It's honestly very odd to claim that an X Loyalist taking on Y Loyalists in PvP shouldn't be called RP.
...
Choose to side with X or Y. Make decisions that makes you enemies of these or those. Choose to not make enemies. Choose to make all the enemies. Choose to do whatever you want. That's what Eve is all about. Of course, when you choose to be the enemy, is it really reasonable to expect that those enemies can't touch you? Is it reasonable to expect that we can do whatever we want, say whatever we want and do all of it without risking consequences at all?
I say... no. As roleplayers we are particularly beholden to this persistent universe. Our actions and choices matter that much more since our interactions are what forges the stories and progress of our characters and universe. This includes facing the consequences of our choices. This means that just like all other Eve players, when we log in, slap loyalties, words and actions onto our characters we consent to everything we've put ourselves at risk for. If we're in a player corporation, we're at risk of war. If we undock, we're at risk of suicides. If we anchor something, we're at risk of losing it. When we take a stand... we consent to someone trying to break us down.
We are not exempt from Eve players playing Eve at us, when we're playing Eve.
-Younger, newer RP corps and players, I always felt more appropriate to take a 'lighter' approach. War decs of limited scope, hunting of limited nature, not trying to crush people out of the game overwhelmingly out of the bat. Just because you are a 6 or 7 year vet and you have friends and resources to shit on younger RPers doesn't mean you necessarily -should-. You can get your RP points across with an appropriate amount of destruction and not totally make people want to quit the game. I think the idea is to show them that what they do and say in game has consequences, but that you'd rather them be a part of the community for the long haul and have them around, and that pew pewing them doesn't mean you don't like them.
It's this strange duality and dishonesty, where you are demonstrably having some sort of impact - the amount of privchats and other logs are kind of conclusive - but at the same time acknowledging this in any way IC is utterly unacceptable. Can't really have it both ways, can you? This then is the reason why there does need to be a victory conditions update for wardec mechanics etc: When the losing side decides to go down with the ship, stubbornly and out of pride refusing to simply lose and agree to terms, instead just crying out OOC about 'bullies', it really is not the attacker that's being unreasonable as far as I'm concerned.
So, I can't speak on all of it, as I'm sure there's more going on that I haven't seen. However, it seems a bit of a misrepresentation.
Sami; my understanding is that overtures have been made at points, but they've been turned away, or else milked for maximum salt/humiliation before being turned away.
And the entertaining thing about your second 'don't trust ARC' point is that it was a single Sansha RPer at the end of the event, in a freeport that Miz herself has used to lambast us as ignorant. So, either IKAME's ignorant of mechanics, or eeevil (collaborating with Sansha!), or... it's a freeport? And, either way, using it as justification for a preexisting declaration seems... circular?
In the meantime, I might recommend Miz being less self-congratulatory over successful salt farming. I don't think anyone has a moral high ground to put themselves on in an internet spaceship video game.
Mechanically speaking, though, Kala nailed it on wardecs. Given the structure in EVE, wardecs do vastly favor the attacker. There are no win conditions. Neutral alts, scouts, and channel surveillance (because RPers tend to be in visible places) make it easy to pick a target and hunt them for multiple days if need be. Miz *is* an eminently capable hunter, but also plays sporadically enough that planning to try to trap her is ineffective at best.
reasonable surrender terms.
Now if the defenders had gone so far as to deny the aggressors the ability to go back and lick their wounds etc, then surrender would be a simple matter of "Yeah, we lost. We'll talk terms."
... "describe those terms" what? They'd all depend entirely on the context and situation. You're inventing nonsense scenarios here and expecting answers to them.
scenario A:
sani sabik corporation X is doing stuff in a constellation.
amarr corporation Y declares war to drive them out. And are thoroughly trounced by the blooders.
What reasonable terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the amarr community as willing to negotiate with the vilest of vile heretics.
scenario B:
amarr corporation X is doing stuff somewhere.
minmatar corporation Y declares war to stop them. And get trounced.
what terms exist for Y to surrender on, that will not label them to the entire rest of the minmatar community as people willing to give in to the slavers ?
