Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Then condense them here as they are obscured by the anti PvE rhetoric. Then we can actually discuss the ideas constructively.

You stated that you want killrights against anyone who leaves a corp during a wardec. The leaves them two options, log out for the week or engage in PvP.




The people who don't want to fight pay subs just the same as those who do, they are equally relevant. I also never mentioned griefing once in the entire thread as far as I can remember.


I thought they introduced tags you can buy to fix that?

Which none of you have any problem with, as we've been over before. You have no problem forcing people to do odious PvE content, but you damn sure better not to have to do even the slightest thing outside your wishes, oh hell no. Hypocrisy in its purest form.
[/quote]
I thought they introduced tags you can buy to fix that? Oh and I don't force anyone to do anything, I let people get on with their game whilst i get on with mine.



You have offered no fun reason for people to engage in wars. You also haven't offered incentives at all but requested heavy nerfs to NPC to force people to use POS for any reasonable profit. As for standing in the way of improving the mechanic nobody is doing so , people are actually mostly asking for it to be improved.

Attitude adjustment - thanks for the chuckle.

As long as you only PvP of course


I missed that it was directed elsewhere but the point is the same, every who pays has as much right to pay the game how they see fit.


Do it harder :D

I know where the tags come from but can't you also buy them by simply engaging with the market? I've seen gankers complaining about the cost of them before so thought they must be available to simply purchase.


PvP is fun if you enjoy it. Many players do not. you cannot tell anyone else what is and isn't their fun. It is entirely subjective. I was exposed to PvP within 3 days of joining by going on a roam. Bored me shitless so I learnt every other aspect of the game available to me. I'm pretty sure I engage in more aspects of the game than many players and yet I never shoot anyone else either. I compete with them, co-operate with them, chat with them and race them, much of what I do is PvP in nature but not that much is PvP combat and when it is it is me avoiding it with the approproiate ship, fit and tactics.



Some people like the challenge of playing solo, some people are anti-socail because they've been burnt before by awoxing, scamming, being tricked into a gank etc etc. This again falls under not being able to tell others how they play in a sandbox. You can affect them with your game but you cannot force them to play in any way other than they choose. how can it 'suck to be them' if they are enjoying what they do?

This the part where I accuse you yet again of ignoring me.

No, you don't have to PvP during a wardec, as I just said. I missioned with a faction battleship, meaning a big old target, and I got it done without getting myself killed.

None of you actually want to discuss this, you just want to march on with your narrative as though it hasn't been proved completely false already. Apparently there is nothing wrong with wardecs being totally voluntary, because PvP existing is "griefing" to the small minority of people who insist on playing an MMO incorrectly. And we should absolutely let those people hold the development of the game hostage, too.

H.o.l.y. H.e.l.l.

The same, tired, old, incessant strawman.

My only bias is towards balance, nothing more, nothing less. I'm as often shooting down stupid ideas from "gankers™" as I do from "carebears™".

Only because I've been contending with you in this one, and your spamming the **** out of it with utter lies (exploit eh?), mis-truths (indy corps are "poison") and general failure to comprehend basic statistical analysis as well as completely disregarding any points which dare to question your narrative.

I spent every post in the observatory arrays attacking carebearing, but of course you will ignore this, as you've ignored everything which doesn't suit.

It is like arguing with a child whose only recourse is "NO U!!!!"

This is an exaggeration of mine and kaarous points.

The core premise is simply: If you get benefits of a player corp, you must be vulnerable to war decs, not shed them like flakes of skin.

Getting around this in such a way that you benefit from player corps and are not vulnerable to decs is as much a circumvention of intended mechanics as gankers avoiding concord.

Several members of CCP have expressed that war decs are not strict enough, and there was even a period where avoiding decs and rejoining corps after decs was considered an exploit (later pulled back because it was considered counter intuitive to corp interface, NOT because it was deemed hunky-dory Donna. As far as where CCP stands, i agree with them, not them disagreeing with me)

I dont agree with kaarous on everything, but wardecs are intended to be an option to violence the space ships of other players in corps. The fact that there are other ways of PvP'ing (market etc) allowing us a choice on how we PvP other player corps is nice, but the denial of direct PvP against those that are meant to be vulnerable to this exact type of PvP is **** for gameplay and contradictory to core mechanics.

I dont mind a player dropping corp (because they forgo all benefits), i just dont want a player corp hopping.

The argument that some people dont like PvP and we cant force them to PvP is mute when entering a player corp, and thus war dec vulnerability, is entirely optional. Not to mention this entire game is PvP centric, and no one forces PvP averse players into subscribing.



Everyone, in every dec ever, signed up for the risk of getting shot at. That is an absolute fact.



every who pays has as much privilege to play the game how CCP make it for them.

That is to say, if they want they can pay a subscription for what the the creators call 'A PVP game at its core'

I think this is an important difference to your words.

Your game. Killing your game. Don't lump together your and the rest of the playerbases ways of playing.

That being said, I would support some more effecive wardec mechanisms under a few circumstances.

1: It doesn't cause major collateral problems for people who might be completely not effected by the war otherwise.

Say I'm a nullsec dweller who never leaves null, in a nullsec alliance under wardec and I move to another corp in a different alliance. If a proposed wardec change prevents me from leaving my first corp, or prevents me from joining another corp for an extended period of time once I do, then that's a problem. However the system works, it should not impose harsh penalties on peoples normal movement from corp to corp.

Leaving a failing corp to join another corp should not be penalized. People who are unhappy with the game and their corp, but (For example) are not allowed to join another corp for a week or more are highly likely to just quit.

2: Wardecs cannot be to contagious.

If a character drops corp to noobcorp, they should be able to escape a wardec. Most people agree on this part. But if we make it so any corp they then join inherits their previous war, large groups like BNI or TEST with high character turnover would probably be inhereting a dozen surprise wardecs every day. And anyone who leaves them would then carry said dozens of wardecs to their new home.

Recruiting would seriously get a kick in the nuts if accepting a new recruit who came from a recently wardecced corp would bring with it many wardecs.

And to avoid this, people would need to have a near mandatory quarantine period between corp changes. This is a bad idea.


What possible mechanics could give the wardec system a bit more teeth without causing massively more problem than it solves?

Disclose: I live in null, and have a JF alt so I never have to enter highsec during war. **** actually being involved in your highsec squabbling.

As mentioned before, killrights generated when someone leaves a corp during an active war. No one is literally forced out of switching a corp if they don't want to, but it keeps people from ducking in and out without consequence.

Corp creation itself also needs a hefty overhaul, so that it is neither instant nor basically free. It should not be a trivial matter to roll through different corporations one after another. Probably put a cooldown on it as well. When a corp is closed during an active war, the corp with the oldest standing wardec on the defender gets their corp name and ticker as a trophy. (that, or we can once again start banning people who use this exploit, but then half the incursion runners in the game would disappear overnight. Not that that's a bad thing)




No, killing the game. That's the point of all of this, to change the mechanics to proliferate conflict and player interaction in highsec instead of smothering it, so as to encourage new player retention. Because making them chew on rocks damn sure isn't helping.

Being blown up once is not griefing. I know you think it is, but you're completely wrong.




I am thinking big picture. I'm not the one sitting here defending the toxic status quo, that's you. You might not care if new players are being bored to death en masse so long as you benefit from it, but it's something that will be addressed eventually.



No, they wouldn't stay in NPC corps if NPC corps were wholly sub optimal. Making NPC corps not competitive in terms of individual income automatically makes player corps something worth fighting for.

You know, risk vs reward? The people who accept more risk should have the better opportunities for reward. Instead of now, where they're basically the same because *reasons*.