Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Oh, it's worded exactly how it was intended.

The fact that you can't see the issue in that is the problem.

I can't even mine in HS if I am not able to defend myself from ganks at the very least.

The fact that you could literally lose a ship for every member in your entity, 10 times over, while the defender doesn't lose a single ship; yet you can continue your war against me as if it never happened is just game breaking.

As I mentioned, I can lose a single ship over SOV and potentially lose EVERYTHING because of that regardless of whether I'm the aggressor or defender.

It's a lot like going into SOV space to take it over, yet the defender has no means of taking it back from you.
That's basically what wardecs are.
The ability for you to do what you wish and I cannot counteract it regardless of wins, losses, or effort.

It's just...... Broken

Sooo... Let me get this straight..

Your argument for not giving them a function in which to win(end) the war is because you're just going to wardec them with any other entity anyway....

So... Not being able to win and trapped in an endless wardec is the better option?

So, you gave the premise that it's an ever-going circle because if I destroy your structure you're just going to keep wardeccing me with other entities.
However, what you fail to note is that is the current scenario with current mechanics.
If they surrender, there's a good chance others will find out and want to get in on the action.
Not to mention, you can wardec them with another entity in hopes of getting them to surrender yet again.
If they surrender again, wardec them with another entity..

You're presenting the argument that it's better to always lose with no chance of winning and the wardecs never stopping than to win and the wardecs only stopping when the aggressors come to realization that they cannot beat you...

Pardon me if I fail to see how current mechanics of always losing are better than chance at winning.

Actually I was pointing out what I saw as the weakness in the space asset idea. I've already presented my case that I have a history and a belief in endless war as a tactical tool in achieving my goal of Code compliance. I've also stated that surrender is only one of many options the wardec defender has, just that making the wardec go away easily isn't and shouldn't be one of them. Although dispanding and reforming the corp is pretty darn easy and its been done to me several times.

I have been dangerously close to putting words into your mouth so let me present this answer to your specifics quote. I desire, as my goal in the game, to bring corps like the one in your example to either a realization that they should either accept their position on the bottom of the food pyramid of Eve or be destroyed. I believe this for a variety of reasons but, in fact, it doesn't matter why I believe it as long as I am willing to (in game) act on that belief. Corps that, by definition, need game mechanic changes to be protected from people like me don't deserve to continue to exist. Of course, what I want is no more important to CCP than what you want (or what the thousands of carebears want) but I believe that making highsec pvp harder (and the carebears safer) is detrimental to the game.

I little believe that some CCP developer is pouring through this thread trying to make sense out of what you and I and the others contributing here are discussing or that when they inevitably change wardecs in some way that our discussions here will be taken into consideration. But as a defender of highsec pvp I am sensitive to the never ending demands for making highsec safer from people like me and willing to attempt to present the case for keeping things dangerous.

And I like to argue. There's that too.

Corp jumping is not a mechanic of wardecs, but instead a window left open.
I'm assuming this window was left open because everyone involved that you needed a means to an out.
I must also point out that corp jumping doesn't result in freedom from war as the aggressor can simply dec the corp you went to. Thus, the only way to do so is to go to an NPC corp. You'll even suggest that if you don't like wardecs, stay in an NPC corp.
Yet, everyone that suggests this and/or agrees with this mentality will then turn around wanting to find ways to force players OUT of NPC corps.


.. And yes, that may be a weakness to my proposal, but winning a ton of never ending wardecs is better than losing a single wardec because it cannot be won.

BUT, I will also point out that you may very well have limited amount of entities to which you can wardec me with, therefore I can at least get a window.
Not to mention, your constant losing of wardecs to me may very well result in the falling apart of your corp/alliance and/or you being a laughing stock of war corps so they start wardeccing you instead of me because you're apparently easier to kill.

THIS is a much better outome as we would both stand equal chance of a positive and negative outcome.



Again, I'm not asking for protection from you, I'm asking for a mechanic that would allow me to fight you and WIN the war(end the war) if I'm better than you and/or more willing to fight.

If you're unable to defend a single structure from me, then why the hell should the game support you over me?
If I am able to defeat you in combat every single time, then why should you be allowed to keep me locked into a war to which you have become the weaker entity?

If we go to null and make this fight over two SOV systems, and I take yours... I WIN..
You can come back as often as you want, but you'll never take either system back.
At some point, you would give up and go find a SOV system that you can take.

This is all I'm asking for with the war mechanics. Almost exactly what you see with SOV mechanics.



