WarDec System Change Failure

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

That is not the same thing. Mutual wars are if both parties agree to the wardec. If I have a wardec toggle I can be wardeced by anyone without any further consent.

You have a toggle, its called deploying a citadel, so go toggle away

@Karak_Terrel

That is an extremely important difference. I would like my corp being able to be wardeced without further consent. The enemy does not need to know I have no structure.

Except it does because you need to provide a way for the defenders to end the war, its really really really simple, do you start a race without a finish line? do you play golf without any holes? do you play football without any goals?

No?

Then why exactly do you think you should be able to start a war without there being a way for the defenders to respond and end it? its a really really simple concept to understand and if you’re playing a game as complex as EVE you really should be able to understand these extremely basic concepts

[Karak_Terrel]

@Cypherous

Except it does because you need to provide a way for the defenders to end the war, its really really really simple, do you start a race without a finish line? do you play golf without any holes? do you play football without any goals?

You completely misunderstand what I want. I want a toggle to be wardec eligible so OTHER corps can wardec ME and NOT that I can wardec other without having a citadel. I want to be on the receiving end of wardecs without having to maintain a citadel. What is there to lose?

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

You completely misunderstand what I want. I want a toggle to be wardec eligible so OTHER corps can wardec ME and NOT that I can wardec other without having a citadel. I want to be on the receiving end of wardecs without having to maintain a citadel. What is there to lose?.

Well like i said, you can find that toggle on the market, buy one and deploy it, instant toggle, you don’t even need to put fuel in it

[Karak_Terrel]

I’m not interested in maintaining a structure. I find structure warfare is boring as ■■■■

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

I’m not interested in maintaining a structure. I find structure warfare is boring as ■■■■.

No need to maintain it, you drop it and hope it doesn’t get exploded, no setup required

But that IS the toggle you want, use it or don’t, your choice

[Karak_Terrel]

@Cypherous

No need to maintain it, you drop it and hope it doesn’t get exploded, no setup required

But that IS the toggle you want, use it or don’t, your choice

I wasn’t looking for you advice, I was requesting an actual toggle.

Do you have any ACTUAL arguments why such a toggle should not exist?

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

Do you have any ACTUAL arguments why such a toggle should not exist?

As i said, it already exists, you can buy one on the market

And sure i can, to prevent people from just toggling it for shits and giggles to get their corp members wardecced, there isn’t really a need for such a toggle when wars already have an option to opt-in to them, drop a station in perimiter and you’ll get your free wardec

[Agent_Khanid]

i replyed to wrong post

war need to be more expensiv like 1 billion isk for the week for one alliance

it is not logicla one corp can wardec 70 alliance and block the game of thousand pilots

[Karak_Terrel]

@Cypherous

As i said, it already exists, you can buy one on the market

Wow some people are just really dense here. Again I’m not interested in structures. There is no reason this is a requirement if I want my corp become vulnerable without it.

[Daichi_Yamato]

@Cypherous

Most wars were made against targets that had NO way of defending themselves and didn’t do anything other than form a corp, you can disagree all you like but the facts are literally there in black and white,

That’s not a fact. That’s your interpretation of the data. Your opinion is not fact. As if this has to be explained to you.

No where does it say wardeccers were targeting people who had no way to defend themselves. No where does it say they were grief decs. No where does it say 99% of decs served no purpose.

A dec can be about area/resource denial. It may have no kills at the end of it but does not automatically mean the defender cannot defend themselves nor does it mean the war was a grief dec, nor does it mean the war had no purpose.

A war can be about literally anything, and it is STILL not griefing.

Your are doing leaps and flips with your ‘facts’. It’s just emotional knee jerking.

@Cypherous

Ganking has a punishment, yes someone dies but so does the ganker, its not someone getting away with killing you without any consequences, come on you should be smart enough to work this ■■■■ out if you play EVE

But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

Null sec doesn’t require a war system, you’re free to shoot who you want, in null you’re fighting over territory, you’re not claiming systems in high sec lol

But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

Salvaging is a profession, there isn’t any “ninja” in it, salvage doesn’t belong to anyone hence the lack of criminal flag for salvaging, this is a really old subject, are you sure you actually play this game at all?

But it’s not griefing. Like wars aren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

I did, but you can go and look at the whole presentation if you want, it explains it in more detail and why the system was being changed

I’m familiar with it. Which is why i know it doesn’t say anything about grief wars.

@Cypherous

Sure, but that doesn’t change that you lose access to things like corp hangars, a shared corp wallet and an actual banner to fly under, might not mean much to you ofc

Exactly. The balance of risk and reward.

