everyone that was an issue for many and in fact non pvp is worse than non consensual; its what has shaped eve since the very beginning and it is STILL something many new beans wish to learn.
Basing wardecks solely around structures takes a lot of this away when in reality what was needed was some regulation about who can deck who and why - and this being ONLY because a few people have abused the system.
In many cases of war prepatch it was never that the newbros didnt want to fight, many of them did; but that the people they faced outmatched them in skill points and experience - so much so that the whole thing was utterly unbalanced.
There are very few cases where someone should be unviable or unavailable for pvp and that again is easier to deal with than simply making ‘social’ corps.
Yes neutral rr was a royal pita but if a system was coded a bit more technically i do not see how they couldnt have simply made it unviable to use more than two or three neutral at any one time.
Similarly i do not see why they couldnt have added coding that would have simply made corps undeckable if the attacker has more than xxxx sp than the opposing corp.
And i also think recruitment should be somewhat monitored or perhaps better advice given to the new players that join.
because of the natures of games you cant always copy and lob something in the game. camps some times (usually often) need other systems to make one work. copying x into eve would not work due to this fact
A better answer to this would of been “copy it and improve its idea”.
I do not, and its very much why i am advocating for industry standard related updates.
To make more people play Eve, Eve has to change. Someones here desperately trying to hide it here but they can not.
Investors know that !
CCP employees know that !
Volunteers know that !
Players know that !
Only Hillmar has no courage or knowledge to do it …
Yeah I know. I did have some decent discussion initially with the guy though, which is probably why I’ve kept going so far. “Decent” as in at least he provided me with some sources to read through, while not being super toxic. I like reading.
However, I can see he has degenerated over the time. At least he admitted his mistake regarding the reference. So that is something. It’s hard, when it’s his words against his own.
I should probably stop getting baited by these people in the first place, but it is always at least a few hours of entertainment.
Death is not en effective sink. YOu’d lose a lot more structures if they provided benefits but cost more isk then they generate to run.
What should happen is things like athanors should not generate isk, whee things like raitur’s should. maybe we should look into a new class of stations that are trade based, they could be isk makers. then we could make a class for combat related ops only, and even covertops-cloakable stations (we basically have them now, with stations not being on the overview unless on grid).
More importantly, we may want to start the topic on specific types of structures getting specific types of rigs. (ath, gets production, and raituru gets refining rigs; to balance it).
In the end you should take away that deaths do not equal isk sinks (aside what you think they do not actually effect inflation).
Not true at all. The only ones advocating for these positions in high sec are code related entities and like minded players. bring me hordes of pvers saying that they should be suicided or forced into pvp. 50-100 would be good.
Proof / source this please.
Its actually not a good way to do it at all. once code realizes that is not more advantageous to wardec spam the structures, high sec will get “eligible-nullified”. I think that eve is entire system will get abused at some point, especially of criminal actions go out of high sec.
I cannot stress enough how being seen on dscan is not being covert ops…
That is backwards…
It is, factually true.
Speak to newbro’s…
[quote=“Nuuri_Naarian, post:1078, topic:144040”]
once code realizes that is not more advantageous to wardec spam the structures,[/quote]
CODE isnt really a wardec alliance…
This statement somehow doesnt fit with your other statements tbvh…
are you saying highsec will be abused if criminal actions are taken out of it?
Isnt that exactly what your asking for???
we’d have to die 3 times what we do now to make it even start effecting the economy.
Mediums do not exist, but i am talking about ones that specialize for it, like raitaru does production.
its stealth ish, not cloaked though (which’d id like)
Na it was intentional to be backwards, stability is better.
factually false, and that makes it incorrect.
they will be if we take suicide ganking out of high sec
Im saying the war eligible system is not actually all that effective at stopping station camping and abuse, i can just search for active corps, and pop them (easily done by recruitment).
So to make high sec truly pve, we have to get rid of consensual war and criminal actions in high sec.
@Nuuri_Naarian
Sorry, I should’ve specified that I meant the section on the new players I would spend a few days with answering their questions and such rather than the entire linked post.
(again though that section of points not being discussed at all when brought up the first time)
Well, looks like someone’s making full use of the new wardec system.
The insanity has gone on far too long, across too many posts and threads, so I am going to address the elephant in the room. The one nobody has mentioned. The third rail of this forum.
Here goes…
The proper word is “you’re”. Contraction for “you are”. As in “You’re freaking insane.”
“Your” is is a determiner. As in “Your threads are freaking insane”.
See also “their” vs. “there” vs. “they’re”.
OK, hopefully we can now put a rest to the madness that is tearing us all apart.
Got to love a man who owns his typos! 1000 Internet Credits* to you, sir!
*Internet Credits have no actual cash value and cannot be redeemed for anything of worth other than general claims of badassery amongst your peers. Some restrictions may apply. Warranty void in Tennessee.
I like how you think, but I still say that’s PVP also in “this game”. When you can outsmart a whole bunch of people without risking a ship! That’s as good as combat to me. Just not my style. (I cant sing “Wind Song” well enough, lol)
“You cant fix stupid.” The game was hard and that’s why we played it. I don’t think most new players are looking for that level of facepalm/keyboard pounding/headset throwing gameplay. It was a niche game and CCP is trying to make it more mainstream despite Goon’s! lol
I don’t think you can contain Goon’s anymore. (or any big alliance perhaps?) They adapt faster than CCP can. If they could get all of them to try at once (wont happen, to many bots, lol) to REALLY F up the game, I think thy would stand at least a 50/50 chance!
I see the lunatics have started speaking “EVE cryptospeech” in the forum again.
“PvP” is a real gaming term. It’s well defined, and it implies combat.
Some time in the distant past, EVE players decided they wanted to claim activities like mining, trading, manufacturing etc were PvP. So 50K-odd EVE players redefined a term used consistently by millions of online gamers.
Some EVE characteristics:
EVE is a PVE game
It’s competitive
It has “free-fire” PvP (the combat kind /lol.)
Equipment destroyed in combat is lost permanently (but the actual consequences are limited, because “nobody flies what they can’t afford to lose”)
It’s possible to “own” in-game areas.
It has very little combat overall
It has almost no balanced combat
Occasionally there are very large battles (i.e. much larger numbers of concurrent participants than can occur in most games)
It would be quite interesting to investigate why so many EVE players feel the need to define activities like mining and and trading as PvP. It doesn’t add anything to the game, so it has to be a psychological thing. What are they trying to hide?
