Assembly Hall

Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.

I know they are already working on it but it was coming with WiS which has been put on hold. Bounty system is all sorts of ****** up. In it's current state it isn't even worth having in the game.

Don't even know where to start this - this would easily fill the schedule of several summits.

Personally, I have favourites:

- bounty system
- insurance
- factional warfare
- pi

I agree that the wardec system should be looked at with a critical eye.

• I agree that paying your way out of a wardec should be the harder/more expensive option than fighting.
• However, this does not address the reason the "dec shield" originally came to be: junk wardecs. Pre-"dec shield", Eve Uni received numerous wardecs where the aggressing party (the one that initiated the wardec) refused to come out and fight, instead staying docked up. This issue should be addressed explicitly (perhaps an ISK penalty to the aggressors if they refuse to engage in combat?).
• With this, other wardec evasion tactics should be illegal. Being able to operate with basically minimal risk in hisec (your ship is not cost-effective to suicide gank) yet still get good, no, great (as in top-end or nearly so) rewards from L4s and Incursions is not what this game is about.

As a possible system, I'd suggest making the declaring party put up a sum of ISK (with a set minimum value) that either:

1. Will be refunded to them at the end of the campaign (if combat takes place)
2. Is paid by the targeted party to end the wardec (danegeld, basically)
3. Or is charged to the declaring party (as a penalty) if no combat (kills and/or losses) results.

I'm not advocating any specific changes, I'm just tired of gathering intel eventually deccing a corp and then having them drop the dec via a decshield immediately.

I am also not saying people should be forced to fight, you want to dock up, dock up. E-uni's problem stems from their own rule of not allowing their pilots to undock during war except in an organized fleet. If the aggressors never undock into your frigate blob I understand that's annoying, but eve uni told eve unis pilots they can't do anything but sit in that blob on that station during war, you really can't blame fail deccers for your own policies. I can't buy anything because I forbade myself to spend resources! I blame it on the shopkeepers! Anyway their issue isn't caused by game mechanics it's caused by them.

Also ISK is a bad motivator to encourage/discourage anything in EVE. If I put up a post on BRRC forums saying we need X amount of ISK to wardec Y we'd prolly have it donated within 48 hours even if we're talking billions.

Basically stuff needs to resolved in such a way that wardecs either stick (except when you disband the corp/alliance) or there is a clear set of rules and conditions under which a wardec becomes invalidated.

I don't really see a surrender system working either, while it would work for mercs and maybe hi-sec extortionist type wardeccers it will do nothing to discourage griefers (not that I actually think griefing should be discouraged at all mind you).

Gates - Get rid of them
Smuggling
Bounty Hunting
Corp Roles/Permissions - Granularity and flexibility
POS - Dead Horse

Yeah thats gonna happen.

At last fanfest, CCP talked about having dynamic agents;
basically, the more an agent is used, the less reward it gives. This would be idea for distributing the population more evenly in highsec and give people an incentive to vary their playstyle. They might discover something that they didn't know before.

Another interesting dynamic system that was discussed last week in Feature and idea was 'dynamic security system'. It would be interesting to see High sec vary from 0.5 to 1.0, lowsec vary from 0.5 to 0.1 and Nullsec go up and down depending on the system activity.

Same as the mission; it would get people moving around. A system that is good one month might not be as interesting once it devalues.


There's a juggernaut in the room that should be toned down though; Incursions. They were difficult at first, but now they're a run in the park. It's nice to have high end pve content for those that like to do that, but it should not be the ultimate way of earning isk - and it should not be risk free. The economy of EVE is a delicate thing. It depends on ship being destroyed to drain the resources. Incursions at the moment destabilize the economy.

Wardecs: Revert back to pre-privateer wardec nerf. If some corp like Orphanage for instance wants to be at war with every player corp they should be able to do so, and ISK shouldn't be a barrier in terms of declaring. If you want to avoid such interaction with other players you should stay in an NPC corp. Perhaps an option could be put in for a player corp to to gain immunity from wardecs by signing up with Concord, but at a price of 20-25% + tax on all members.

Gates: I agree with the poster above would be nice if they were gone, but it isn't realistic. However, it should be made harder to camp the jump in side of the gate, the blind side. Looking into possibly increasing the the range from the gate when a ship jumps into a system, like 10 times or more what it is now.

Local: Local chat/intel still hasn't been addressed. CCP needs to come up with a replacement that isn't 100% foolproof intel and apply it to Nullsec and perhaps Lowsec as well.

Incursions: The implantation of this makes me want to vomit. It's broken the risk reward balance of EVE, and it's an affront to players that care about the lore or RP Pirates.. especially the Sansha.

* People blowing up Sansha shouldn't be rewarded with Sansha ships, nerfed Concord ships would seem more appropriate.
* Players should be able to side with the Sansha and fight against players doing Incursions without the interference of Concord. Now if the Wardecs were fixed players could sort this out themselves in true Sandbox fashion. What we have is groups like Skunkworks trying every loop hole to fight these people, and rather than CCP doing something to allow that like fixing wardecs, they're fixing the loop holes making it even worse a situation with Incursions.

Off Grid, near unprobable Gang link Alts: Reminds me of buff bots in DAoC, I hope it doesn't take CCP as long to fix it. Possible solutions: Must be on grid OR ECCM can't be fitted on these ships and doesn't work in a POS shield.

Cyno hot drops. Should be a mod that blocks a ship from lighting a Cyno, maybe something common in use but short range like a scram/disruptor.

Anyway there's lots of broken ass-backwards stuff in EVE, but that's enough to chew on for now.

Fair enough :)