The only stagnation in this thread comes from you. I want players to make the change, so the only change I have put forward is creating a strategic objective in line with other areas of space because it works and it is down to the players to take it into their hands. But you were complaining about it being an unacceptable change involving structure bashing, but now you are telling me it is not a change, weird.
What others have suggested is more involved than what I came out with, but I understand why they are suggesting it, but whatever.
MinerArt made me laugh a lot, he roasted you numerous timesâŚ
Serious: Whatâs an idgit? The g is far off the o, so Iâm wondering. You donât even need to self censor idiot. Idiot is not being censored. You can call people idiots all day, basically. : - )
Thatâs not what Iâm saying. Iâm saying that you agreeing to the one statement of MinerArt, which youâve just quoted and said to it âThat is so trueâ means you agree to it all being the same thing. And when thatâs what you truly think then youâre change cannot be a change in your own eyes or youâre lying about something.
All I then want is for you to be honest about the true nature of your change or it is you who is causing the stagnation.
Say, what happens when someone declares the war as mutal? Does the object become pointless?
As Iâve pointed out, suicide ganking and wardecs are completely unrelated items. I actually donât want to make wardecs unavoidable. The current situation works just fine. Dropping corp is perfectly acceptable if you donât want the consequences of war.
As has been said far too many times already (and actually ignored mostly), wardecs do have consequences for the attackers. Whether players chose to give wardeccers consequences is another matter. If you force the wardeccers to dock up, then youâre denying them content. If they donât dock up when you come, then you get a fight. The current situation is only the way it is because those under wardecs choose not to fight back. Iâm not talking about the small indy corps here, Iâm talking about the 1000+ man NS groups.
Yet you still ignored the bulk of what I was saying anyway. Wars allow for more than just gate camping. The system is vital to the way the game is currently designed.
Sorry, itâs supposed to be a âjâ, not a âgâ.
idjit. Derived from the Irish Slang word âEejitâ, which means a person who is exceedingly Stupid or an Idiot. It was americanized and made âcountryâ and slowly was changed into âIdjitâ by southerners.
I suppose I win Eve by making people dock up, so uninteresting which is why no one from a nullsec alliances comes all the way to hisec to do it. That is like saying you win Eve by uninstallingâŚ
Also there is a relationship between war decs and ganking. But that is merely an opinion, and no I am not going to explain it.
No. Itâs your suggestion. If anyone needs to work on it then itâs you. You want to tie war decs to stationary objects in space. So tell me who and how is the duration of a war controlled in cases where the war is mutual?
Well if you believe the meme, itâs the only wayâŚ
I hate to say it, but that kinda sums up the issue. NS groups can put out the force needed to deter wardecs but they choose not to. Whatever reason it is, that is their choice. The payoff is that their members will lose X amount per week in the process through carelessness. Everyone either knows, or can find out, how to mitigate the risk of wardecs, they just choose not to.
Poor player choices are not a reason to change a game mechanic.
Please, use this as an opportunity to lecture me. I only want to know from you what your plans are. We are only at 653 comments. Iâm sure there is room for it.
I donât see how you can believe that if NS groups are unwilling to bring forces to hisec now to deter wardeccers, that theyâre going to be willing to come to bash a structure once a week to stop being at war.
The Citadel, its fit, and all the wars that will immediately drop are all meaningful consequences. War deckers told me that it costs to blanket war dec, well you lose all of that. It is pretty obviously a meaningful consequence and worth doing because it will impact the losers play and make them think about who they war dec. I have explained this previously so I have no idea why you have missed it completely.
Iâve not missed it. Youâve explained what you believe, but I just donât see that itâll happen after the first few weeks of being introduced. What I canât understand is how you can think that it will all happen as you say.
I donât see anyone from PH, Goons, PL or NC. here supporting you saying that theyâll definitely come and hit these structures.
And whatâs to stop all the players leaving corp and joining another wardec corp to immediately redec whoever just destroyed their structure?
Maybe anyone who matters, but I donât see anyone volunteering to bash hisec structures.
Theyâre already paying 500Mil a week as it is, so what changes? And I can guarantee that youâd only have to do it for a few weeks before people get bored and realise that nothing has actually changed and theyâre being baited into hisec to bash a structure that theyâll inevitably be blue-balled on, or maybe picked off with nados or something similar.
You canât even combat this by introducing a cooldown period between defensive wardecs as this would basically result in dec shielding.
According to the current rules will a war not end when itâs being declared as mutual nor cost any further ISKs. So for your example would the targeted corporation only need to declare the war as mutual.
Iâm still waiting for Dracvlad, or MinerArt, to explain how thatâs going to work in combination with their suggestion.
by asking that question.