Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You are correct. The OP of that thread was nothing more than to suggest to players that the wardec system is broken in favor of the aggressor. I, as well as other people, came in and made suggestions after the fact.
However, you seem to be unable to tell the deference between my thread and the earlier thread you posted. While my thread was hunting for ideas to fix the wardec system, the other thread was nothing but a rant on how everyone should be forced into pvp combat and suggested no reasons how or why. Nor does it solve any game issues. Soo, what now?


Ok.....Why was this added? Cause it seems to be the exact opposite of what you're trying to do.



LOL. It's funny cause i'm betting most of us would say the same to you...
There have been 22 or so likes on my posts in this thread.
There have been several for other posts agreeing with my stance.
You have one.
So who's winning.
Oh, and I enjoy bumping your thread. it allows you to see more people on the carebear side, while at the same time, allowing me to show how dumb your suggestion is.

Crap, better like my thread with my alts and get my alts to post in support of me then.

If you think that likes in a thread is equal to winning then good for you.

Doesn't take more than a couple brain cells to see the motive behind this particular section.

OP wants to sit at gates like the one in Luse, right outside of Clellenon, with his friends and have a "who can kill the most noobs" contest. I'm sure that "new players are an exception for a while" in your mind is what.. a week? A month? How long?
How can you judge how long that time should be? Do you assume that everyone plays Eve the exact same amount of time every day that you do? Or have you got solid data/facts somewhere to back up whatever magical number you've come up with as to how long someone can be immune to being a target while their NPC corp is wardecced?

War-deccing is too cheap right now, and is used for little more than turning High-sec into a carnival shooting gallery by cowards who are to afraid to go up against the low-sec pilots that make the carebears wary of low-sec.

Your ideas are well thought through in most cases, and well written (not seen often on the forums), but I completely disagree and am left with the distinct impression that you are simply looking to play Duck Hunt with spaceships.

"We were ganked!" fail double post

If I got it right, then the base idea behind the wardec mechanics were the ability to disrupt the hisec supply chain of a nullsec opponent. But wardecs, as I came to know them, are misused as an easy way to get killmails and/or positive killmail statistics.

So there would be a quite straight way to solve this: Ship- and podkills in wardecs won't produce killmails. At least, if technically possible, not outside the game (no post to the API). So all the killboard padders won't have a reason to start a wardec, at all. But the initial intention, making it possible to disrupt the hisec supply chain of a nullsec opponent is untouched.

Another approach, as discussed heavy in this thread, might be the costs of a wardec. There came two things to my mind:

1)
If a corp or alliance declares war on another corp or alliance, it pays a fee to concord, as usual. But the decced corp or alliance may pay a fee to concord, too, to block the wardec. If it does so, the declarer may raise its fee, to break the block, and so on. If the wardec is blocked, the declarer can't declare war to the blocker for one week. The one, who won the bidding, pays his fee, the other one gets its back.

This would add an economical way, to disturb the hisec supply of a nullsec opponent, but also adds a way for industrial corps to protect their members from griefing.

2)
In addition to the fee for declaring war, the declarer has to pay a fee for every ship, he destroys (but none for Structures). The fee should be in the range of the ships estimated worth, and may be added to a killmail (if posted) as a loss for the attacker, thus ruining his kill statistics.

This approach also aims into the direction of griefers and killmail padders, because it makes a war more expensive for the attacker, if he wants easy and valuable prey. But is less annoying for those, who aim for Structures.

One word about carebears:
I am a carebear. I don't enjoy PvP much (even if I win), as well as I don't enjoy rollercoaster rides. An adrenaline rush is no fun for me, and I am not the only one. I am not ashamed of this, and I don't see, why I or anyone else should be. So I don't understand, why "carebear" is used as a cuss word. EVE is a game as well for carebears as for PvP'ers. If one of this two Factions vanishes, EVE will be dead code.

But why shouldn't it be trivial? No troll here, I'm dead serious.

Why shouldn't it be trivially easy--but by the same token, why shouldn't it be much harder?

And before you answer, especially vis-a-vis a rationale for making it harder, remember:

1) Making it non-trivial for your own reasons is not a valid answer. You don't get to influence others' play-styles unless you're willing to front their subscription-fees, and even then, it's highly arguable.

2) Drawing analogies of real-life rationale for war and/or the financial/material cost of same to PvP war in a video-game is even less so. (And, tbqfh, distasteful/bordering on offensive.)

While you're correct in saying that CONCORD is their to punish law breakers, and not so much to protect high sec dwellers, it has the same outcome.
They're there to punish law breaker for engaging YOU illegally, which in turn means they're protecting you.
You can't really have one without the other.

There would be no purpose to have CONCORD if others weren't punished for illegally engaging you.

That said, reguardless of whether concord it there to protect or there to punish, they're still there to secure.

So allowing CONCORD to turn the other cheek for such a small amount of isk is pathetic.

Most of the ships in game can't even be purchased for the amount of isk that is used to bribe concord.

While "cause I can", kb-padding, and griefing may be viable reasons in some players minds to start a war, it doesn't mean that wars should still remain cheap so those players can get there jollies off with little isk down.


