Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Comments like this do not help your argument and only server to make you look like a whiny care bear rather then someone looking to improve the game. If you have support to back up your claims them use it don't omit it

^^ have a like. I have been in pvp in null and wh, didnt find it as enjoyable as I find pve and exploration with occasionally indy. some pvp pilots sees them as the "higher class" in eve while pve players and indy are simply disgusting peasants who must be purged (see CODE.) anyways I enjoy sometimes a few pew pew in weekends but not as my whole day activiy

There are lots of things in this game that I don't like. They often overlap with things that I do enjoy.

But I don't get to ignore them. I don't get to stick my head in the ground and pretend like they don't exist.

Why should you?

Sad nobody commented further on the skill based suggestion and rather focused on an anchorable structure, welll, at least it didn't gate flame, should be happy about that I guess.


The problem is, that most are not after ISK or wars worthwhile, they are after cheap killboard padding KMs and delicious tears. And I am all for non-consentual PvP and such, which I already said above. Running away is often not an option either - not logging in is mostly the cosequence.
And any game machanic that forces (from their perspective) players to log off or not to subscribe further is a bad game mechanic and grief ... maybe not in the usualy sense of the word of griefing a player, it giefs the game and the whole community in itself - which is almost always overlooked.

There are tons of small corps and beginenr corps and industrial only corps around which have limited time and assets and arte mostly not social enough to play (or trust for that matter) with anyone except RL friends or first Eve-contacts. It is almsot impossible for them to mount a defense or counter attack or anything close to get up to the standarts of professional WD with boosts, neutral logi and all t2 and faction PVP specialised fit and skilled ships. This 'banding together' is a poor excuse to defend a bad mechanic.


Really laughable point which should actually show how ridiculous the WD mechanic is. Cause paying 100 mil for the WD and then having everyone drop corp and reform equals, "Hey I spent 100 mil for a CSPA convo (or any other way to erase ISK) so you must rename your corp". Same mechanic, same result, useless and terrbile feature.
Not that forcing others to drop corp and reform by paying money is a good feature to start with - and if this is the standart mechanic which is used to evade the other feature, then it is a feature in itself.

Wardeccing anyone regardless of age or profit, just because, hey, 'numbers' or 'rich' or 'don't care' is bad in itself for the game as pointed out. and further more, when you get wardecced full time, by WD cycling and such, why have Highsec in the first place ?

I personally don't care at a certain age (game, SP and ISK wise) if I get wardecced or not, but what bothers me are the 'can't be arsed' WD on everyone younger, where poeple try get a grip on the game and on finances and on everything and are undecided if they should stay, what to do and are still learning. I don't know how many recruits I (and therefore the game) lost in our training corp due to "shitdeck wars".

Still no reason to think about limits ?


PS: I got another idea btw.

How about mutual agreement wars, If both sides agree, each participants has to pay, but only half the WD cost (of what they are now), if it is one sided, a non-consentual WD, the cost will be double for the aggressor.
This should give some incentive for either both in the consentual or more incentive (and consideration) for the aggressor in the non-consentual.

Cheers

I agree with most of your have stated i don't mind when i lose members because of endless wardecs but when i go through my members list and see the ones who just decided to never log back on is when i feel annoyed. I have played eve for a few years and consent war decs don't bother me or my older members as for the most part it is easy to watch local and go about your day as though you are not at war but brand new players that don't understand how eve works just feel helpless.


I do feel that random decs have there place and are an important part of the game but there needs to be something in place that encourages (not forces) players to WD entities with players that would be more keen to fighting or have more of a structure to handle the WD slimier to your idea of making it cheaper to do so and i would like to add on to that with also giving the choice to WD corps in an alliance rather the the entire thing and making it even cheaper if you go that way 1/2 the cost of the normal dec and if the people you are targeting agree to do it mutually you wind up paying only 1/4 the cost.


What this would do is make it so that people could feel they had more of a choice in fighting however since they alliance can still be fully WD they would not be immune to it either

Stacking costs would make sense in terms of CONCORD too. Paying them to turn a blind eye to a war for a specific moon or system? fair enough if it keeps the goo-bunnies quiet and away from mauling navy fleets. But 5 wars? How about 10 wars? Just how blind can CONCORD pretend to be?

Thats not a problem. War decs can be for any reason you like. ANY:

The overall goal was to keep the war system as a tool for players to use as they see fit, rather than as dictated by CCP and to reinforce the concept that more lucrative avenues in the game (like those enjoyed by being in a player corporation) come with increased risk.

if i want to war dec you for having weird eyes in your avatar, i can. Keep in mind its not the war dec that forces you to log off any more than AFK cloaking forces you to dock up. It's the players own impotence, and that usually stems from a lack of knowledge, experience and an abundance of fear and isk/hour mentality.

I appreciate friends want to get together and do stuffs. But a corp can get war decced, for any reason anyone likes and thats just tough **** (read the dev blogs). However, hopefully part of the corp reform coming up will include the 'sub corps' idea as it will serve a niche for many such players who want to do their own thing but dont want to expose themselves.

beyond that, once you in a full corp and want a POS and corp hangar. Then your accepting the fact that you can be war decced.

Indeed. If you are setting up a POS on moon, that means no one else can set a POS up on that moon. You have claimed it for your personal use. At that point, it's ridiculous to claim that you should be sheltered from war decs.

Now, if you have a group of buddies that want to play together, and you just want an easy way of organizing in game, then that's something else, and I feel you should have an added layer of protection (not immunity) from unwanted war decs as long as you aren't claiming territory.

In all of these discussions about wars, I see the comment about re-forming the corp under a different name. I've never actually seen this happen. Is it really as common as the posters here say it is? I've been in multiple HS industry corps, and this idea has never crossed my mind as a way to avoid a war.

My 1-man corp does it all the time. The bigger you get the more of a pain it is, since you need to divy up the assets and get everyone to rejoin. It is a foolproof way to avoid wars though. At the end of the day CCP is telling you that if you want the benefits of a corporate presence, you need to learn to fight off wardecs. They have also given you a way to avoid them, but you will lose some of the benefits of your corporate presence by needing to go through the paperwork of shutting down and reforming. It seems to me that with these mechanics in place, there is no real need for any changes.