Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Greetings, sorry this post is going to be a long one, skip to the end for a TL;DR.

It seems that there are some problems that people are having with the current state of EVE, highsec, carebears, etc. These are the following ideas I have seen on these forums.

1) Miners have very little way to retaliate/actually defend against a motivated ganker.
2) Wardecs favor the mega alliances by costing more the larger a corp/alliance gets.
3) Goons are jerks
4) Carebears are winy people who are “playing the game wrong”
5) Complaining on the forums to enact changes to make thing safer ruins emergent game play

So first off, while I disagree with the Goons in principle, they are not the problem. Their continued antics keeps thing lively and makes good headlines for all the news sites/podcasts.

Carebears are also not the problem. EVE is a game for different play styles, as soon as you are dictating how a player CAN and SHOULD play the game you are becoming the problem. Side note: suicide ganking is not dictating play style; the manifestation of the risks built into the game is not the “wrong” thing to do. If you don’t like them doing it, minimize your risk, or retaliate to defend yourself. If you can’t stand the system that allows it, play minecraft (on peaceful).

And in the above suggestion lies the problem: Miners have no recourse to attacks made against them. This has always bothered me. Mining fleets should have defenders, but that becomes ineffective. The only real recourse is to put a bounty on the offender, but a) that costs more isk and b) will only be seen as a badge of honor by the attacker at best, free income at worse.

So what is the solution? Increasing the ability for miners to access ships that can survive a gank may help, but that seems more like a patch then a fix. Other things that have been suggested such as making CONCORD instant, preventing ships from being in sections of space etc. not only are an unfair removal of options in the game (dictating someone else’s play style), but break immersion and believabity.

So is there a solution that maintains immersion, allows for emergent game play, and allows care bears a fighting chance?

I believe yes: fix the wardec system.

The current wardec system makes no sense, why would CONCORD allow you to fight by license? Why would the license cost more for bigger alliances? Why call them wars when they are not motivated for political or financial purposes (wardecs are primarily a grief engine, not a struggle for control).

So, if you have gotten to this point, thank you. Without further ado, my proposal:

1) Make wars that are based out of the blue financially straining: If you have no “reason” to fight the enemy corp/alliance doing so should be very expensive. You are basically legally bribing the police to look the other way, and abusing the CONCORD legal system, this should be expensive.
2) Make aggressive actions “acts of war”. Person from corp X ganks person from corp Y. This is murder and should be considered an act of war (kill rights are bungled as well this would help that).
3) Wars declared based on an act of war should be at a reasonable rate. You can also make multiple acts of war further reduce the cost.
4) Mercs can be hired, and act of war rights can be transferred to another corp by directors.

So now if someone gets waxed by gankers they can hire mercs to directly attack the perps. This provides a form of accountability to the actions. Yes you CAN do what you want, but if it means enough to me I can retaliate and attempt to turn it against you. Also, they can respond directly if they choose.

This will fix or help fix: mining, ganking, merc marketplace, wardecs, bounties, and possibly some other things.


TL;DR Fix war system to allow people to retaliate against criminal acts against their corp. Allow people to defend them selves, preserve emergent game play, and stop trying to make artificial rules that stop people playing how they choose.

As far as I can tell from the design of the wardec system (both old and new) and things CCP has said, the system isn't being used as intended. I *believe* their intent was for it to be used for wars of territory control or denial, both among highsec corps and nullsec alliances. I think they wanted the big wars of nullsec to spill into highsec via the wardec system, allowing them to attack each others' trade routes and supply lines.

I have successfully used highsec warfare to grab political control in a highsec alliance in the past. It is actually pitifully underused; I know the impact it can have on organizations. I've seen it from both sides. But right now, it's hard to make it matter.

Problem is, this is impossible with NPC corps readily accepting anyone who drops out of their player corp. If a major nullsec war breaks out, it's impossible to disrupt any activities in high because they can (and probably already do) keep all of their income-generating and supply-moving alts in NPC corps. Solve the NPC corp problem and you solve a lot of highsec warfare problems.

I've made suggestions in the past regarding this. My personal favorite is the idea that NPC corps should act more like player corps, with shifting relationships that range anywhere from "We love Perkone! You get a 50% discount on any fees!" to "Perkone employees are not allowed to dock in this station." With NPC corps randomly shifting relations every few days (with some limitations), It would be entirely possible for NPC freighter pilots to find themselves locked out of Jita 4/4, or mining alts paying significant fees to refine their haul.

Going along with this, the cost for establishing a corporation needs to be made non-trivial. It needs to be enough that one-man corps that can simply close up and reopen under another name are too costly under pressure. I know this will have a negative effect on newer players looking to find their own way and I don't want that, but it's a hole that needs to be close if we're going to make war *matter*.

Until CCP creates compelling reasons for people to get their alts out of NPC corps, there will be little recourse against gankers.

Perhaps NPC corps belong to the governments, and therefor can endorse law among their ranks. Maybe NPC corps could find other forms of punishment (seizing of assets etc.) to prevent people from using it as a shield.

I guess the main point is don't prevent the action, just allow for consequences, especially ones that cannot be predicted, that is the element of risk.

Overall I like this proposal. Some of the loudest whiners in Eve are griefers, several of whom love to tell us how the game is "suppose to be" played and what CCP meant it to be like. I want a sandbox, not a kitty litter box. That's why at one time there was no high sec and the sand box was that, a big..full...stinky kitty litter box. Poops to that, no thanks.

If you want kick sand around you should be prepared to reap the consequences of those actions.

One last item I'd add to your list is a redesign to the insurance system. I believe that the insurance system could be very helpful in resolving this ganking issue. IRL if you keep wrecking your car over and over again sooner or later the insurance company is going to stop insuring you if you are at fault. Again, I'm not saying that you can't gank, just be prepared to accept the consequences.

+1

I think it sucks because I can't even take out my Navy Mega anymore for fun, without some asshat trying to gank team me in it in 0.9 space.. It's BS.. I go to 0.0 plenty and I loose ships with a smile on my face but imo, it just a lame play style to do that to people and if you have any balls you'll go to 0.0 and get some..
Yea, I said it..