Your zkillboard and corp status do not reflect this statement.
Thatâs actually untrue, but you havenât had the time to make a sufficient enough analysis to come to that conclusion, which means youâre making assumptions. The videos I provided above show high sec corps enjoying their wardec with us and bringing fights. The other one shows I donât shy away from hard fights. Do with that what you will, but to pretend you know something about me that you couldnât possibly is intellectually dishonest and immature.
You just made the assumption that I didnât read thru the kills you are credited to as well as the losses while claiming that an analysis of your corp history would provide evidence that your statement is true. You have pages upon pages of npc corps with the scattered non-npc corp kill here and there usually in a multi pilot fight against one target.
Say again please why evidence is only evidence when it agrees with your conclusion.
No, I didnât, but every kill has a story behind it, one you are not privy to. You do not have enough information to form the conclusion you did. Also, donât make the assumption that someone in an NPC corp is not a hard fight. Iâve been killed by more than a few. Again, the details of each kill on a kb are more than just the numbers it displays. There is a story to each one. Regardless of your claims of my killboard though, there are more than enough examples of difficult solo kills that are on there to demonstrate that Iâm not one to shy away from a fight, a hard one, so tell me again how you got all the information you need to determine that Iâm some pussy looking for easy kills.
Alright then lets start your list with your corporations and wars. All of them.
Low expectations vs running with hedgeclippers. 0 kills both sides.
tax free vs shock treatment. 0 kills both sides
shock treatment (oh look, one of your declared wars) vs alchemy group. 0 kills both sides.
shock treatment vs stop wasting your isk. 0 kills both sides
vs united star recruiters. 0 kills
vs C.B.F.H. 0 kills
vs U.S.H. Operations. 0 kills
vs infinite delusions. 0 kills
P I R A T vs. 0 kills.
It continues⌠want me to post them all?
Oh my, are you really only going to list the wars in which nothing happened and avoid the ones that lots of stuff happened intentionally? Every single wardec corp has a bunch of wars in it with zero kills on both sides. Anyone can look at my corpâs war history, mate. Anyone. Including one with TRUE VINE which had multiple merc corps defending it, including Marmite, which we still won to such a degree that, at that time, no other corp had done as much damage to them as we had, more than 3.5 billion worth, and thatâs despite all the assists they got from mercs. Check my corpâs killboard for kills in Amarr, December 23, 2016, and check the wardec from that time as well. Make sure you check who was assisting them, and what sort of damage we did to the corp we decced. Also, make sure you take note of what we lost so there is no doubt in your mind that weâre willing to take risks. If you continue to deny it after seeing that, then Iâll know you have no intention of understanding facts, and that your goal here is just to discredit me. regardless of the facts. Also take note that at any given time that we were fighting that war, there were no more than 3 or 4 of us engaging outnumbered and outgunned almost every time.
For the record, that fight in Amarr, all those destroyers were in a fleet together. We didnât engage them one at a time, they chased our sniper ships around in a fleet together. If theyâd caught one of our ships with that huge blob of destroyers, which they did when we thought weâd do something fun and go full-disco in highsec, any one of our ships would have gotten wrecked.
im not really reading your posts you have clearly stated you dont play.
you have clearly demonstrated your lies.
1 Like
i could cherry pick your kills if you likeâŚ
But id rather compare the amount of highsec wars ive been in (as the attacker) and how many times ive been on both sides of that fence therefore proving without doubt i have a far more objective view of the issue than you yourself seem to think you have.
Wardecks are not for the sole purpose of your own amusement. They are meant to be a part of the larger game where in fact i believe constant harrassment is frowned upon.
what point? that you seem to think your the only person thats ever wardeckked someone??
So you saw this:
Then you read it. But in direct contrastâŚ
I put the people who have responsibility such as the CEO and every member with research, building, or other hangar access as unable to leave this corp while the war dec is going on. Every asset they have in space is a free target while you keep the war going. I removed isk to keep war going as a requirement and changed it to a module. If you blow up a citadel or other structure of theirs you can get funds out of their corp wallet as a reward. What more did you want?
either way the current mechanic does not work as a âgameâ mechanic for the most part, it has merely become a tool for most of the people using it to sit around highsec and only undock if it looks 100% certain they will get a kill.
