Player Features and Ideas Discussion

These players get enjoyment from the game CCP developed and is selling, not "at the sacrifice of others". You know, the whole single-universe, PvP sandbox it has always been?

This is what is what these arguments always come down to: Eve was developed as, and is full-time PvP sandbox game. Some players just can't accept that CCP actually intends for the game to be a sandbox and thus feature unbalanced and non-consensual PvP: Others, come for that very game play. The first groups whine and complain telling CCP something must be wrong with their game as they can't play the way they want or that someone can actually come and significantly affect their game play against their will. The second group adapts to the game on offer and take up the challenge of exerting their will on the sandbox.

What I don't get is why the first group keeps coming back to pay for a product they clearly don't enjoy. CCP does not try to hide the fact that they want his type of game play - it is highlighted all over the New Pilot FAQ and other places like the last wardec blog. The internet also has a decade worth of stories of clueless PvE players being stomped out of the game and loudly whining about it.

But to the point, the development direction of Eve is not a democracy. You do not get to throw out major portions of the game play because you claim there are "thousands" of players who might enjoy what you like. How self-centered are you to believe everyone is like you and prefers grinding Eve's antiquated PvE content over the player-driven game play CCP is trying to foster and sell the game based on? I can't claim to know how and what game play the majority of the player base prefer, but CCP has been explicitly clear what they think keeps players in the game and it is not everyone holding hands and having consensual fights.

Eve is what Eve is and all you really get to do is take it or leave it just like the rest of us.

It is you however who are the one shamelessly agitating to take existing player's game play away by watering down wardecs to the point of uselessness, not the wardeccers. Thankfully, you don't get to make those decisions and CCP still seems committed to the original pillars of their game which includes non-consensual PvP in highsec which has attracted and retained a faithful player base years after almost all Eve's contemporary MMOs have been shut down. You can accept that reality and get on with playing the game, or you can remain unhappy and continue to unsuccessfully hector CCP to change their game and alienate a portion of their existing players just to suit your own personal desires.

I was not suggesting the removal of wardecs.
If you've read all the comments I've posted in this, and other, wardec threads you would know that I am against the removal of wardecs.
I was pointing out that while there are thousands of people that enjoy the wardec mechanic, there are thousands more that enjoy activities that wardecs hinder. So if we're going off the basis of people enjoying said activities to be the determining factor of its existence, then wardecs would need to be removed as there are more characters in Eve that are against and/or avoiding wardec then there are deccers.

There is nothing wrong with non-consensual pvp.
There is nothing wrong with a-symmetric pvp.

However, what you fail to realize is that while other mechanics within Eve support it, there is always a choice or action a player can choose in order to counteract and/or avoid.

When it comes to wardecs, these choices and actions are sub-par at best.
There's always the possibility of winning any scenario in Eve, until it comes to being the defender in a dec.
In which case, no amount of effort on their part will or even has the potential to ensure victory.

The whole point of PvP is the versus. Basically, it's a competition that pits one entity against another to determine a victor.
Deccers have stated many times that their version of victory is meta based; Therefore, it cannot be coded into the system. Their rewards are KMs, tears, the target entity surrendering, target corp folding, and possibly even the target corp leaving HS and/or Eve entirely.
However, in the case of the defender, the definition of victory isn't so meta.
What they would consider a victory is easily established by allowing them to end the war.

That said, in my suggestion there was also the option for the defender to make their victory conditions meta based, just as the aggressor, by making the war mutual.
If the war is made mutual, the aggressor has the benefit of no longer paying for the war, as well as being able to take down the structure, as it is no longer viable to the war.
The ally mechanic would also be removed, thus a war would be 1 on 1.
Pricing would be changed so that it costs more to outnumber your opponent, thus balanced numbers, and removing the protection that large entities receive as of now.
There was also my suggestion of individual wars within a large entity.
Each corp within an alliance would be allowed to have their own wars that no other alliance members could fight in, while the alliance would have its own wars that all corps would be allowed to fight.
Thus, a large war alliance would not be hindered by the cost of deccing small entities, as they could send an individual corp to do so, while the alliance maintains a war against a large entity without the worry of being heavily outnumbered.

I'm not trying to remove risks, non-consensual pvp, or asymmetric pvp.
The risks would still exist, but now deccers would now have a fair amount of risks put on them.
Non-consensual pvp would still be possible and in fact would still be the reason for starting a dec. However, the defender has the potential of benefit if they become a consenting opponent.
Asymmetry would also still be possible, but you would pay an additional fee for doing so.

Deccers still get everything they need, plus some added benefits as well, while the defender would be given opportunity.
They would not be given a get out of jail free card, as it would still require effort on their part in order to attain victory.

As humans, we will take advantage of situations and other humans if the situation benefits us.
As a game, Eve must provide mechanics that do NOT benefit one group over another.

You can force pvp upon your target at any time, however, they cannot force PVE upon you at anytime.
Therefore, if they're willing to entertain your intrusion, and are successful in doing so, they should be rewarded for their actions.

I am not against wardecs as they are because they're used to destroy me.
I am against wardecs as they are because there's no reason for anyone, including the deccer to be actively involved in the dec.
This leads to the majority of wars being redundant at their intent of providing pvp in HS.
They are, for all intents and purposes, a better deterrent of pvp than they are a provider.
They lead to risk aversion within the player base as many come to learn that pvp in Eve is very one sided; When in fact, all other forms of pvp within Eve are much more enjoyable.
Wardecs are the bane of pvp in Eve. Not for those that don't wish to pvp, but for those that wish pvp was more pronounced within Eve.

