Player Features and Ideas Discussion

My opinion about Wardec is, they are fine.

However! I would like to see this change:

Corp A is deccing several Corps, everytime they start deccing another Corp the cost for deccing a Corp gets cheaper, i know i know, keep reading, the twist should be every time a Corp (for example) Corp B gets wardec the cost for deccing THIS specific Corp (B) raise.

Because its exploidable there should be a hard cap from minimum 10million per week (+1% per Member) to a Maximum from 50million per week (+1% per member).

Also the first wardec costs like the proposal Maximum as stated above.

This idea could increase the quantity of Wardeccs across all kinds of Corps without harming new, old, small or big corps, it also encourage to keep the Corp alive instead of open a new one.

Wardecs are fine, high-sec doesn't need more safety. Most high-sec war-deccers don't leave the docking range of trade-hub stations anyway, avoiding those is easy.

could definitely do with some mechanics that need more commitments for aggressors. - edit, or just ppl fighting

however, despite what the vast majority of war decs are for, u must not hurt war decs that are for other things. like keeping a corp docked up for a week or disrupting their operations, or getting them back for something they've done to u first, or for competing with them.

if u cannot fight on a station or gate, u can still move ships from a to b, u can still perform inter-system trading. i realise that these can be done with out of corp alts, but because u dec the corp, u should make the target corp vulnerable if it tries to do any such action. such is the point of a war dec.

ur idea turns wardecs into the trivial kill for killing sake that u seem to dislike. where as right now, keeping a corp docked in and destroying its moral is a perfectly valid reason to dec. Restricting movements is a perfectly fine way to attack ur opponents.

i appreciate so many ppl dnt know eve mechanics, but u nailed it on the head with htfu. what in gods name are they doing in a player corp with no experienced players? what fools banner have they grouped themselves under? why didnt they find a corp that could protect them, teach them and support them? maybe they should awox their CEO for starting a corp when he doesnt even know his arse from his elbow.

i have no problems with the fact that players who start a corp when they dnt have experience, and invite new players in and dnt engage them, dnt teach them anything, end up getting decced into oblivion. i have no problem with players who join a corp just to get lower taxes, or to be under an 'umbrella' of protection of an alliance, but dnt interact with each other, dnt form together under hard times, get decced into oblivion.

For all those kinds of players, maybe an NPC corp is best for them. Because player corps come with genuine benefits, there needs to be some genuine threat, some genuine risk. just like being camped 24/7.

the burden of why we should is on u, or anyone who wants a change.



incorrect, u prevent him from undocking and playing while in that corp. he chose to be in a player corp, he can choose to leave. cannot stress enough, u do not have to be in a player corp. but if u do chose to be a player corp, dnt expect to be left alone. and u can leave the dec AT ANY TIME


sort of correct. u can dec for any reason u like, griefing may be one. but griefing, as is widely known, is just another form of attacking in this game. and its ok when its ganking and scamming. why is it not then ok with wardecs? especially as in a wardec: ur opponent knows ur coming. he can leave at any time. he can call allies.

and whatever 'emotional trauma' would be just as traumatic during a dec and scam. its in game emotional trauma, it is not personal attacks against real people. as u say, its a game.



restricting movement, enforcing dominance, revenge. whatever u want. such is the sandbox. if they want to set up shop else where, they can get in a shuttle and fly far far away or pod suicide across the galaxy. does that mean they have to leave their stuff behind? maybe it does, because that stuff is under a wardec. why should they be able to move their items without risk?

why is war deccing for griefing bad? griefing is a widely accepted part of the game. those ppl who have their game 'ruined'?

"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

war deccing is not a special license to grief. if other players are the type to not work together, not protect themselves, then of course the griefers get a free ride. the lesson is to not give them a free ride, or stop joining crappy corps. then they can learn the ropes, by joining a corp without a tarded CEO. everything points back to poor corp management. if anything, we should hi-five griefers for idiot screening.

anyone who left because of griefing, probably wont be in the game long anyways.