The slavers agree to hand over X amounts of slaves and maintain that delivery weekly/monthly for Y amount of time in return for temporary cease-fire/peace as an example.
The slavers agree to hand over X amounts of slaves and maintain that delivery weekly/monthly for Y amount of time in return for temporary cease-fire/peace as an example.
Abandon their holy duty as Imperial citizens to cultivate the spirit of man, and hand over imperial subjects to minmatar terrorists. Betraying two core principles of almost any Amarr character (except the ultra-mercantile tash-murkonites, i guess).
okay. that sounds perfectly ~reasonable~.
now find the middle ground between allowing the most vile of vile heretics to continue to preach and practice their religion, and burning them all.
If you want to maintain those, then you need to win. Or fight to the bitter end.
Oh now they're "Imperial Citizens upholding holy duties".
Of course you're not going to find reasonable terms when you MJD the goalposts with every post. And for your second nonsense scenario: If they're in a position to burn them, they can burn them. If they're not in a position to burn them, they can't negotiate fuck all anyway. Your scenarios are nonsensical and have nothing to do with conflicts in Eve.
I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.
If you want to maintain those, then you need to win. Or fight to the bitter end.
isn't that the whole point.
if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick.
a) You know exactly fuck all about Miz. b) This is, again, a scenario that has exactly fuck all relevance to anything that can realistically happen in Eve.I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.so, mizhara the character is prepared to wobble on the principle of "better to die a freeman than live a slave".
I find that hard to believe.
Now, it seems to me that in some cases, for example, an Amarr vs Minmatar conflict, that the losing party could simply withdraw to their faction's core systems to lick their wounds and rebuild. Yield the field, as it where, cease operations for a while.
Factually and demonstrably incorrect.Sami; my understanding is that overtures have been made at points, but they've been turned away, or else milked for maximum salt/humiliation before being turned away.
There's been one.
It is a principle that Mizhara the character seems to have expressed as being important, on the IGS forum.
So, either the character is prepared to stick to their principles, or they're not. You the player say that no player plays a character who would stick to their principles.
I find that surprising in the case of Mizhara the character. The idea that that character would compromise on one of their principles, goes against everything that has been portrayed.
A: While not an approach, I am given to understand that you told Luna at the beginning of the war that negotiation would be pointless and that there was nothing we could do. That may not have been the message you intended to convey (given you later said that you only meant there wasn't anything 'you could think of'), it was, however, the message that was taken by us at the time.Actual copypasted wording:
B: A successful negotiation was made in which an agreement to not engage each other when Nauplius was on grid was reached. Not actually sure who made the initial approach.
C: You were invited to fly alongside us in the Drifter fleets, with a ceasefire in effect during the fleets.
D: I specifically attempted negotiations during the Dawn of Justice event to arrange for a temporary cease fire to all us to better engage in anti-slavery operations.
E: Luna approached you about what terms you might find acceptable when she had you as a guest in her gardens. She very explicitly asked you what options you thought there were for ending the war. You repeated that you didn't think any you could think of would be acceptable, though you did say you'd listen to ideas we might have.
So it is incorrect to say that Ibrahim's meeting was the only attempt at negotiation or diplomacy. There have been several, and you have implied to us more than once that without giving up the core of our identity, any attempt will be unsuccessful.
It is a principle that Mizhara the character seems to have expressed as being important, on the IGS forum.... she's literally incapable of both death and slavery. She's a capsuleer. This is one of the most nonsensical hypotheticals in existence.
So, either the character is prepared to stick to their principles, or they're not. You the player say that no player plays a character who would stick to their principles.
I find that surprising in the case of Mizhara the character. The idea that that character would compromise on one of their principles, goes against everything that has been portrayed.
In this case, it's literally impossible for her to compromise that principle.
