There is no war to you and as such there are merely fights. Your words say it all the time and you refuse to accept that war exists.
This is the best way I can put it, not the one I prefer but itâs the best I could come up with.
I think you are full of it. I wonât say what but you get the picture.
You clearly donât care about the inclusion of other playstyles, you are merely out to defend yours and use said inclusion to shut down our proposals. Itâs clear you donât care about the playstyle of those targeted, itâs clear you have no clue of what happens outside of high-sec as I have showed multiple times (how borders exist in null, and structures in low-sec).
This is a clear case of having no principles but using them against those who do.
And yes, by that I do mean that those who propose to link structures to wars do care about other playstyles, even those who propose things to make things in High-sec better. Multiple times we have tried to explain to you how it would benefit multiple types of players:
- Defenders get a specific win condition as an alternative, if the attackers refuse to show up.
- Attackers get somewhere where they can expect their targets.
- Attackers can have tools and functionalities to help them hunt through structures.
- Soft targets push more targets (not all but more) out for hunters to catch.
We have ways this could even benefit you as a hunter/wardeccer. We are not forcing anybody, those who want to logout for a week will be free to do so, PvErs will still have to face ganks, you will still be able to declare war to as many people as you want. You will just have to man up and defend those things enabling you to do so and not just have them for free.
Also, this tired excuse of âitâs a saaaaaaanboxâ, wow what a revelation!!! I had no idea, obviously I was thinking I was playing a themepark, thank you Whitehound for making me realize it was actually a sandbox!!
This is a tired argument to say âI donât like change and I want things to stay as they areâ and the people that use it know it.
How do I know that?
Well simply because else they would be arguing to remove the already existing limitations that exist in the game otherwise.
Letâs add Stations
âItâs a sandbox, leave us aloneâ
Letâs add CONCORD
âItâs a sandbox, leave us aloneâ
Letâs add POSes
âItâs a sandbox, leave us aloneâ
Letâs add FW
âItâs a sandbox, leave us aloneâ
You get it? This is what your type say e.ve.ry.ti.me. People want to add tools and infrastructures to the sandbox with better sand, but somehow if they do it will no longer be a sandbox?
Then what about those very mechanics that exist right about now and that are preventing you from doing unlimited things to other players??? Where is your adamant condemnation of CONCORD, why should it exist? Why should sec levels exist?? Just let people be, itâs a sandboxâŚ
But what you really want is just a patch of dirt that remains the same. You donât care that itâs dirt as long as itâs yours.
Plenty of games have mechanics that provide structures to it, Star Wars Galaxies had professions, Albion has fixed captureable towns, just because there is a structure, context, and mechanics does not mean those are not sandboxes.
To sum it all, I think you are full of it, both on your supposed defense of the sandbox and your supposed defense of all playstyles.
All you want is to defend your patch of dirt and your playstyle.
1 Like
When you donât want to answer a simple question and to tell someone what exactly it is you mean then youâre not here for a discussion. There is nothing to say to you when all you do is to horse around.
1 Like
Why not tie it to mining instead? You know, mine away the wardecs. Why stop at half-retarded suggestions?
Also
2 Likes
I might recommend getting your eyesight checked if you donât see any risk lolâŚ
Well lets see⌠they declare war⌠spend some isk⌠DONE! Now what did they risk to declare war? ISK isnât risk.
What do they risk during the war?
Oh waitâŚ
They risk fights. Same fights everybody risks when they undock. Same fights every single time you change into war. Same thing said over and over.
1 Like
There is just as much risk for the aggressor as for the war target - the risk which exists after undocking and which exists for everyone. And only when both undock and actually start shooting each other is there a risk of losing a ship. Until then is this a problem as artificial as that of the cloaky camper.
And when we start tying wardecs to structures, then we can tie it to anything, including mining and exploration. Just to emphasis on the silliness of the suggestion. Who says it cannot be anything? Just because somebody likes shooting structures isnât a reason. Others like mining and it will make just as much âsenseâ for a miner to mine away wardecs.
But they donât understand this. They think itâs the worldâs best idea for they donât have a clue about the sandbox.
Instead, if we would actually tied wardecs to structures and to allow it to remove wardecs, then it becomes a tool for destroying structures and dodging retailiation, because targets may then not be allowed to declare a new war. The PvP would lead to a denial of PvP and for players who would actually want to fight back. But for them thatâs the whole point, to end wardecs âŚ
As if on queue RIGHT AFTER the repetition is cited it gets said again.
Shut up.
You must be used to it.
Link the killmail please
Youâre way too angry to discuss at this pointâŚ
Well when people use fallacy as an argument over a dozen times itâs pretty easy to see.
Iâm actually laughing a bit too hard right now.
1 Like
I still think heâs just horsing around, and now acts like a referee for entertainment. I donât mind it. Itâll get the thread likely only locked and anyone who wants to discuss the topic gets their chance denied, which at this point doesnât seem like the worst thing.
1 Like
That moment when some forum warrior thinks anything said is an ad hominem attack
1 Like
Yeah, I get you. 