The points I raised have nothing to do with the finer details of the wardec mechanisms - which I do not claim to know - but everything with their presence and the consequences to gameplay in general.
Yes, everyone can tell that your mind has already been made up.
“Why should my 14,468-member alliance have to deal with a solo griefer disrupting our operationg in high-security space? It isn’t FAIR! 
”
1 Like
You conveniently choose to overlook the fact that we are constantly wardec’d in turn by several groups (one of which was funded by TTC money while the Imperium - INIT. still included - was still part of the TTC agreements), and have been for years on end. We know how to deal with that aspect. That does not imply we wish for it to become even more than what it already is, nor that there isn’t room for alterations of the wardec mechanisms. That you don’t have a counter to the way we deal with this type of gameplay, well, that’s not nullsec’s problem, is it.
I apologize for patiently waiting for any answers that may lead to a constructive discussion, for the betterment of the game.
Apparently “knowing how to deal with that aspect” is null-sec slang for “doing absolutely nothing and letting them farm our members for months at a time.”
Yeah, well if you have a substantial element you wish to add to this joke of an attempt at discussion, send me a mail. This “oh no, they won’t walk into my traps giving me free killmails so I can point my finger and claim that everyone is inferior to me” was funny for a while.
I’m always available for a good discussion, and this isn’t one of those.
Let’s face it, you don’t have arguments besides “a solo player should be able to take on a group of 1000”. Not in this game they should, lol.
You’re trying to do this whole moral high ground thing by making it look like you’re a rational person wanting to engage in some kind of balanced debate and reasonable discussion, but literally everyone can see that you’re simply a null-sec apologist who’s trying to both deny and protect the massive artificial handicaps that CCP created for groups like yours (and yours in particular due to certain influencing factors).
Yeah, I get it, if you own a goose that lays golden eggs, you’re probably not going to want to give it up. But at least be honest about it?
There’s a big difference between “a solo player shouldn’t be able to take on a group of 1,000 because it’s just too many players to fight in a battle” and “a solo player shouldn’t be able to take on a group of 1,000 because the latter is simply able to press a toggle to turn off the conflict when it’s too inconvenient for them.”
But go ahead and try to massage that logic.
2 Likes
No.
I’m allowed to play it during my yard time only. Otherwise, I’m in a prison cell, serving multiple consecutive lifetime sentences for blowing griefing pixilated spaceships in a video-game.
I can’t help it if you want to put me on some imaginary moral highground. You’re right that I do want to have a rational discussion and “work both sides of the aisle”. Are you suggesting I swap the rationality for the emotional gusts you write in ? I could, if I tried hard enough and gave up on this thread. But it would be pointless, no ?
Maybe your definition of “handicap” is extraordinary ? Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.
And as I’m still fairly new to my group in particular, I have no knowledge of your history with them. You seem to single them out, which is amusing but without apparent reason. Why you never wrote a footnote about TEST, for instance, given their actions (or lack thereof) in the WWB2 their leader initiated, is also a mystery. At least that would be part of the subject matter you chose for this thread, where your prime purpose is to name and shame (or at least attempt to).
Ah, shifting goal posts. I love it. It proves the nature of the character. You want to be a perpetual nuisance to large groups of players ? Guess what. Not a chance. And we don’t even have to do anything to keep the status quo because changing it would not benefit the game overall, so good luck convincing CCP that you are not so wrong as you sound. When are you going to get it ?
Even Frank fell asleep…
It is disappointing to see the reasoning that big groups need to be able to protect themselves from small or solo pilots having enough traction to even make enough material for a discussion.
One player should be able to be a perpetual nuisance to a larger group if that’s what they want to do, and they have the skill to succeed. I call that content. Forcing blob vulnerability to punish small or solo groups creating that content seems anti-EVE to me.
4 Likes
Well, of course not. Not when CCP gives you an easy opt-out mechanism to get rid of whatever inconveniences you. Even week-old high-sec mining carebears don’t get the kind of developer-enforced protection that the “elite PvP” null-sec lobby does.
