You have a toggle, its called deploying a citadel, so go toggle away
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
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?
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
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.
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.
But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.
But it’s not griefing. Like wars weren’t griefing.
But it’s not griefing. Like wars aren’t griefing.
I’m familiar with it. Which is why i know it doesn’t say anything about grief wars.
Exactly. The balance of risk and reward.
Wanted a hangar? A shared wallet? Then the balance was the risk of decs.
That’s your reading comprehension.
Defenders are not griefed in anyway. They opt-in for war eligibility.
Emphasis mine.
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.
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
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.
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.
Thats CCP’s interpretation of the data, go watch the fanfest presentation about it
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
Sure it “can” it just normally isn’t, its normally someone just wanting free kill on targets
The facts speak for themselves lol
Sure it is, you’re causing grief to a target, ergo, griefing, you might not like it but that is the definition
I never said salvaging WAS griefing
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
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
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
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
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?
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