The specific case of the person who said Miz doesn't have a reason to be in CVA space-- well, in the first place, that's an odd claim on their part. However, I can understand how the person felt the situation had gotten a bit personal. It was a recent returnee to SFRIM, I think a fairly carebear-y, relatively inexperienced EVE player. Miz popped him twice on his first day back to SFRIM in industrials, he went out to Providence to do some nullsec exploration, and Miz hunted him down and killed him again three days later. Naturally, as said, Miz is a practiced and capable hunter. In this case, the target understandably felt that the situation was personal (after all, a single individual pursued them to nullsec), got angry (not justified), and has since unsubbed. I've got mixed feelings on that. On one hand, if someone's going to unsub over losses, perhaps EVE isn't the game for them. On the other hand, perhaps if they had been introduced more slowly they'd actually take it up.
The only thing that bugs me is the moralizing about it.
PIE does not negotiate with terrorists.
I didn't even want this thread to be specifically about this war.Perhaps not, but you did introduce it to the discussion.
Now, I bring this up because I've been getting a resurgence of complaints about exactly this. As some of you may know, I've wardecced pretty much the entire AmarrBloc and occasionally hunt them in high, low and null.
I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.
As a director, I also have a responsibility to the members of my corp. I see how things affect them OOC as well as IC. I see their frustrations, I know that some of them want to only RP part time and just do missions or mine without worrying about a RP war the rest of the time. Such a playstyle may not appeal to me, others may prefer to consider oneself always IC no matter what they are doing in game, but as a director, I have to ensure the needs of both our more hardcore and our more causal players are being met. And they're not being met. I think this can mostly be traced to problems with the wardec system itself, but it's plain to me as a director that, ultimately, playing this way leads to people leaving the RP community, either via quitting altogether or via deciding that getting involved in the RP aspect of Eve means people will target them for that when they simply want to enjoy playing Eve.
Ultimately, I believe we do need to have PvP be a strong and integral part of Eve RP. It's frankly phony if we don't. But when it starts driving people away -- we better start looking to fix that damn quickly.
the impression I get is that no one in the RP community is willing enough to lose.
CCP needed a more granual wardec system to integrate things like vendettas, religious conflict, economic conflict, etc to work within the various factions and have faction specific win conditions and resolution methods. A conclave! Tribal gathering! Rival ceo corp share voting blocs! Who knows.
Nauph and that style of content generation is a whole other discussion which I'll get snipped for I'm sure
"Wardeccing RPers is largely pointless. They're the only group in the game who often enjoy being docked more than undocking."
As for that whole thing about making unreasonable demands. Look back to that stupid Jovian meme worm incident. Several of you lot were demanding that VV be punished with standings alterations that would make her unable to participate in any future live events, unless she was to grind innumerable shitty level 1 missions. ye, no ooc salt because you lot were sick of losing stupid forum & chat arguments to VV.
CTCS is.
Goons "lost" WWB, yet they walked away with 90% of their assets and membership intact and very quickly established a position stronger than the one they had just been forced out of.
If we consider that the usual "win" of an Eve war cannot be applied (making your opponent quit the game) here, we very quickly end up in a situation where the war won't end, not because people aren't willing to lose, but because they don't think they are losing.
I'm going to keep using Mizhara v AmarrBloc because it's the only example that's really pertinent right now. These next points are hypotheticals intended to show why things quickly lock into a status quo.
Mizhara thinks she is winning because SFRIM/ARC/etc are unable to stop her from hunting and killing their individual pilots.
SFRIM/ARC/etc think they're winning because Mizhara is unable to meaningfully disrupt their primary content (RP/Hive Ops/etc) as an organisational whole.
Neither side have any reason to surrender.
As my first FC and PvP mentor Arkady Sadik used to say,Quote"Wardeccing RPers is largely pointless. They're the only group in the game who often enjoy being docked more than undocking."
You literally showed you weren't, during the Jovian meme worm thing.
