Why shouldn’t wars be used to deny people access to trade hubs? Seems a complete rational and effective strategy to disrupt your opponent.
1 Like
And it works both ways.
If your opponent cannot think of any other strategy, but to hang around market hubs then you know where they are, too, and can avoid them easily or make them dock up or get them to smack-talk in a market hubs’ local chat.
1 Like
It seems to be the end strategy in fact…
People still whining about this stuff…
How many threads can be made about the same topics before they get there own sub theead
Under current mechanics this would mean no citadels ever get destroyed in hisec.
Seriously people, at least think of the wider consequences of what you suggest.
This will never be resolved.
All parties are cockblocking each other.
Suicide gankers, mass wardeccers, solo pirates, mercs, NS or HS based carebear alts etc will never find common ground on this.
As I’ve said, there have been no really viable suggestions put forward that wouldn’t either impact other areas of the game, be exploitable, or result in any change to the meta.
Until serious, viable suggestions are put forward or CCP have a good plan, i would hope that no significant changes are made
You talk of common ground as if one could create it by boxing everyone in. It’s not how a common ground works.
Dunno what you mean by “boxing in”.
Im just stating based on observation that there are too many disparate and conflicting interests for them to ever agree on what to change regarding wardec mechanics.
You said “cockblocking”, and unless this was only a pointless rhetorical extravaganza, does it mean you believe there is a way where everyone somehow “uncockblocks”.
It has been said that the best compromise is one nobody is happy with, but everyone can live with.
That’s only cynical. There will always be someone unhappy with something.
I’d do it like a farmer. Keep different animals on different grounds and only put those together that can accept each other. Or you just end up with a smaller farm.
(And yes, I just did compare every EVE player to an animal. 
)
Do you believe there is a solution that makes everyone happy?
Like I said, there will always be someone who is unhappy with something. One can however try to aim for a solution, which gives everyone a bit of something and make them a bit happier.
You start by looking at what everyone wants, look for small adjustments, which cause the least resistance as if trying to find a path in the dark and tip-toeing your way to an unknown destination.
Hence I like the idea of social corps and intel gathering devices. They sound like small steps of little resistance while we will never fully know where it ultimately leads us. But if it makes a lot of players a bit happier then this cannot be so bad.
Go ahead and try that then.
Start a thread on those, and see what happens.
I could, but it’s not about me and I’m fine with how the game is. But if anyone wants these they’ll have my vote.
Its not about any individual.
Ita not about you being fine with as is now.
Its to do with the groups I named all having disparate/conflicting interests, thus cockblocking each other.
Finally see what I mean after we rode the carousel a time around and ended up where we began?
It’s my response to your suggestion to make threads on it in Features & Ideas.
Also, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. It’s just a path in the dark as I said.
Try it.
You will find that dark is full of obstacles and everyone from the groups antgonistic to your view will attack you and try to push you off your toed trail towards the goal of compromise.
Do it. See and experience it for yourself.
That’s the EVE I know.