Wanted a hangar? A shared wallet? Then the balance was the risk of decs.

@Cypherous

Then i fail to see how you would be against protecting them from being griefed, you claim one thing yet counter that argument entirely with another, show some consistency

That’s your reading comprehension.

Defenders are not griefed in anyway. They opt-in for war eligibility.

@Cypherous

You’re griefing with all 3 of them, the difference is there are consequences for ganking and people have to opt-in to entering low sec so they are aware concord won’t help them, with wars you’re just marking them as free to kill anywhere regardless of the actions those players take and without any consequences whatsoever, if you can’t see the problem with this then you’re a lost cause

Emphasis mine.

@Cypherous

It being the height of activity doesn’t make it a good thing, the height of activity for producing weapons was world war 2, i think we can all agree that doesn’t indicate that producing lots of weapons was a good thing

If having lots of weapons was considered a good thing then it would be.

You don’t think more player activity is a good thing? I think i see now where your agenda comes from.

@Cypherous

Going to have to agree to disagree, you don’t have access to the stats on new players joining the game and CCP does, and considering those are the bottom line they are making changes that prevent people from chasing them away just for joining a corp to learn the game

Umm

http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

Again, if wardecs were so oppressive to player retention, then where are all the players since the nerf that made so many players immune to decs?

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

Wow some people are just really dense here. Again I’m not interested in structures. There is no reason this is a requirement if I want my corp become vulnerable without it.

Except that that IS the requirement, both sides need a valid way of ending the war, so you need a structure to fulfil your loss condition, its not about being dense, its about having a goal for the war itself

[Daichi_Yamato]

@Cypherous

Except that that IS the requirement, both sides need a valid way of ending the war

The defender doesn’t necessarily need a structure.

The attacker could just withdraw the dec if they felt their objectives were met.

[LlamaDrama]

@Daichi_Yamato

@Cypherous

Most wars were made against targets that had NO way of defending themselves and didn’t do anything other than form a corp, you can disagree all you like but the facts are literally there in black and white,

That’s not a fact. That’s your interpretation of the data. Your opinion is not fact. As if this has to be explained to you.

No where does it say wardeccers were targeting people who had no way to defend themselves. No where does it say they were grief decs. No where does it say 99% of decs served no purpose.

A dec can be about area/resource denial. It may have no kills at the end of it but does not automatically mean the defender cannot defend themselves nor does it mean the war was a grief dec, nor does it mean the war had no purpose.

A war can be about literally anything, and it is STILL not griefing.

Your are doing leaps and flips with your ‘facts’. It’s just emotional knee jerking.

@Cypherous

Ganking has a punishment, yes someone dies but so does the ganker, its not someone getting away with killing you without any consequences, come on you should be smart enough to work this ■■■■ out if you play EVE

But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

Null sec doesn’t require a war system, you’re free to shoot who you want, in null you’re fighting over territory, you’re not claiming systems in high sec lol

But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

Salvaging is a profession, there isn’t any “ninja” in it, salvage doesn’t belong to anyone hence the lack of criminal flag for salvaging, this is a really old subject, are you sure you actually play this game at all?

But it’s not griefing. Like wars aren’t griefing.

@Cypherous

I did, but you can go and look at the whole presentation if you want, it explains it in more detail and why the system was being changed

I’m familiar with it. Which is why i know it doesn’t say anything about grief wars.

@Cypherous

Sure, but that doesn’t change that you lose access to things like corp hangars, a shared corp wallet and an actual banner to fly under, might not mean much to you ofc

Exactly. The balance of risk and reward.

Wanted a hangar? A shared wallet? Then the balance was the risk of decs.

@Cypherous

Then i fail to see how you would be against protecting them from being griefed, you claim one thing yet counter that argument entirely with another, show some consistency

That’s your reading comprehension.

Defenders are not griefed in anyway. They opt-in for war eligibility.

@Cypherous

You’re griefing with all 3 of them, the difference is there are consequences for ganking and people have to opt-in to entering low sec so they are aware concord won’t help them, with wars you’re just marking them as free to kill anywhere regardless of the actions those players take and without any consequences whatsoever, if you can’t see the problem with this then you’re a lost cause

Emphasis mine.

@Cypherous

It being the height of activity doesn’t make it a good thing, the height of activity for producing weapons was world war 2, i think we can all agree that doesn’t indicate that producing lots of weapons was a good thing

If having lots of weapons was considered a good thing then it would be.

You don’t think more player activity is a good thing? I think i see now where your agenda comes from.