You literally showed you weren't, during the Jovian meme worm thing.
That's not my recollection at all. What are you basing that on ?
I said it in the first part of my post. Complaining OOC about getting hit with -10 standings because of the willful choice to withhold the items CONCORD requested.
I think I'm misremembering though. The Jovian meme worm incident might have been something else. I was referring to the Corrupted Tinary Relic withheld during the timey wimey event.
It is a place for civil and courteous conversation. It is not a place for flamewars, bullying, point-scoring or other asshattery. (The Mods reserve the right to define 'asshattery' as behaviour not in line with the forum's purpose). It is not a place for people to show how 'wrong' others are. It is not a place for the ventilation of personal vendettas. It is not a place for insults, either veiled or explicit. It is not a place for telling other people they are 'doing it wrong". It is not a place to carry on In Character feuds.
Rule 3: Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist (including the use of 'rape' or 'raped' as a synonym for 'defeat' or 'defeated' and similar inappropriate uses), homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.
Rule 10: Respect our decisions. The moderation team reserves the right to warn, suspend, or permanently ban users judged to be acting against the spirit of the rules, even users conforming to the letter. In other words, don't try skirting the rules to "win" threads.
Rule 11: Don't troll. This has a working definition of "attempting to be as annoying as possible while still technically obeying the rules," and it's not the way to go about getting attention. Attempting to derail threads, posting off-topic bullshit, or flame-baiting are all verboten.
wtb hi sec avatar so i can get rid of that god-awful fortizar.You can pause the timer with just two people in subcaps.
wtb hi sec avatar so i can get rid of that god-awful fortizar.You can pause the timer with just two people in subcaps.
Eh, force multiplier on that one tiny grid. It literally has zero military value in this war.
Hell, given its other IC purposes, it's at worst a prick in the pride.
can't hold down any enemies.
It's for all intents and purposes harmless.
We're veering off topic but didn't they make these things anchorable anywhere or something? Can you put enemy foritzarzarzars on same grid and have the towers pew pew each other?
I don't know what war you all are talking about but there's probably still a bunch of high sec wrecking crew merc corps that will bash stations for ya for a good price :)
That's terrible game design to let you put these up in highsec without capital weapons available, what shittery is that?
Anyways. back to topic :)
That's terrible game design to let you put these up in highsec without capital weapons available, what shittery is that?
Anyways. back to topic :)
And this is just fortizars. TEST put up a fucking highsec keepstar yesterday.
In December wars are being changed so you can only declare wars against corps with structures.
In December wars are being changed so you can only declare wars against corps with structures.
Bullshit.
From a game design and player retention standpoint, it is absolutely the right decision.
we can wait another month or two while something that isn't a half-arsed worthless annoyance is come up with. This 'solution' is just pointless and worthless aggravation that doesn't actually fix anything.
I've looked at the reddit thing, and all I see that's an exploit/bypass, is transferring structures to the target corporation (apparently you have no control over who is transferring structures to your corporation).
Anchor structure, transfer to target, declare war, shoot structure, ~~~dank structure killmail~~~. :psyccp:
It actually goes against the central tenants of the game, where you can DO it but face consequences.
Weren't the player stargates supposed to take people to new uncharted k space systems originally?
I'm not sure what this does as there are plenty of other ways to move from A to B already?
I thought the new stargates were going to be these huge expensive megastructures to send out explorers to new systems?
Yeah, these are basically the new jump bridges and part of the plan to be rid of POSes and POS code entirely. Which is fine, I mean if you live and hold space you should get to construct some logistics around that stuff. Allowing the biggest super blobbers (i.e. the people who can afford to spread those gates far and wide) in New Eden to fatigue free rush across the maps again? That's just... a really bad call.
I wonder how much fuel it'll take to jump supers via these gates. If it's significantly more expensive than using a jump drive, that might be a thing.