Again, I'm not trying to make HS safer.
Those entities that are incapable of fight off an aggressor will continue to be unable to, only with my suggestion, they cannot hide behind the ally mechanic which doesn't help with the result of a means to an end anyway.

I'm presenting a means to an end of a wardec through the active involvement in the war dec instead of staying docked until the aggressor gets bored, or leaving the corp.

I know MANY people in Eve that enjoy PVP, but are unwilling to get involved as a defender in a wardec because they feel that it's not "TRUE" pvp. It's people wanting to blow up your ships when you're at your weakest point and the vast majority of deccing entities will not actively engage you in direct combat to which they have a chance of losing the fight; on top of the fact that no amount of effort to fight back will ever result in a means to an end.

Those very same people also claim that they will not join war deccing corps because of the fact that they don't see the honor if aggressing someone who cannot win..

Now, there are some honorable corps out there that will accept that they have lost the war when they cannot defeat their opponent in direct combat. Yes, they too will hit targets of opportunity but will also not back down from a fight fi there's a chance of losing.
However, they will end the war if they feel the defender has beaten them.
However, these people are few and far between.
Hell, even the people like yourself whom are willing to accept losses but never end the war because of persistence are STILL significantly less in numbers.

Wardecs, in the vast majority of cases, are performed by people who wish only to engage targets of opportunity and have no intent on engaging a hostile fleet.
They will stay docked if they even have a slight feeling that they will not win.

How do you fight this?
With current mechanics, you can't..
So, you stay docked, stay logged off, or quit corp in order to deny them kills as it is the only means that you can remotely consider a win.

This is not good for any game, but especially a game that revolves around PVP.
It's like someone camping a corner in CoD to which you cannot kill them before they kill you. Only, no matter how many kills you get, they will always win.

THIS is what the war mechanic is.

I want wars to which I have a chance of winning. Not war to which I can only delay losing.

I'm not asking for a structure that costs 5 billion isk, and the structure doesn't even need to require fuel.

For all I care, the structures can be free, and only only have to pay the wardec costs as an anchoring fee.


This is not much of a barrier by any means... Hell, even if it did cost a significant amount of isk, it would not be that much of a barrier for those whom are actually willing to defend it.

I also had the proposal that if the structure is not destroyed during the wardec, it can be re-used for another wardec.
So, successfully defending the structure means you have even less in your way from starting a new wardec.



Nope... a 1 man corp can still wardec if he is capable of defending the structure.

Now, my suggestion on wars costing more for outnumbering your target would even help to reduce war entity sizes so that they can wardec several small entities at less costs, thus reducing the amount of large war entities for the sake of still attacking small entities.

If you couple that with a later suggestion that I made of allowing each corp in an alliance to have independent wars, while also allowing the alliance to have its wars, you would be able to have multiple small wars while still having large wars as an alliance.


I realize the ability for a single player to wardec a major alliance would be hindered, but at the same time, that major alliance has no means of burning you out of your home as NPC structures cannot be destroyed.
Therefore, that player is always safe from hostile retaliation.

You speak of carebears not being protected in HS, yet when I present the premise that deccers should also not be protected in HS you deny this..

If you can't defend a single structure, then why should you be allowed to hide in station where you cannot be killed and still retain your war?

Deccers rely on the fact that they do not have to engage if the situation doesn't suit them.
I can literally camp your station, never allowing you to undock, for months.. Yet the wardec may very well not end.
I'll eventually get bored and annoyed and move on. Then, you'll undock a pop another target of opportunity.

it's like a bully on a playground walking over and sucker punching you, yet every time you pose a threat, he goes and hides behind the teacher.

It's cowardly and should not be supported by game mechanics, ESPECIALLY the hiding from the fight you started.

You continue to bring up the aspects of other structures.
You've brought up entosis.
You've brought up re-enforcement timers.
Now you're bringing up the cost of citadels.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the structure I am proposing.
Again, There are many different types of structures in Eve, from mobile tractors to the upcoming Citadels.
Everyone of these structures have different aspects in EHP, reinforcement timers, entosis, size, cost, etc. etc. etc...

The structure I am proposing does not have to be the same as another structure in game, thus it does not have to rely on the negatives or positives that exist for other structures.

It have have 1million HP or 1 HP.
It can require entosis or not.
It can have a re-enforcement timer or not.
It can have vulnerability windows or not.





Tell me this, if I take my one frig against your 200 man fleet, do you expect me to win?
Do you expect me to be able to run around destroying ships all day long with no chance at me losing said ship?

OR

Do you expect me to lose to a 200 man fleet?
Do you expect me to eventually lose my ship?