Griefing is not a cornerstone of EVE. It is specifically prohibited in fact. It is defined a bit more specifically than most games, but you still don't get to pick out a specific person and ruin their day over and over again without a solid game reason.

Wardecs, as they are currently used, allow you to pick out newbies and then circumvent all the protections of high sec to abuse them repeatedly, and they are even marked out in local for you.

The only thing the proposal is asking is that if you want to do it, you commit more to the fight, or else hunt them in open space. It restores a small portion of the safety that High Sec is supposed to have, without compromising anyone's ability to prosecute an actual war.

Honestly, the problem lies in PvP's empty motivations themselves. Griefing is almost the sole reason for anyone to involve themselves in PvP because there is nothing more concrete to fight for. Perhaps if Wardecs required the aggressor to file a grievance and declare victory/loss conditions that could create an opportunity to prosecute wars in ways other than pure ship to ship combat, or at least motivate fights that are for fun rather than just to 'ruin someone's day'.

I don't know that there is any kind of test other than experience that can teach it, but we can at least try to graduate the level of danger rather than going from mostly completely safe to being ganked upon undock without any kind of fighting in between.

I have to disagree. The aggressor does not need to be handicapped by anything resembling incursion mechanics. I firmly believe that simply getting them off the stations and gates unless they can tank the faction police and guns provides enough security in this instance.

It then requires effort to hunt the enemy. They must be scanned down. Aggressors risk being baited by prepared traps.

In general it provides a ruleset more conducive to a learning curve rather than cliff, and provides a barrier to entry for killboard padders.

First, griefing is bullying. I have no idea why you would think it isnt, or how griefing would somehow be less bad.

Legitimate wardecs should not need to suffer, but are not worth defending from a minor change when set beside the overwhelmingly massive numbers of pure grief decs that seek only to farm easy killmails from newer players. If its a real war and you are determined to punish your enemy you can hunt them in open space or commit ships that can tank faction police. That is a high price if you are after easy cheap kills, but not if you really want a war.

Some scams are being looked into, like margin scams where mechanics prevent fair play. Ganking has the cost of the ships attached, a greater risk than what is being proposed in this change. Bumping does nothing on its own. Wardecs provide griefers with a liscense to grief and a nice hostile tag in local to help pick them out.

Wardecs dont put massive advantage on the defender, they just dont cost them ISK for existing. The vast majority of wardec targets just want to play the game, and are not interested in PvP... Thats why they were in highsec. The war costs them more than ISK. It costs them grief and hassle. It steals their fun. Thats fine if its one incident, one day... But its game ending for it to go on and on.

Wardecs remove all the protections of high sec, not just some.

Being a bully is being a bully, regardless of if it is on the street or in game. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, too bad. One of the draws of EVE over other games is the idea that choices have consequences. On a certain level, EVE is real. Choose to grief, then accept the fact that you are bullying other people in game for fun. Does that make someone a bad person? Yes. Yes it does.

Scamming isnt griefing. The victim has to be willing to accept the contract or trade. The margin scam is being looked into because mechanics enforce it. The interface should not be what makes a scam possible by lieing for the scammer. Its only a matter of time before someone wakes up and fixes the trade window too. The interface should not be your enemy or ally.

No one is saying to make High Sec safe. It is intended to have certain protections and a barrier to entry on non-consensual PvP. That should not change under a wardec... Wardecs are intended to loosen the restrictions of high sec, not remove them completely. We already have plenty of EVE where there are zero penalties on PvP... Unfortunately for griefers those areas are full of people willing and able to fight back. It is difficult to use PvP mechanics to grief people that are spoiling for a fight... Those guys tend to turn your killboard red, which just wilts an epeen to nothing.

You dont teach people to fight by slaughtering them on their first day. You introduce new concepts and problems gradually. Wardecs currently enable veterans to slaughter newbies without consequence and with minimal effort. That should change.