1 Like
That’s not quite how it works, though. The N+1 blob has to destroy the war HQ shield, armour, and hull, which can be a several days process…and on top of that there is a 24 hour cool down period. So for the cost of a basic station the one man corp gets to attack the nullsec corp for maybe 3 or 4 days. Its not like they are wiped out instantly. Admitedly…it is not cheap.
Destiny probably knows the actual cost…but I’d say around 1bn ISK.
that literally no one is able to reply on any of the points I raised a few posts ago. Perhaps there are no counters ?
There’s some mindlessness at work that makes some hisec gankers dream of perpetually attacking large organized groups under the flag of “content”, demonstrably with added advantages and benefits that no one else would have. That would not be “content”, it would be ■■■■ game design.
You already have the possibility to attack in hisec. You want more - and up to a certain level I can agree with that, having been on the side of the gankers when the anti-gank crowd manifested itself on these forums. But asking for imbalance because you can’t be arsed to follow the simple rules of having a warHQ is just a cover up for not wanting to run the risk of losing a warHQ in an action that made no sense in the first place. You want to kill nullsec’ers to your heart’s content ? Come to nullsec. Content is welcome there too.
There are two timers, 24 hours apart (plus/minus 3 hours). The cheapest war HQ, a Raitaru, costs 1.5 billion with a core, plus some fuel, plus the cost of the war(s) attached to the structure. If attacked immediately, the party declaring war will have about 48 hours of engagement time for the minimum cost of 1.6 billion ISK, assuming just a single war. But it would be stupid to declare just a single war, so let’s say there is half a dozen wars.
The cost is 2 billion ISK for 2 days.
There would also be content for the players that groups like yours could hire as mercenaries in order to disrupt the attackers.
But that would cost you ISK.
ISK that you don’t want to spend for the privilege of continuing to make as much ISK without any interruption. Because let’s face it, that’s what it’s always been about. You want all the ISK, without having to give up a single ISK penny. That’s the kind of person an average null-sec enjoyer is.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen 24 hours between shield and hull with Wrecking Machine. Just looking at our ops board I see 5 days for hull for a Raitaru we did the shield for last week. And that is far more typical.
War HQs operate under different rules. How can you not know this yet? 
Maybe its because the only time I’ve ever had to defend a war HQ was…oh, wait…am I allowed to mention Finanar ?
Basically, you want to be able to do what WM, Blackflag, and a few others do…single handedly. I can see how that may be a little awkward.
It was working just fine for nearly 17 years.
1 Like
/Chuckle…
Oh, this is good.
Is there someone saying that? I don’t think I’ve even heard the term ‘hi sec’ a single time in any corp chat, discord, TS or anything else. In our extensive forums, doctrines, guides, skill plans, etc I think it is mentioned one time, which is basically ‘ if you die in hi sec don’t bother putting in for SRP’. I know you are convinced that you are David smashing Goliath and that we are all secretly raging against this unfairness and inability to deal with your superior piloting and ship choice, but I feel like you are overlooking the very real fact that as a whole, we objectively simply don’t care. I don’t care at all if you kill every random goon that goes through Amarr. They should have done better. Like your amazing interaction with Brisc where he apparently flew through a system you were in? He didn’t die because he knows how to transit hi sec. Your war is simply one of 20 we have every single day.
Okay, but then you wouldn’t need a mechanic that allows you to sack any war declared by a small group within a single day, right? Because the arguments you’re attributing to me…I never actually made; Wadiest Yong up there did. He’s the one presenting players like me as some kind of perpetual threat for which a handicap mechanic in favor of null-sec is needed:
Also, are you aware that the leader of his group publicly talked about multiple times about how their lobbying in large part led to the game changes in question, and how it’s really good for his alliance that it did?
That just isn’t in line with the whole “you’re literally nothing and we objectively simply don’t care” narrative you’re presenting.