Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Even if I hadn't sent dozens of zero isk assistance offers to people for favors or giggles I could just send out some and it would falsify the claim that people don't ally into wars for free, right there and then.

He's claiming that my hair is fake when I happen to be able to sprout real hair at will.

At best you can claim that it's not typical for people to ally in for free, but I'm not sure I would believe that since so many wars get some random junk corp join as an ally. Either argument would be based on conjecture and we wouldn't know the truth without some data from CCP on the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the majority of allies brought into wars were brought in for zero isk.

That statistic obviously wouldn't say anything about the effectiveness of the allies brought in because that is totally dependent on player competence which is variable.

is this why all the war dec corps are constantly war deccing each other?

oh wait, you wouldn't just be a bunch of cowards now would you?

By the quality of decs I refer to the overwhelming majority of decs that have zero activity in them. Decs like this happen because defenders have no desire to undock, aggressors never turn up or the war is a game of cat and mouse station games with no kills.

Even if the proposal resulted in fewer overall decs, I would consider it an improvement on the quality of decs if the before mentioned majority of decs either; never happened, ended early because the defenders attacked a structure and the owners never turned up or involved some fights Off station where the defender attempted to attack the structure but the owner turned up.

@vimsy
Im not concerned that such groups would monopolize war. Take, for example, the groups you mention. They are notorious (and from my experience with them as well) for not making appearances in their own decs, let alone in decs where they have spammed the 'offer assistance' button. For all the decs they have, few have made them travel beyond the markets they frequent or the choke points they camp. Add in a mechanic that ties their every war to a single structure and they'd be even less inclined to travel across to the other side of hi-sec to spend days bashing some insignificant local deccers structure.

Instead they may be dominant in a certain area, but not much outside it. Similar to how the mentioned groups own pocos in localized areas rather than all over hi-sec.

This idea is to make wardecs themselves destructible.

And the proposal does not violate any 'rights' proposed by csm whitepaper as far as I see.

You mean to tell me that they would have no choice in being banned from deccing that corp for 7 days?
Damn.... It's almost like someone being forced into a war without choice or agreement with another player for 7 days...

Only difference is, the wardeccer would be able to fight against the 7 day lock out.
You can't exactly fight against being wardecced, you can only fight in the wardec.

So the way to eacape a war is to no longer exist as a group enitity? And here I thought you were pro interaction.

Id rather stay with the group and have the option to fight my way out. Better game play, more interaction.

Their play is not limited.
There's thousands of other corps they can dec.
Hey can even form a new corp and dec again.

The aggressor does have a choice.
They can choose to defend their structure, thus keeping the war up (petentially presenting them with more targets than the current mechanic), or they can choose not to defend it.

So many people make comments about not defending bad players, than turn around and ignore the fact that the dec mechanic allows just that.

There is literally no other pvp activity within Eve where you would defend my inability to lose anything and everything to do with that activity.
Why them would you defend the inability to lose a wardec?

If I can beat an aggressor head on and/or if they don't fight their own war, does that player then not have a right to put an end to their aggression for a short period of time?
I mean, if you come into my SOV and I slap you across the face, it might be a while before you come back.

Just because they started it doesn't mean that their target should always have to lose.

Check any tutorial on the war dec mechanic and it will express that the best action for a defender to take is to deny the aggressor any kills until they get bored and move on.
Those same tutorials will likely tell you that hit and run tactics are the most common, and are only used for a guaranteed kill.

How is this good for the mechanic or the game?
Wouldn't it be better if people actually fought in a war, and to the victor to the spoils?

This constant bickering that the aggressor would be involuntarily locked out is non-sense as it completely ignores the fact that there are more than two corps within the game, as well as ignoring the fact that he loss of any aggression comes solely from the fact that they couldn't or wouldn't stop the defender from destroying a structure.

As a prime comparison, if you attack me in a Tengu, your intent is to kill me.
Am I not then allowed to destroy your Tengu?
Is there some magical mechanic that says I can't vault your aggression solely because you started it and/or its your preferred play style?
Hell no!
It's called risk vs reward.
You want it, you gotta fight for it!
Wardecs should be no different.

Then it's "meaning."

And that's because highsec player corps have basically no real reason to exist(besides being a tax dodge), and therefore nothing to defend.

That has very little to do with wardecs. You're barking up the wrong tree, if that's going to be your rationale for eliminating small and solo groups.

And I would have thought you above such obvious, petty little snipes. Really starting to think that you aren't behind your account anymore.

Because, for among other reasons, this is a PvP game. Losing your ability to attack, and thus play the game, by arbitrary game mechanics is inane. It's like having a rule in Chess that if you take my Queen, I am unable to take any more of your pieces. We can still move our pieces around, but not actually play the game. That doesn't make any sense, especially if you are trying to foster conflict.

There is literally no other PvP activity within Eve which rewards you with immunity to your opponent - they are always allowed to regroup and take another shot at you after you beat them. Why should wardec defenders have some special status?