Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No it does not. Eve is set in a hyper-capitalistic, dystopian future where "might makes right" and people enforce their will on each other with antimatter. Ultimately we all play in the the same competitive PvP sandbox, fighting each other for limited resources and power. Have no illusions that you are playing another type of game because this is what Eve Online was conceived as, developed as, and currently is.

More practically, there does of course need to be ways to help ease new players into the shark tank. I am all for a "social corp" or "corp lite" where players can splash around in water too shallow for the biggest sharks to get them. But the fundamental problem with your ideas is that if you make a special pool where shark-on-shark violence is not allowed, everyone is going to hide there and there will be no food for anyone to eat. The PvP game is strangled of life. Even worse, veterans and large groups would exploit this safety you intend to protect new players, generating resources and dominating the economy free from attack, actually out-competing and hurting the little guys. This is why respecting risk vs. reward is so important.

If you are going to propose changes to wars, they need to be such that established players will not use them to make themselves even more safe than they already are in highsec. They cannot isolate players from the sandbox while still allowing them the increased earning potential of being in a corporation. But in the end, as you pointed out Eve is not an equal playing field, and with only a few exceptions I can think of (FW complexes, maybe wormholes?) does not try to be. Larger and stronger groups are going to have the advantage over weaker and smaller groups. This is the reality of a single-shard, competitive sandbox game. If you are looking for a balanced PvP experience, you should perhaps consider another game.

I hear Eve: Valkyrie is going to be good.

All players are just "content". If you have not noticed, every single bit of PvE which gives you resources and thus puts them into the economy exposes you to attack by other players. Eve is a PvP sandbox designed so that the players provide and are the content, and that scripted NPC stuff is really just backstory and an inducement to get you to be in space and a target for someone else to shoot.

Player corps provide very little these days to be honest. Tax breaks and in-space structures being the primary benefits. That latter one can be quite profitable though, and will become of increasing importance as more structures are released by CCP in the coming year or so.

I would though encourage you to join a competent corporation despite this. Wormhole, lowsec, nullsec or highsec it doesn't matter, but you want to join an organization run by competent individuals who can protect themselves. These good corps are often full of carebears who grind and build as their primary activity - heck nullsec probably is the biggest carebear haven of them all - but the players are organized enough to have a viable defense and/or friends to help them out when their safety is threatened.

What you should not do is join some terrible highsec corp run by some industrialist whose sole advice during a wardec is to not undock. That is not fun and you will never become a better Eve player since you probably will just quit the game in a few months. Find a balanced corp with players you like and try to make a name for yourself in New Eden other than just yet another highsec corp that falls apart at the first sign of a wardec.

EVE is not real life!
Eve is a game, sandbox rigth, but it still has rules, and mechanics, which shape the game and how the players play it,
these have changed many times even for the PVP content, in the spirit of making it more balanced!
what makes the curret wardec holy, and unchangeable?
as from my point of view it's far from perfect!

No, it's not. But apparently you think it's just fine to have a baseball analogy.

Make up your mind, carebear. Those goalposts can't take much more of this flip flopping.




Your point of view, as has been pointed out, invalidates your opinion and your conclusions.

The game is not broken just because you're bad at it.

How does that even apply?
The war is not based on me in order to stop it.
It's based on the aggressor.

I love player freedom... That's why I want the defenders to have a way in which to forcefully end the war.
That way we can both have our freedom based on who wins.

You've claimed many times that doing anything you deem unfit isn't player freedom by stating 'they're playing the game wrong'. Though, you've flipped that narrative a couple times.
Thus, it is you who despises player freedom if they are involved in something you do not condone.

I will just for record, you, your self brought up Baseball as analogy, and afterwards, "bonks" me for using it!

and buddy... it's easy to seem righteous when you cut pll comments out of their contex, qoute the hole thing or not all plz!

What if there were balanced victory conditions that a small corp can squeeze out a technical victory, and the loser cant re-dec for one week?

Seems like they are, tho i tend to have bad luck.

Look up the definition of 'curtail'. It includes a portion that says "reduce in extent or quantity", thus it is not limited to full on prevention.

The pricing design of wardecs protects large entities.
CCP has been trying to get away from large scale battles and have an overall design tactic of reducing sizes.
Why then does the dec mechanic suggest that you should join up with a large entity?

The sandbox was already broken with the introduction of game mechanics in order to allow or disallow certain aspects, wardecs included.
However, it was a necessity to make a better game.

Take DayZ for example.
Its original design was based purely around a sandbox to which everything was based around players.
However, others have come out and modded it in a way that creates mechanics, such as safe zones and missions, in order to make the game better. Those modded games are typically more populated than the vanilla design.
However, in their case, those mechanics present equal opportunity. Anyone can win.. anyone can lose, regardless of how many times they come back.


Yes...
I enjoy low sec pvp, null sec pvp, missions, nullsec combat sites, and many other things.

This might surprise you, but I also enjoy starting wardecs.
However, I just because I like something doesn't mean I don't have the realization that it is imbalanced.



No one said fights have to be fair, but that doesn't mean wars cant present some level of fairness.



PVP players effect the market... When they kill a ship, that ship needs to be replaced. The modules need to be replaced. If they're hauling for trade, those items will not make it to the market.
This statement also matches the design intent of the game..

Suicide ganking is also not limited to carebear targets. There are many players within Eve that have been suicide ganked that are not carebears.



Ignoring the fact that no amount of aggression on the defender's part can end the war without the aggressor saying so, then yes, you're correct.

And the mechanic does not curtail them. Their own actions do.



The funny thing is that you don't even finish the sentence without saying that fights should have to be fair.

You are an unbelievable hypocrite.





Not ignoring it at all, embracing it. That's how it's supposed to be, because the attacker actually has some player freedom.

If the defender wants the war gone, he actually has to interact with another player, instead of just with the NPCs. I know that fills carebears like you with dread, but unfortunately for you interacting with other people is part and parcel of EVE Online.

lol...
All you have to do is interact with NPCs in order to start a dec and requires no interaction with another player in order to do so.

So, it's fair for you, but not for them.....hmmmm...