Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You can force a surrender... By being better and keeping them from being able to destroy the structure.

Also, a small entity has all the capability to be able to harass a large entity... By going to null sec and hitting them.
The problem isn't that changes to the mechanic would stop them from being able to harass large entities, but rather that they're taking advantage of the safety of HS in order to harass.

They're not wanting to bring a major alliance to it's knees. They're wanting to get kills to pad their KB...

If you don't like the idea of a small entity actually being able to lose... well.. You're playing the wrong game.

Yes... continue to support a broken game mechanic in which avoidance of pvp is the best way to play..
That will get you far.


It's so funny watching the defenders of the current mechanic flip flop so much.

One second, you're saying that if players don't like wardecs, they can stay NPC, drop corp, never undock, take a week off etc. etc. etc..
Then they next second, they're complaining about people staying in NPC corps, dropping corp, never undocking, taking a week off etc. etc. etc...

Basically saying, they want plenty of targets and they want those targets to know they don't have to be a target... Unless not being a target interferes with their need for targets.

They can lose, they can't lose - defenders can win, defenders shouldn't be able to win in a new mechanic because they didn't start the war - current mechanics allow little guys to harass big guys, the current mechanic has forced little guys to merge into large entities and little guys can't harass big guys anymore.
Defenders of the current mechanic have literally done a 180 on their narrative for everything they have tried to suggest or disprove.


... And no.. War is not fair, but last time I checked this is a freaking video game.

Well.. I'm not against this suggestion, except for them being attached to a Citadel.
From what I understand, those things are quite powerful.
It would be nearly impossible for most entities to do anything.

They're also going to be relatively expensive and I also don't feel it's fair to force deccers to have to purchase a Citadel in order to wardec as it's essentially a significant price increase to wardecs.
It would also be extremely easy to take advantage of, and would provide a significant advantage to null entities who would be able to place the war rig on an XL Citadel deep into their personally well secured space.

All valid points.

I just want to point out that I do not want safety.
I want a mechanic is which fighting is promoted as opposed to deterred.
You can argue that wardecs do promote fighting inherently, but they really don't.
They promote hit and run tactics as well as aversion.

In a game where everyone claims it's not for the risk averse, why then do so many support a mechanic that promotes risk aversion?

Wardecs both now and in their previous iteration hinder the game and what many people claim and/or want it to be.
Wardecs are the sole cause of players not joining player corps.
They're the the starting block to the development of risk aversion among the Eve player base.

I want wardecs to be more like all the other pvp aspects of Eve.. You win some, you lose some, but for the most part, you have fun.

Sure, I've had fun deccing people and blowing up their stuff, but they didn't.
However, outside of HS, myself and the people getting blown up and blowing me up were having fun.

Wardecs are the stepping stone into the development of pvp in Eve.
As they sit now, they do nothing but promote aversion to pvp and the farming of others as opposed to the challenge of fighting a hostile to which you may or may not win.


Regardless of how it's done, wardecs need to be developed in a way that nurtures the involvement of the player base with the pvp aspects of Eve.
They should be the training wheels of pvp, similar to how RvB uses it. They don't just wardec each other to shooting mining barges and take advantage of the unprepared and inexperienced; They actually go out in fleets to meet each other head on with completely disregard to the potential for loss, all in exchange for having a ton of fun.

Again, before Eve is pvp centric or anything else, it is a game. The whole purpose of a game is to enjoy yourself.
Wardecs are generally only fun for one side of the coin.
It needs to change.

My problems with your concept:-

Why should it be more expensive to dec a peaceful corp? Lore wise, many 'peaceful' corps are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people every day when they run missions. And anyone in any player corp has essentially declared they are open to being decced. If they didnt want to do that they'd stay in npc corps.



Problems with the mechanic:-

How does the server know whos a war mongering entity and whos peaceful?
- I can be a peaceful player but when i defend myself i kill other players. does that make me a warmonger?
- I can be an otherwise peaceful player but bumpers keep harassing me so i wardec them. Does that make me a warmonger?

Why should not wanting to PvP be a viable defense against PvP in this PvP game?

The whole point of an open-world sandbox game is for you to compete with the other players, usually in contests that can only have one winner. You are intended to have to defend yourself and your stuff from other players. Making it so not spending any effort on your defense makes you harder/more expensive to attack, kind of breaks the game.

If you want meaningless, consensual fights you can just go on a roam until your ship explodes. While many players are into these masturbatory contrived fights, plenty of others engage in wardecs and PvP as part of their efforts to gain wealth and power. They are looking to gain influence in the sandbox just as much as your "peaceful" corp is, although they are using violence and guile rather than the production and trade that is your approach.

If you are playing this "real" core Eve game, then you are in a full-time, competitive, PvP environment and should not be given extra free protection for deciding you do not want to be the aggressor. If you are generating resources and doing industry without firing a blaster you are still influencing the shared economy and universe of New Eden just as much as the most violent pirate group in the game. You need to be vulnerable to other players and they need to be vulnerable to you.

