You know, I’ve written tutorials for noobs. I have work that’s stickied in the tutorials for new players.
I’ve had people I don’t know blog about nice (sort of unusual application of the word nice, tbh) things I’ve done in game.
Your dismissive attitude towards pvp’ers isn’t wisdom, it’s a closed mind and it is the perspective that is killing this game.
If PvP dries up in highsec, 70% of the population of the game will be flying around in warships with no wars.
They’ll get bored and quit.
This is a space opera. Drama is the core function. Without these type of interactions… we have no drama. We have no opera. We have only meaningless fights… which costs us the most compelling part of our mmo.
The fact you read my opposition towards personal wars as opposition towards PvP & PvP in highsec…
Yeah…
Stop looking in that mirror showing you a closed mind and actually look at what I’m saying, not at the arguments you are assigning me in your mind.
Post on at least something other than a pretty much brand new alt, and I might take your claims of knowledge seriously.
However, to the rest no. If I want to go spend more time doing PvP, I already have plenty of places I can go.
And I already have all the experience I need to know how bad an idea personal wardecs are. And so does CCP given how often they have said that wardecs are at a corp, not the people inside the corp.
Why is this a problem? Idiots dying in expensive ships (which are not required to do any highsec content) is a good thing, and perhaps being stripped of CONCORD protection would encourage them to get out of highsec.
To be fair, this seems like much less of a reasonable design principle and more of a flimsy excuse to avoid admitting their inability to come up with a decent solution for corp hopping.
Because it’s stupid that a war against Carebear Corp can be ended with a few button clicks to recreate Carebear Corp as Carebears Corp, despite the “new” corporation having the exact same members/assets/etc as the previous one. Changing the name of your corp shouldn’t have any effect on the wars you’re involved with.
The assets can’t corp hop and they will get destroyed if abandoned.
The deployed structures you mean? Because the other assets are easily secured, and at the level of poorly-organized corps we’re talking about are probably mostly contained in the members’ individual hangars.
You are apparently not as good at highsec abuse as you seem to think.
Any ONE pirate pilot can ‘wardec’ any ONE freighter pilot, now he stays docked up as long as you like because he cannot even ‘dump corp’ to avoid your one man wardec.
Only if the freighter pilot is completely unwilling to face any risk, use any intel tools, fly anything but a freighter, or bring in any PvP allies to protect the freighter. And it works poorly if the freighter pilot is willing to stay docked, as the cost (which is presumably set at a reasonably expensive level) of continuing the war against a target that never appears is going to be too high for all but the most dedicated economic warfare attacks and the war will probably end after the first cycle fails to deliver any kills. IOW, it only works as you claim against bad players.
Blah, blah, blah. You said a lot of words but the mechanic is easily abused, you know it, everyone reading this knows it, you can waste more words trying to defend it but i crushed your idea, let it go.
How will PvP allies defend when Concord would interfere.
How will intel tools help when there are choke points the freighter has to use.
How will flying something other than a freighter help when the freighter pilot makes their living by using a freighter. Sure they can give up all hauling I guess and change to doing something else…
And by “accept any risk” I assume you mean “accept certain death to a T1 frigate” since freighters can’t do anything but die if the enemy has guns and doesn’t get killed by Concord.
So yeah,… The Mechanic is so abusable it’s not funny, just like it was the last time this idea got brought up, and the time before that, and the time before that.
By having those allies put a personal wardec on the threat, allowing them to engage at will.
How will intel tools help when there are choke points the freighter has to use.
By watching for the presence of that single player, allowing the freighter pilot to only be active when the one potential threat is not around.
How will flying something other than a freighter help when the freighter pilot makes their living by using a freighter. Sure they can give up all hauling I guess and change to doing something else…
By suddenly appearing in a PvP ship and killing the aggressor, providing a strong hint to go find an easier target to bother.
And by “accept any risk” I assume you mean “accept certain death to a T1 frigate” since freighters can’t do anything but die if the enemy has guns and doesn’t get killed by Concord.
The risk is that you screw up one of the above options and lose your freighter anyway. If you’re willing to accept a modest risk of the other side beating you then you can use those tools and continue to operate. Only if 100% safety is a requirement are you unable to leave station.
TBH the personal wardec idea is even less of a threat to freighters than suicide ganking, since the aggressor has to make a public declaration to everyone involved that an attack is coming and pay the cost of the attack even if the target logs off for the whole time.
Ah, so to defend against one person takes a whole bunch of pilots spending wardec fees, also all not earning isk, when hauling is one of the lowest isk income activities there is to start with.
You mean the intel tools that can’t tell you when they are online, or you are meaning putting a scout account permanently into the chokes to see if they are online, while not knowing if they have an alt account and a login trap.
You mean the PvP ship that will get spotted jumps away and they can then decide what to engage it with costing you your PvP ship, since you aren’t trained in PvP skills as much since you trained freighters instead, and you spend less time practising PvP than the gankers do.
Blanket Decs will happen, look at Pirat, you will get gankers doing that on every freighter pilot, and they then don’t need 10-20 ships to gank their targets, only 1, and they can do it in a 1.0 system.
It’s a laughable and undefendable idea. All your defences so far are so transparent.
Here’s the core of your mistaken assumptions: that the cost of a personal war will be so cheap that gankers can profitably spam it against every possible target, even ones that you’ll never see undocked, rather than high enough that you’re only making the commitment if you have a personal vendetta against a specific player and need to make them suffer. If you remove this assumption then the rest of your objections also fall apart.
And yes, every counter can fail and you can still lose your freighter. So what? Why are you starting from the assumption that risk of loss is an unacceptable thing?
Look at freighters cargo value.
Now consider what they profit off a single kill.
And consider how little they need to risk to do that.
If the cost of a personal war is as high as you imply, to make it not affordable from a billion isk profit from the cargo, then there is no way that anyone could afford to have escorts with personal wars also. Which means your own arguments here are cancelling each other out.
Risk of loss is one thing, totally one sided mechanics that automatically put all the risk of loss onto one side of the equation only is another.
It is a bad mechanic, there is no band aid that will turn it into a good mechanic.
Except that’s not how it works. You can’t just spend, say, 500 million ISK on a war fee and get 1 billion ISK in profit. You have to spend 500 million ISK repeated countless times over all the possible freighter targets in the hope that one of them actually undocks. If a target refuses to undock then you’ve just thrown away 500 million ISK to force them to stay docked for a week. That might be an acceptable price to pay if you have a vendetta with someone and are willing to lose ISK as long as it makes your target suffer, but it’s hardly a viable business plan.
So then, in the context of escorts, your escort isn’t spending 500 million ISK per aggressor for a long list of potential threats, they’re spending 500 million once a year or whatever to deal with a single specific player that has picked the freighter as a target for personal reasons.
Risk of loss is one thing, totally one sided mechanics that automatically put all the risk of loss onto one side of the equation only is another.
Why is the risk of loss only on one side? Why do you keep assuming that the target is a helpless victim instead of a competent player who can treat a personal war dec as an opportunity for CONCORD-free killmails? Or at least evade the threat sufficiently well that the aggressor pays a guaranteed (and expensive) fee every week and gets nothing in return?