Yeah, these are basically the new jump bridges and part of the plan to be rid of POSes and POS code entirely. Which is fine, I mean if you live and hold space you should get to construct some logistics around that stuff. Allowing the biggest super blobbers (i.e. the people who can afford to spread those gates far and wide) in New Eden to fatigue free rush across the maps again? That's just... a really bad call.
Only 1 per system though, it says.
So you can fatigue-free jump from A to B, but to then get to C, requires a normal jump, causing fatigue ?
Yeah, these are basically the new jump bridges and part of the plan to be rid of POSes and POS code entirely. Which is fine, I mean if you live and hold space you should get to construct some logistics around that stuff. Allowing the biggest super blobbers (i.e. the people who can afford to spread those gates far and wide) in New Eden to fatigue free rush across the maps again? That's just... a really bad call.
Only 1 per system though, it says.
So you can fatigue-free jump from A to B, but to then get to C, requires a normal jump, causing fatigue ?
Alternatively, bridge-gate, NPC gate, bridge-gate, NPC gate, bridge-gate, cyno jump. You'll still take fatigue jumping to cynos, and you'll be vulnerable to interdiction travelling between any gate, player or NPC.
And mutual wars continue even after any structures are destroyed.
So, a bit more interesting, I think, no ?
Again, and again, and again I will repeat this: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Blaming wardecs for poor player retention is a very bad idea, especially when you knee-jerk a band-aid into place that might end up being a fuckin' tourniquet that kills the fucking limb instead.Well, it managed to convince the CSM and CCP have serious monetary stake in getting the statistics right, so I'll trust them over someone who hasn't seen any of the work, and is frankly throwing a tantrum over the changes and looking for a justification.
This is one of those situations where CCP really needed to have some fucking patience, use some fucking brains and start gathering some actual proper fucking data. Questionnaires for unsubs and alphas going inactive for instance. More data gathering, questioning what might be behind the poor player retention. THEN working on the solution.The CCP marketing research team has been asking questions during the unsubscribe process and sending out exit surveys on a sample basis since at least 2014. My guess is someone finally had the idea to correlate the data with wardec history.
There's nothing in there that shows the wardec itself is the primary problem with player retention
Sound like the problem there was that the game and its community didn't set the expectations right, nor taught you what you needed to know.
something like 70% of all wars are declared by three alliances
As for tantrums, go fuck yourself. The fact that I'm angry about this shit does not in any shape, way or form devalue my view on this, especially given that unlike you I actually paid some fucking attention to what CCP and CSM has actually said.
All of us are stakeholders.
So is that not a good change ?
I wonder how many people are going to forget to tick that "automatically refuse structure transfers" thing. I bet there's going to be a bunch of people finding out they suddenly own property in WHs and other hard to reach places, making them wardec eligible anyway.
This setting will default to the “reject structure transfers” state for all corporations on patch day.
okay.
Am I the only one who doesn't think this change matters much? You can already escape wardec mechanics by going to an NPC corp, which is basically the same thing as being in a player corp without structures.
This system lets super-old players who don't want to be wardecced get out of being wardecced, which is a thing you shouldn't be able to do in EVE.
In fact if you are a super old player you shouldn't even go back to an NPC corp at any point in time.
They need a better way to slowly get new people used to all of these things with a titrated system of danger until they are fully vulnerable like everyone else.
"What the fuck man, your piece just took mine." "... yes, it's chess." "But I just want to much about with my white pieces!" "... it's chess." "I play the game how I want to!" "Still chess." "Griefer!"
So the invulnerable industry is now invulnerable because you can't declare on corporations that don't own a structure.
As opposed to the invulnerable industry that was being run on alt-corps with no visible connections to the characters who the ISK is funnelled to. Or basing out of public structures.
You going to wardec Chribba's corporation, if people are basing out of his structures ?
All it means is that a 1-character pvp corp can't declare on a large corporation and then log off for a few weeks with the bills on auto-pay, and have a psych effect on the larger entity because any neutrals could be alt-spies. And even if they did throw up a POS somewhere, then it can be taken down by the defender to end the war while the 1-player dude still has weeks to go before they're back in game. Big deal.
