True…point taken.
allies though… fuggin wardecks man, proper can of worms lol
And that was addressed, grief wars aren’t really a thing anymore
Results aren’t the issue, they made the change, if people still choose to sit in NPC corps that is down to them, but the excuse “I’ll just get wardecced” doesn’t exist anymore, which was the point of the change
And its always going to happen, the point now is that those people dying have deliberately chosen to expose themselves to this by deploying a structure, they are no longer just random industrialists getting wardecced by a random corp just for the lulz, killboards will always need to be padded so people will always look for targets, but now those targets are not likely to be new players joining an player corp for the first time and basically being camped in to quitting the game, so goal achieved
Not really, as i said grief wars no longer exist like they used to, people at war have now opted in to it knowing full well that they expose themselves, so no its not still happening, whats happening now is people are making bad choices and getting punished for it, not the same thing
Because it seems like the others aren’t actually informed enough to understand the differences between the pre and post war changes and seem to think its exactly the same when it isn’t
1 Like
…or another way to look at that is they have just evolved into something new.
Hummm…
Agree with you here as now people corps will just use NPC corps alts (if they weren’t already before)(see what I did there?)
LOL…
You have seen the numbers right?
People should just understand and accept that structures are not vital for small corps, especially if you don’t have the ability to defend it. Unfortunately, people are in general quite greedy.
1 Like
…but then couldn’t one say something like:
People should just understand and accept that WarDecs are not vital for huge corps going after everything they see, especially if they know statistically they will lose very few ships to their very many because the enemy don’t have the ability to defend it them. Unfortunately, people are in general quite greedy.
Sure… That could indeed be said.
The problem is, in a sandbox game, how many artificial limits do you want to have? In the end, bigger and more organized groups will always take advantage of smaller and weaker groups.
With the current system, these weaker groups have a way to completely opt-out of the system where the big prey on the weak. So if you opt-in, it is with the understanding that you can become a target.
Beyond the simplification benefits, this change will push the incentives slightly towards declaring war against larger organizations which we hope will combine with these other changes to encourage more PVP and destruction in New Eden’s wars.
Look, I’m not a complete fan of the fee myself. In the above quote, they mention it enables smaller corps to dec bigger corps. Sure, the fee is cheaper but add to that the cost of a structure and that the bigger corp can just blob it, then it suddenly becomes less viable for a 5-man corp to use it to catch random goons in highsec.
However, with the option to completely opt-out, in my opinion, this discussion becomes pretty moot and kinda pointless, in terms of the system being a failure to provide safety to smaller/weaker corps.
2 Likes
100% don’t have a problem with that…BUT, wouldn’t it also be a great idea to limit the number of WarDec a corp/alliance could have or make it too costly to have too many at once? It seems like that would be the best of both worlds…
Sure, it could be done, but then we return to my first point on how limited a sandbox is supposed to be. In a free sandbox, I don’t believe you will avoid that stronger organizations will take advantage of weaker ones. There is also the question of whether it even should be prevented. It is just competition, which I believe is healthy for the game. We cannot all be winners in a competition.
I don’t believe more limits are going to remove the complaints from the losers of the game. The “griefer” corps will adapt, like they did this time and like they always have.
The point I’m trying to make, is that I don’t believe that adjusting the fee will have any noticeable effect. So it would just be an unnecessary complexity, which they tried to remove by making it a flat fee. I’m not for or against this, I just believe it is pointless, especially given that one can just opt-out completely.
I believe, spreading out content is a better way for smaller groups to feel relevant, instead of the current “blob” mechanics, where you concentrate the engagements in a single spot. I’d prefer to see many small skirmishes spread out all over eve, instead of this focus on huge fleet battles. This is a different discussion though.
larger should not mean better, even well equipped large forces can be out manouvred by smaller less well equipped ones - of course ccp do their very best to nerf the ■■■■ out of anything new that develops small gang wise.
And now all the smaller alliances are evaporating, and with them the content that used to make the game playable.
Your, rhetoric of large should beat small is simply not the case and should never be made to be the case. A trained ufc fighter will beat the crap out of a bodybuilder more than twice his size.
Small forces still, in this day and age manage to evade capture and create serious damage upon thier enemies.
