Have you read the topic title?
1 Like
Please answer my question.
Youâve used the word âwarâ and seeing how you are dodging my question is it the perfect time for me to finish here for today, because itâs getting late on my end.
We can continue this conversation tomorrow and you can use the remaining time to think about why you used the word âwarâ in your statement of âNo, I think war isnât tied to any risk.â
Is this all youâve got?
Good night!
Well when you bring nothing but deflection and strawman to the table youâll get nothing out of it.
2 Likes
Has there actually been an announcement somewhere that theyâre changing wardec mechanics?
No. Someone read something on local and we started making fun of it. It then turned into an Ideas & Suggestion thread with a few remaining people having a discussion. Youâre not missing anything unless youâre looking for a chat or perhaps an argument.
right-o
Iâm out then
1 Like
This strikes me as magical thinkingâŚ
These targets wonât band together to kill some shipsâŚwhy should we think theyâll band together to kill a citadel?
That is just itâŚI donât think they want to fight. At. All.
My problem with this entire topic is that there is this belief that there is a pony somewhere in hereâŚthat with juuuuuusst the right incentives those players in HS who have expressed zero desire in PvP will suddenly want to PvP.
4 Likes
Not magical feeling, that was based on hisec experience with hisec people, be it in the AG chat channel (await CODE troll to snigger at that) and some corps that were in my alliance, and some corps that we helped under war decs.
Exhibit A
That was owned by one Siegfied Cohenberg, he used it to park his loot scooper and base out of, his corp who owned it would routinely war dec small indy corps and he had done just that when I was looking to blow it up. I knew he would get allies in on the war dec, so I allied in with the small indy corp who came along to shoot it: They really loved doing it to get back at the person who war decked them.
So it is possibleâŚ
I think hisec has deterioated since then, but I still hang around in the AG channel at times and I see the same will, but undirected, and often I hear the comment there is no reason to fight back against war deckers, well my suggestion gives that reason.
But it is not just hisec is it, it also involves those outside hisec, all those nullsec alliances that make up most of the war deckers kills, I know that a lot of them will just jump at the chance for pay back.
A lot of people outside hisec use hisec, content will happen, I am pretty certain of it.
1 Like
I donât want to deny you your dream, but the reality is a different one. Check this one out:
This guy lost 300b ISKs to a freighter gank by CODE. While this gank happened in Jita does CODE have a structure setup in Uedama, where a lot of ganks by CODE take place and their ships originate from.
And who is fighting CODE and is destroying their structure? Nobody is and nobody is out for payback. Thatâs the reality.
3 Likes
Quite easy to answer actually, the freighter belonged to Tri, who with their allies, Frat, Skill Urself and Volta are currently at war with Legacy and XDeath and fighting over Tenerifs⌠So that is one reason.
Second reason is that the gankers can operate out of NPC stations due to the lack of consequences so denying them a place to operate is not going to happen. If you blow up that structure they will operate from the NPC station. So there is no strategic value in taking down their structure. If CCP had made it so -10âs could not dock in hisec stations as part of the consequences that structure would have a higher strategic value, but currently itâs strategic value is zero.
Which is why I tied in the war decs to the structure and losing the structure lost the war decs, to create a strategic objective.
Are you still ignoring the obvious, well I am replaying to someone who does not know the difference between a set objective and a strategic objective.
But thanks for the bumpâŚ
2 Likes
weâre dancing around the issue here dudes, every time i hear the âa lot of omegas will unsubscribeâ argument i die a little inside. No you wonât unsub, you little peckers, youâre too hooked in to unsub, so can it.
I would go with something gamechanging now - like e.g. : reduce hisec systems to 10% of what it is now, no player structures allowed in it, no wardecs possible, canât shoot others, tether to hisec gates so no bumping possible - basically turn it into whatâs supposed to be - a training ground and safety deposit box.
Want to build something? go out in lowsec/nullsec and build. The excessive care around the hisec bears is sickening.
Considering that most wealth is generated in null sec and W-space, this assumption is incorrect and they have received a excessive pandering and care. High sec is there so that you can stay away from the sickening and irritating null sec procedures and enjoy EVE.
Denying docking rights from criminals and pirates in high sec is a wonderful way to put back a little bit of life and, above all, meaning into wars and mercenary services.
And yet could you blow it up and have fun doing it. CODE is then only one example and Iâve picked it, because they have without a doubt many enemies who want to give them payback, which was your argument.
What you have is a dream, which just doesnât meet up with the real EVE.
The worst that your idea could bring is that only more players resort to ganking, because nobody wants to fight a clean fight or play your idea of a mini-game. That sort of stuff just gets wrecked by the meta game play. Youâre probably only too innocent or too naive to realize what players can come up with to avoid having to play the game by your rules.
Many complex mechanics have been turned around by someone and used against those who thought they knew how to work it. If thatâs can flipping, duel requests, scams, remote rep alts, bumping, ⌠players are far too creative to be herded like cats.
1 Like
You cannot give someone payback if it does not mean anything. Destroying a structure is not only not fun, adding to that the meaningless loss is also frustrating for those who want to pay back their attackers when the gankers laugh at them for wasting ISK or time on a meaningless structure.
Denying docking rights to gankers, criminals and pirates in high sec stations is not complex. If you are under GCC, have a below -5 sec status and the majority of your kills involve ganging up on a target in high sec, you are a ganker, criminal and pirate. If you do the effort of fixing your sec status by ratting or tags, you can mitigated that and in return make yourself available to PVP elsewhere by farming NPC or clone soldiers and improve the sec tags market so that more people hunt these tags or the existing farmers get better rewards for their risky activity, which means more people in space in low sec and null sec.
1 Like
Are you really unable to work this out?
If you are unable to understand what a strategic objective means then you are unable to work out the value of my proposal.
You picked the CODE example in Uedama because you do not understand something quite basic, and that is your issueâŚ
2 Likes
I get what youâre saying - iâm just arguing that the hisec causes more problems than it solves. If you want to play eve singleplayer or with some buddies you can run a small corp in lowsec, out of your own base.
This in turn will put you in contact with an entity that can provide protection, which will require some, you know, contact with the community. I mean anyways, I avoid hisec like the plague, but thereâs a lot of people in there who donât want to come out of it because they have no reason to and even their desired experience is stunted by broken mechanics like wardecs.
Null/low people know how to handle a âwardecâ - itâs called getting out and killing your opponent instead of complaining to concord 