1: Black Pedro doesn't appear to have claimed that you were suggesting the removal of wardecs, what he has suggested is that you're in favour of watering down the mechanics to the extent that they're either too convoluted to use effectively or not fit for their purpose; at which point they may as well not exist at all and be removed. Same result, slightly more devious approach; luckily we play Eve and see this kind of thing everyday while we play the game.

2: What of it? The game is designed to fuel conflict and for stories to write themselves. What you're complaining about is a core concept of the game, for the thousands of people you claim are hindered by wardecs there are equal if not greater numbers that are helped by them; I mainly shoot NPCs, I also mine and build ships, rigs and modules, war is good for my pockets and keeps my game interesting.

3: Except that wardecs are a design feature, carebears chasing the magical isk are not.

So what's your problem?

You're kinda doing it wrong then.

That's why wardec corps generally win, and the ones that turtle up do not. Ask the leader of Rabble Inc about how his corp started, the mess they made of Pirate with nothing more than a gaggle of newbros, some carebears looking for a change and some decent leadership.

Bwahahaha, Ignoring any issues of changing wardecs anyone believing that simply because the mechanics are the same for everyone that they are 'fair' and aren't biased towards a particular type or subset of players is stupid as anything.
The current mechanics are designed to expressly benefit null & wardeccers.

Now this may change with Citadels if CCP stop handing null advantages on a platter, and they could also stop treating industrials as helpless targets but instead treat them more like the Spanish main gold & silver transports from the real pirate era. At which point there becomes a good reason to form a larger corp in highsec, and to fight over citadels and other things.

But right now the mechanics are biased. It's just not wardecs that need to change to fix this, because wardecs are not the root of the problem, CCP's design in other areas is what causes the imbalance.

I take offense. The only one treating industrialists like helpless targets are the carebears. I know plenty of successful industrialists who are by no definition carebears whatsoever. These happen to be the people who have no issues with wardecs and yes, they do part of their jobs in null.

Pray tell how null is suddenly getting an inbalanced/biased treatment?? You genuinly believe you can indy and mine in peace in nullsec because there's no wardecs out there? Well, newsflash: there is no NEED for decs because you're basically at war with the entire universe all the time. So much for unfair treatment huh?

If you desire the Spanish Armada treatment, consider bringing out PvP ships to DEFEND your silver and gold - lest pirates take it away from you. Who makes you a helpless victim? The guy who shoots you? CCP? NO Sir. It is the guy who blatantly refuses to defend his mining fleet.

As usual, the more whining I read the more I come to realize wardec corps DO serve a purpose and we need them. Reading this I can only imagine in horror what highsec would look like without.

See, you need to pick one. Either you want to keep wardecs in the game but honestly want to make them better and are just clueless to the consequences of the changes you are proposing, or you are actually "against" them and want them removed or nerfed into irrelevance so you and your carebear friends can PvE in peace. Once you decide your position, we can then rehash the arguments relevant to that for the umpteenth time instead of having you argue out of both sides of your mouth.

Wars are not imbalanced. From a mechanistic perspective they are completely balanced, if not in favour of the defender because of the free ally mechanic. But what they do enable is for the full force of the basic game design - that open sandbox game play we have talked so much about and which is indeed imbalanced - to hit highsec players in the face. It enables the completely unbalanced game play at the core of the game to wash over the carebears huddling under the protection of CONCORD, exactly like everywhere else in the game. Unbalanced and asymmetric fights are the norm everywhere in Eve, because that is what CCP intended when they designed the game. Highsec was never intended to be different.

You are asking for a "reason" to defend yourself and your stuff that exists nowhere else in the game. In nullsec you are not rewarded by the game for defending your space or structures - you just get to keep them. In a wormhole, the game doesn't give you a bonus for forming up to defend your operations. Also, in neither place are you automatically entitled to an avenue to counter-attack or the ability to earn absolute safety from an attacker. In fact, CCP has gone to great lengths in recent years to make players in these places more vulnerable to attack. Highsec is exactly the same, for corporations at least, for which the mechanism that CCP has come up with to plug them into the core game play is the war declaration.

Wars are nothing special nor enable game play that CCP deems undesirable. They just allow the player-driven conflict to come to those in highsec in a semi-controlled fashion. I am sure it can be tweaked - cost schedules restructured, stronger incorporation of structures, and so forth, but what you are complaining about, the persistent vulnerability to everyone else and the lack of a way to directly hit back at someone, really is at the core of the game. CCP is not going to give you a way to isolate yourself the sandbox because being at risk is the basic game design, but even if they did it would not make wardecs better. It would just make wardecs useless against anyone larger than yourself and give the largest groups in the game complete immunity to wars.

Eve is suppose to be this way. That is a fundamental truth. You do not get to hide under the skirt of CONCORD because you can form a bigger fleet than me. You do not get to hide from me anywhere but in a station because you are intended to always be at risk by design. This is what makes Eve unique and allows players to make their own stories in a shared universe they can actually change, instead of just playing what amounts to a single-player game in a shared setting like most MMOs really are.

That's a convenience feature, you don't need corp offices or the associated corp hangars; although they are nice to have. There's zero cost to moving stuff from the corp hangar into a personal one before giving up your office lease. Above and beyond the cost of rent, upon reacquiring your lease at a later date it's also cost free to transfer the contents back into the corp hangar.

If you can't defend them, why would you deploy them?

If that is the case you're getting ripped off.

IIRC Red Frog charge 3.5M per pickup and 1.5M for each jump in highsec; using their rates, the cost of a wardec rents you a whole freighter for 30 jumps if there's only one pick up point.

^^ The point I was trying to make, but far more succinct and successful at actually making it.