EvE has become stale because this is being forced out of it by a statement that is simply not true, nor will it ever be.
Large, does not beat small; it merely outnumbers it.
I tried not to give the impression that I mean larger is better. Which was why I used the word “stronger”. I don’t believe that a larger corp is necessarily better. With personally enjoying smaller fleets, I totally agree that a well flown small fleet, can outmaneuver an “anchored”/F1 bigger fleet.
Are there any stats available as to how many aggressor HQ’s have been killed by “defending” forces?
But the point is WHY does that need to be a thing, i’m not seeing an issue with an alliance having a billion wars if they really want that many targets to shoot at, and there will never be a limit to how many a corp can have based on cost, ISK is too easy to make so that doesn’t prevent anything, and even IF you were to limit it you would just have other groups add you as allies in a war and that limit is immediately circumvented in the first place
Proof?
Wardecs are not harassment.
War Declarations are a risk that every player corporation has to face and they are under no circumstances considered harassment. Wars in general can be completely avoided by remaining in an NPC corporation
Why don’t you show proof for your claims?
What victimizers? Ban them for what? Pvp’ing in a pvp game using a mechanic that is built to allow pvp against people who choose to put themselves in a position where the tool can be used against them?
Your sjw entitlement is showing.
2 Likes
Your gamma tendencies are showing. And trying to call me an SJW. That’s rich. But then I’m the guy who tried to warn lots of people and gets called a commie by so-called conservatives and called Literally H!tler by so-called liberals.
So you are nothing special. It just tells me that you are just as fake as the people involved in politics and punditry and you know you are full of BS and playing the same dumb word-games and pedantic warfare.
It is, or was, since you lost the argument already, harrassment. And yes, the players who abuse a game mechanic and then try to coyly say “oh, it’s in the rules, see? Why little old me would never break the rules” should be banned outright.
If CCP had done it that way, we would not have needed any changes at all to wardecs, or even had to add Concord for that matter. Just keep an eye on things, don’t be afraid to judge sh!t tier people, and ban them. Simple as that. The mistakes come from CCP trying to make things “equal”, and “automatic”. Equality is impossible especially in a failed civilization that churns out “the kind of people” that grief people and then use mechanics and rules as cover and claim otherwise just to get off on being a liar too. Notice how MMOs just get worse and worse just as IRL people get worse and worse?
Can you make that connection?
Or are you going to lie (like an SJW),double down (like an SJW) and then project (like an SJW)?
Yeah, this “SJW” is the one telling you that people are not created equal, and egalitarianism as such per the context of this game that tries to treat people equally is a complete failure just as the same mindset IRL has been a complete failure. CCP should have just had a panel of real people judge others - and yes, people can know who they are and they DO have the right to judge others - and ban those who were clearly just here to screw with other players and turn the sandbox into their litterbox because… well I don’t care why someone is dysfunctional or “has a problem”.
I know that makes you uncomfortable, especially since the failure of Eve, once looked back on, might unearth topics like this, and maybe in the next MMOs the handlers will do as I describe: single out and ban people who deserve it. in the future, people will be judged.
All this garbage you typed, you could have channeled into some book to sell on amazon. What’s wrong here? Flag my posts please, I’m actually enjoying a place with more censorship than the soviet union
2 Likes
I propose the Eve Online version of Kindle to be an in-game app called “TLDR” and we can sell walls of text to each other for ISK.
2 Likes
Imagine the opportunities, money. A book of posts and lines where you can journal with a crayon/pencil? You see that’s where I went, I channeled my expertise at efficiency and MADE CHING.
I’m actually looking forward to joining a high sec corp in the new system. Maybe one day the little corp I join will become a big corp, with structures to defend and wars to contend with. I think the fun in EVE is partly looking back at what you’ve done and how you’ve changed the face of the game.
I’m not overly concerned about having a bullseye on corp structures. I think anyone who puts the structure up has got to be prepared to lose it; that has always been the case. On the other hand, I can see how this is a barrier that separates small corps from the benefit of having structures.
Should I form a solo corp and put a structure up somewhere? Wonder what would happen…
0 currently. No aggressor has lost a HQ so far.
However, it’s still early and the change isn’t fully implemented until 26 June (when all existing wars without HQs will be ended if they are still running).