My issue isnt with the system it with the abuse of the system, it was great when people fought back or decs had meaning cus âbilly shot one of our guys miningâ or âstole from my canâ. Now its al**MOST** synonymous with the terms ârisk aversionâ and âmeh cba going to look for hubcampersâ.
1 Like
Fix wardecs by bringing the watchlist back to highsec, without compromising those precious snowflakes with Titans in null.
This issue arose because CCP was too lazy to split the issue between highsec and nullsec in the first place.
someone actually meantioned it had been used for stalking also, im presuming of course for a non ingame type of stalking.
your thinking wl only for high and low and only related to wartargets?
there is also the issue of neutral rr which some do use in dissproportionate numbers in hs wars; i spotted vmg with 3 dps and something like 6 neutral rr, im not opposed to one or two; i like pvp, i like scouting and i like planning around stuff but even ccp said this was something they were going to look at again.
Why do attackers and defenders need more responsibility?
The system as it is leaves everything to the players. That aspect of wardecs is perfect. The mechanics are near perfectly balanced, aside from the advantage that defenders have of being able to access allies for free. The game otherwise doesnât get in the way and itâs down to the characters.
1 Like
I gave a suggestion on that by changing war from isk to upwell module. You basically just declare with the module your target (in this case the people attacking) and you can participate in that war also. Thus the attackers can knock the support out of this by destroying the upwell station with that module or negotiation to have them leave or do nothing. Nothing is stopping you from declaring war on a group that has no assets in space still. You just need the module installed to declare or participate in another war.
But why? Why put mechanics in the way of a system that at its core, gets the mechanics out of the way?
Why also introduce a system that essentially guarantees that large groups will be safe from wardecs and small groups, without any hope ever of attacking the attackers, just get more wardecs?
Is it not putting a cost on the allied players joining into the war? Is it not putting that same cost on the attacker?
That already exists in the current system. There is nothing stopping the current system from having a large group doing exactly that.
I would hope not. Aside from the advantage that allies gives defenders, there is already a belief within the community that allies that offer to join for ISK are just alts of the wardeccers.
If the use of allies requires ISK, then it makes it even less useful as a mechanic. Defenders should have the right of free allies, which the current system provides.
And yet, all the large groups in the game are permadecced, showing how wrong that statement is.
The use of a structure based system would impose the requirement on wardeccers that they pick on the little guys, as opposed to picking on the stupid within the big guys as now.
Thereâs no need to protect stupid.
Alliances are part of the defenders. The module targets top tier. Either join an alliance or donât. Not my decision to add you to an alliance or not.
Permadecced is not a mechanics flaw. This is not related to how war is declared. This is also not related to how wars end. This is putting a strawman into the play.
There is still no requirement of who you choose to declare war on. Big, small, 400 titans, 3 mining frigates, a person who hasnât undocked in Jita since the game started. You choose your target. This is not an argument either. Your intelligence in choosing your target is still your responsibility.
We agree.
YepâŚ
it fits into my gaming schedule. Get home relax, log in for 30 minutes pop who ever is online and then log off. Sometimes based on online time of my targets I might log in again for 30 minutes and kill one of them.
I also like killing newbros in tech II mining ships Orcas and T3 cruisers. This is my main. I sold my old char 3-4 years ago. I do not have time or the inclination to maintain a myriad of alts. a scouting alt in covert ops ship⌠I do have.
And anybody with half a brain can see I am not new⌠I even mention it in my BIO and yes. Spending 150Billion isk to inject⌠Best isk sink ever. I never hide the fact that I am actually an old player. And I love new players that also inject because it just mean more expensive fits to kill to fund my wardec activities.
But yeah⌠Why dont you get that big bad null corp to wardec me. I bet you will leave corp before the war is over.
Aside from that. I like some of MinerArt ideas, I just do not know about the whole module thing though. As a matter of fact many people here have good ideas. I just hope CCP does something that makes sense. Track record says otherwise.
I say âmoduleâ only because itâs a thing. It might be similar to an MTU, or a Mobile Depo. Eve Online has right to take the idea and run with it.