So, if you expect a single player to lose to a larger force, then why do accept that they cannot lose a war to a larger entity?

You can use the argument of guerrilla warfare and how it works in RL.
However, I will point out that this is not RL.
I will also point out that a large government with questionable ethics (like many of the major alliances in Eve) would find out where the guerrilla warriors are coming from and burn down their homes and kill everyone, thus problem solved.

Your premise on this assumes that the single player is at risk of an outcome like this example, yet fail to acknowledge that you cannot be burned out of an NPC station, therefore they cannot end your aggression even if they know where you live.
Not to mention you have infinite lives and the ability to clone jump; So even if they could burn down your house, you either wouldn't be there or magically pop up somewhere else.

It's like playing tag on the playground with a safe base "home base" (or whatever it's called (haven't played tag in like 20 years))... Everyone sits on the safe and just stairs at whomever is "it", and will run out on occasion to tease, yet will never get tagged because they just run back to base before whomever is it can tag them.

It sucks... Especially for whomever is "it"



Again, just because you paid for the war doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to win..

On that premise, I paid for my ship, therefore you should be forced to lose every time you engage me.


Stop trying to excuse bad mechanics the dis-incentivize combat because it favors you.

I would rather lose all the isk and ships I own attempting to win(end) a war than to sit in station for weeks on end because you want to pick off my corp members and I when we're most vulnerable and will not fight when we pose a threat nor will you end the war when you lose more than me or are unable to cause any loss to me.

Pardon me if I fail to see how both entities spending most of their time docked is less of a barrier to conflict that everyone undocking to fight over a structure.

Well equally you could ask why factions and NPCs - who we are told in the fluff, love money - don't appear to care about the tax they are losing. Or indeed that often their citizens are being attacked by citizens of factions that supposedly they are at war with.

Joe,

You cannot understand the attitude of us highsec pvpers. We've chosen the aspect of the game that continuously receives the most nerfs and complaints and forum threads of anything annoying in Eve. We deal with the most entitled, self serving and down right obnoxious players in the game. Just in the four years I've been playing my playstyle has been not only nerfed but eliminated time after time. So when you present what you believe is a reasonable idea to thwart us once again you get my flipness and the hostility of others like me.

I think you can probably understand that people like me love Eve for its uniqueness and the possibilities it presents that no other game will allow. I can safely say that I would be banned in almost every game I've played prior to this and I've played them back to Island of Kesmai, YEARS before Ultima Online existed and before it was Trammelized. After literally thousands of words I realize you are looking for some way to even the odds. I respect that you even think this would be good for the game.

I'm telling you it is not.

The great and wonderful thing about Eve is that it isn't fair. People like me can kill a month old character and it is perfectly alright. I can choose a person who is disrepectful to me or the New Order in local and drive him wailing into the darkness. I can act in a completely insane manner and be a complete brain case and no one can get CCP to stop me UNLESS they do it themselves. And they have. I have had my butt kicked and my ships destroyed and been mocked in local for stupid stuff I've done and it is GREAT!

I realize you think you cannot win in the current setup of wardecs. But you can. I have. I just redefine what winning means and I force the carebears to accept my reality. How cool is that? And as I've been completely honest in my thread at www.minerbumping.com I"ve shown that anyone else can do what I do.

You want me to slap you in the face with a leather glove and then walk off ten paces and let the best man win. Well, no. I'm the dagger in the dark. I'm the poison in the cup. I'm the trusted adviser who reveals your plans to the enemy. We highsec pvpers occupy a unique niche in Eve. We are feared as individuals, not because we are Goons or PL or some other huge entity but because we kill where you are safe. While we don't exactly break the rules we go right up to the line. We are the pvp version of the Jita scammer, the corp thief, the low sec gate camp. We are what makes Eve unique. Eliminate us and Eve goes with us.

BBB

No, dimwit.

That's what wars are for. To remove Concord between two parties, non consensually, for a fee.

That's it, that is all they are for.

Cry more that the mechanic works, and you want it broken in sacrifice to your selfishness.




That's not my claim, that's a fact.

Now now.. No need to get you panties all bunched up.
The fact that you assume wars are ONLY for non-consensual PVP is cute..
Especially when you look at entities like RvB, cause that's totally non-consensual.
Or the many other examples where a defender has made the war consensual.
Hell, even the fact that there is an option to make the war consensual.
.... But none of that matter because you say they're non-consensual, therefore your word is law..
I didn't realize I was talking to God........




Lol.. Close enough to what I said you'd say.