@Cypherous

Going to have to agree to disagree, you don’t have access to the stats on new players joining the game and CCP does, and considering those are the bottom line they are making changes that prevent people from chasing them away just for joining a corp to learn the game

Umm

EVE-Offline :: EVE-Online Status monitor

Again, if wardecs were so oppressive to player retention, then where are all the players since the nerf that made so many players immune to decs?

So the players who quit the game after having their experience ruined by war dec groups are all just going to come straight back to EVE now that war decs were changed a bit? Such unrealistic thinking. The majority of them will probably never even know that war decs were changed. And even if they did hear about it, who’s to say that means they’ll automatically start playing again? It doesn’t work like that. Once quit, many will never come back.

[Daichi_Yamato]

So you’re saying changing decs was pointless?

[LlamaDrama]

No, how does that even make sense? It’s like talking to a four year old.

They couldn’t leave it as it was. It was never going to bring everyone back. But they had to stem the flow at some point so they did.

[Elena_Laskova]

He’s saying that the Wardec change will probably improve new player retention …

… but that it is not likely to cause players who left due to a “harassment wardec” to return to EVE.

Your inability to separate those obviously distinct cases is puzzling.

[Karak_Terrel]

@Cypherous

Except that that IS the requirement, both sides need a valid way of ending the war, so you need a structure to fulfil your loss condition, its not about being dense, its about having a goal for the war itself

It used to be that the purpose of the war came from the sandbox and we didn’t need a stupid citadel bashing mini-game to have one artificially shoved into our faces. There is NO reason for the target to have a loss condition.

[Cypherous]

@Daichi_Yamato

That’s not a fact. That’s your interpretation of the data. Your opinion is not fact. As if this has to be explained to you.

Thats CCP’s interpretation of the data, go watch the fanfest presentation about it

@Daichi_Yamato

No where does it say wardeccers were targeting people who had no way to defend themselves. No where does it say they were grief decs. No where does it say 99% of decs served no purpose.

Go watch the presentation, CCP gave out numbers on it, by all means go and claim your data is in some way more accurate than their own

@Daichi_Yamato

A war can be about literally anything, and it is STILL not griefing.

Sure it “can” it just normally isn’t, its normally someone just wanting free kill on targets

@Daichi_Yamato

Your are doing leaps and flips with your ‘facts’. It’s just emotional knee jerking.

The facts speak for themselves lol

@Daichi_Yamato

But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.

Sure it is, you’re causing grief to a target, ergo, griefing, you might not like it but that is the definition

@Daichi_Yamato

But it’s not griefing. Like wars aren’t griefing.

I never said salvaging WAS griefing

@Daichi_Yamato

I’m familiar with it. Which is why i know it doesn’t say anything about grief wars.

Then i’m not sure you actually watched it all properly, the majority of high sec wars were started by 5 groups against targets that were unable to defend themselves and no way to avoid being the target of a war, rockext science it is not

@Daichi_Yamato

Exactly. The balance of risk and reward.

Sorry but the social aspect of EVE isn’t a “reward” lol ergo there shouldn’t really be any risk required, only the griefers seem to think otherwise

@Daichi_Yamato

Defenders are not griefed in anyway. They opt-in for war eligibility.

NOW they do, but in the old system there was no way to have a social experience properly in EVE without opening up yourself to a war, you can argue this all day if you want but that won’t change the fact that the old system did need to go

@Daichi_Yamato

Emphasis mine.

Yes, and like i already explained, there was no way to have a corp without opting in to wars, which was a negative and as such has now been removed, oh noes the big bad griefers can’t randomly harass new players, whatever will we do

@Daichi_Yamato

You don’t think more player activity is a good thing? I think i see now where your agenda comes from.

I do think more player activity is a good thing, but wars weren’t creating that activity they were infact causing the exact opposite with people going inactive during wars or moving over to NPC corps to avoid them, doesn’t take a lot of brains to do that math, can you do it?

[Cypherous]

@Karak_Terrel

It used to be that the purpose of the war came from the sandbox and we didn’t need a stupid citadel bashing mini-game to have one artificially shoved into our faces. There is NO reason for the target to have a loss condition.

Sure there is, you just don’t like that you have to have one, which is fine, but you’re still required to have one if you want to be decced without using a mutual war, either deploy a station and get all the free decs you could ever want or don’t, its your choice

[Karak_Terrel]

@LlamaDrama

So the players who quit the game after having their experience ruined by war dec groups are all just going to come straight back to EVE now that war decs were changed a bit? Such unrealistic thinking.

CCP sent a mail out to everyone they could to tell them