He still seems to be ignoring what I'm ACTUALLY saying as well. At no point have I said that player corps or alliances should not be deccable (btw, loving the new words that can be created in an EVE context). But carebears are paying players too, and to say that carebears should lumped into the same category as PVPers, well, it's big-brush tarring time.

I also dont see this as a pure PVP game. You can sit in your starter corp and not be that worried about it.. But the main issue is that it's a game. I want to play this game in a manner of my choosing. I do understand that undocking carries a risk of exploding in a variety of manners.

In any other context, there would be a word for people who say I have to play the game their way or not at all. In EVE, it comes under the heading of "content creation". Specifically, that my "content" is negatively "created" by people looking to fluff out their killboards with easy victims.

If the whole point of EVE is to compete against other players in a Thunderdome type environment, why does PVE content even exist. The whole argument that it is a PVP game is taken a bit too far. Yes, I can be subjected to unwelcome PVP at any point. But I choose not to engage in it any more than trying to avoid it. Thats where my contest is, in trying to escape the PVPers. I'm not advocating total protection for people not wanting to engage in PVP, just a balancing of the mechanism to make it easier/cheaper to make war on warmongers, and more expensive to make war on peacekeepers. Seems logical, even if it's not desirable to PVPers. My main concern with this mechanism would be that it may also help protect PVE'ers who run missions for the pirate corps, which would not be lore-friendly from a concord perspective.

You can stick your head in the sand and wish really hard that Eve is about something else other than PvP, but it is not. CCP makes this explicitly clear in New Pilot FAQ and elsewhere. Since you clearly haven't had time to read it, I suggest you start with the introduction to Chapter 7 and go from there.

Eve is a sandbox game which means you have much freedom to do what you want, but it a single-shard, competive PvP sandbox. Denying that is fine, but if you hope to understand why certain changes to the game are possible, and why some are not, you need to understand the major foundation of the game design. Of course no one can stop you or Joe from coming here and suggesting all sorts of changes to the game, but I'd think at some point you would look a little closer at what type of game you are actually playing when almost none of them are ever implemented. The game is coming up for its 13th birthday, and CCP has not completely acquiesced to the constant bleating for more safety, so what makes you think they are going to let you engage in economy-altering levels of grinding or industry in safety now?

Bottom line: you are intended to be vulnerable. This is not a mistake, or an oversight or anything else on the part of CCP. It is the central design of the game. Corporation assets and their benefits will never be made to be invulnerable (at least as long as CCP Seagull is still at the helm), nor will you be given the ability to isolate yourself from the rest of the sandbox because you do not want to be exploded.

"Peaceful" corps will not be made harder to attack than others because that defeats the purpose of declaring war on someone. If you want a consensual fight, you can just go to lowsec and have a brawl. The very purpose of wardecs is to allow players to start fights with each other without their consent in high security space, not just engage in honourable duels.

Here's a free idea you can get behind that is compatible with the game design and that will give you the safety you seem to want: social corps - corps that don't have taxes or structures, but are immune to wardecs. That concept respects risk vs. reward and allows non-PvP players to splash around in the sandbox without worry of having to mount a full defence to an opponent.

I have read what you wrote. You want it to be harder to dec players who dont themselves make wardecs. Not players who work to protect themselves. Not players willing to put any effort into their defence. Just players who dont do something. Players who avoid taking matters into their own hands. Players who want to have their cake and to eat it too.

You keep saying its a game as if that means it should be easy going. But its actually a highly competitive and challenging game that deliberately puts players in eachothers crosshairs, and thats how many people like it. A game no one is forced to play. Hell, no one even forces you to be in a position where you can be wardecced. So no one gets to whinge about wardecs when they are in every sense of the word optional.

There is a demographic of players that look at games as a way to challenge themselves rather than a way to get easy validation. Not every game has to be easy and relaxed.

You say its just a suggestion, but when we say your idea is the anti-thesis of EVE, you reply with arguments like 'just a game' 'im a paying customer' 'not a PVP game' and 'forced to play the way i dont want to'

No you dont get away with that.

First about hiring mercs to assist in war: In most cases there is no point doing so. It will only result in either more targets for the agressor or the agressor completely avoiding combat and looking for easy kills. And most mercs want to get paid for this, so you are loosing even more ISK on top of not being able to play.

Now about PvP:

Should there be an opt-out of PvP ?
-No

Should I be able to avoid PvP by decisions I make ?
-Yes, but the only choice you have at the moment is not undocking. While this option became more interesting with Project Discovery, it still has a massive effect on your gaming experience. There are players who have no interest in PvP at all and telling them to either not have their own corporation or HTFU is something you can justify with the PvP sandbox, but it doesn't solve any problems.

Wardecs (in most cases) don't lead to big fights. The only war currently going on in New Eden is RvB. Because both sides want the war. The other wars are usually very onesided.

In my opinion you should be safe in high-sec (besides the ganking). But I think there should be a lot less high-sec in comparison and you should have a reason to leave this safe space. At the moment high-sec is a big space with no risks except the occasional wardec that you avoid by not playing the game. The only competition is in exploration, ice mining and market activity (aka 0.01 ISK war). Ore mining: endless belts. Missions: endless supply of damsels you can rescue.