I honestly don't understand the fuss.
Clearly the solution is no alts, ever.
The reason I don't understand the fuss is probably tha A) I don't do alts B) Griefdeccing or deccing in general is really not my thing C) Relating to A, I've felt alts have provided immunity to consequences and diluted the supposed hardcoredness of EVE for as long as their use has been prevalent.
Those who can be bothered, have been able to dodge everything for the past 15 years. This is barely anything new or gamechanging on top of that.
The fuck is 'griefdeccing'?
Do you not grasp just how poorly you understand the issue? Someone using a freeport or alt corps or whatever else is exactly the same at this point. That's the whole problem. You used to be able to disrupt and target their industry by going for the people doing it, whether they're in NPC stations, freeports or their own structures. Now this is no longer possible.
Yeah, what it means is that now you can be completely invulnerable in highsec, while having every single benefit of corporations, while having every single benefit of structures, without running even the slightest risk of facing consequences for actions, words or choices.
That you don't seem to grasp the issue here isn't all too surprising of course.
there has never before been a way to be invulnerable to wardecs while having all the benefits of corp hangars, corp jobs and so on, all the hallmarks of actually functional industry.
You basically just made the argument that people should be forced to play the way you want them to play.
Sorry, but the rest of us pay our subscription dollars, too. If other people want to pay for my game, they can tell me how I should play the game, but I don't see that day on the horizon, so folks who think I should have to be griefed to enjoy some shiny space pixels can kiss my ass.
I scout and chase ARC... well okay SFRIM people 99% of the time but let's call it ARC for now... people around, hunting and occasionally killing them. This is undesirable to them, so they organize, knowing that if they... say Mine X Amount Of Moon Goo, or collect Y Amount Of NPC Bounties or Explore Z Amount Of Sites or Produce So And So Much Value And Manage To Trade It and whateverthefuckelse bears do with their time the war will end because of the mechanic that says "aggressor incapable of pursuing an effective path towards their victory conditions, war declared unsuccessful, defender now have X weeks of war immunity from those involved in this war" or something. They succeeded in this since they organized, scouted and watched their aggressors, coordinated their bearing and maybe even defended it and so on.
Same thing on the offensive side with war goal mechanics in play. Declare war, mechanics look at aggressor and defender and determines some upper and lower bounds, then the aggressor gets to set some war goals like "X amount of destroyed structures, Y amount/value of destroyed ships" and so on. Upon successful completion of the objectives, war is declared won/lost and those involved can't be at war again for a certain amount of time. Add some reward mechanics to both sides for succeeding in attacking/defending (whether it's through fighting or successfully remaining active while avoiding losses) to incentivize activity and you are starting to get somewhere.
And no, there has never before been a way to be invulnerable to wardecs while having all the benefits of corp hangars, corp jobs and so on, all the hallmarks of actually functional industry.While technically true, there was at one point a way to make it cost so much to dec you that no one in their right mind would do so (possibly making it cost more than anyone actually had at the time, if one were so inclined) without, as I recall, paying any of the costs yourself. E-Uni used it way back when to make ourselves effectively immune to wars.
I've not been caught by them once, probably because I don't fly with anything valuable in my cargo, so I don't have a personal problem with them. But as far as I understood those people are the root of the whole problem and the wardec change, though I see you've been already debating that at length earlier.
... are you deficient? Renting said corp office required being vulnerable. Having access to said corp hangar, corp jobs etc all required being wardeccable. When you have dozens or more industrialists managing multiple industrial logistics chains, including all the material acquisition, refinement, hauling, product hauling, RnD, Blueprint Management and so on and so forth, you're not going to be doing it by individually trading all of that crap between NewbCorp Alts.
You've never actually done industry worth fuck all, have you?
We are all going off on tangents, maybe back to the central issue:
How safe should people be able to be in this game, and at what points of their space-career?