Correct, the way I wish to play should not influence the way others like to play, but in that same respect, the way others like to play shouldn't effect the way I like to play.

PVP players want wardecs to stay as they are. PVE players want wardecs to go away because they're being taken advantage of by griefers, kb-padder, and cause I can players.

So that's why players like myself are suggesting an alternate.

Wardecs should cost significantly more

Victory conditions should be tied to wardecs. If the aggressor attains the conditions, than it will be much cheaper to continue the wardec.

The aggressed should be able to deny the aggressor their win by either attaining the victory conditions, or denying the aggressor to reach the conditions. Attaining the vicotry conditions first as the aggressed means the wardec is closed and the aggressor cannot wardec again for a certain period of time (maybe 6 months?), but if a member of the aggressed corp/alliance aggresses the original aggressor in any way (unless the original aggressor initiates aggression again), than they are free to wardec at original cost again. If they deny the victory conditions to the aggressor, then the aggressor can still continue the war, but will cost double the initial costs.

Surrender conditions should be tied to the wardec system. If the aggressor wishes to give the aggressed a chance to surrender then they can set conditions such as, the removal of certain players from the corp(if the wardec is directed at specific players), isk payout, removal of a POS from a system, removal of all corp players from a system, and whatever other conditions you can think of.
They can also set a duration in which hostilities will cease, in which case any members in the aggressing corp during the initiation of the wardec cannot wardec the aggressed corp again during the duration, and moving to another corp means that corp cannot wardec the aggressed corp with one of the original players in that corp until the duration of the cease fire is over, or someone in the aggressed corp initiates aggression against one of the original members of the aggressing corp.

During a cease fire situation caused through the aggressed winning through attaining the victory conditions first, or through surrender conditions, than any acts committed by the aggressing corp or an original member of the aggressing corp against the aggressed corp are CONCORDABLE such as theft and other methods of aggression that wouldn't initially have lead to a concord. This would only apply in high sec, so low and null sec would still be free kills.

Now, when it comes to setting victory conditions, they are the same style conditions as surrender conditions.
Isk loss committed
Removal of a POS from system
and other possible conditions.

In the event of an isk loss committed style victory condition, this would apply to the loss of ships, pods, clones, implants, modules, and whatever else. Even undestroyed modules in a wreck, and salvage materials would count, unless the original team to whom the wreck belongs is able to attain the salvage and/or modules.

Also, in an isk loss victory condition, not fighting is the same as losing, and not flying is the same as losing, however, more so than flying but not fighting.

Continued in next post..............

Its strange none of you will address my post directly. Any wardec that doesn't target individuals will be evaded. Any wardec that does target individuals will lead to those players leaving. No suggestion you or anyone else has posted changes that fundamental dynamic. Any change to the system has to address this underlying issue.

Joe, you are weakening your own suggestions in an attempt to balance and negotiate with someone who is not capable of seeing things from your POV.

As things are - wardecs are heavily balanced in favour of the aggressor - adding achievable victory conditions would add to the enjoyment of both sides, as it gives the victim an opportunity to defend themselves from future attack - and it also results in the defender having a reason to do so - producing 'good fights' for the attacker (We should assume that the system should be designed to try and create 'good fights' and assume that the players will twist it away from this goal as far as they are allowed)

The only problem with the idea of definable victory conditions is that different wars merit different victory conditions. Some wars are about destruction of ships, others are about destruction of POSes, others are about territory denial. Thusly, we would need a selection of possible victory conditions - chosen by the aggressor (giving them the advantage of choosing the battlefield) - which would provide for an interesting challenge the two parties would undock for.

Conversely, the defender should get to choose the penalty for failure - the wardec fee (in part paid to the victor) and the length of time that the victor may control the war status (either preventing a war, or continuing for free)

To make wardecs a good addition to the game, rather than simply a griefing mechanic - they have to be designed to have the potential to be fun for both sides, for a victory to be won, and for the victory to have meaning.

The main problem with the wardec system as is, is that the most effective tactic in damage control, and in preventing future wardecs - is to dock up and wait for your opponent to get bored - this is NOT FUN FOR EITHER PARTY. This has to change so that the most effective tactic as a defender is to rally your forces and fight for your corp/alliance.

My Two-Cents...

I Barely PVP and a Barely read the OP's Post.

---
PVP = PVP Players or PVPers.

War Decs Should Cost More
No Carebears = No PVP.
PVP in High Sec = No PVP
No Carebears = No High Sec
No High Sec = No PVP
No High Sec = No Carebears
No High Sec = No New Players
No New Players = No Carebears, PVP, No increased Revenue for EVE-Online.
No Increased Revenue = No Expansion Focus.

Do you want to kill eve? if so Take out High Sec.
---

Basically I think that High Sec has it's fair share of risks. For new players losing ships is more likely to happen to mission pockets. As it should stay. I'd rather see someone learning the game than being Ganked all the time before they even get a chance. New players are coming to eve all the time. Some people quit playing eve as much due to lack of ability to play or just pure boredom.

Suicide Ganking = Fair for High Sec. It forces people to make the realization that working together is more important than trying to make quick isk by your self.

War Decing I think should have terms added to it. Should they be forced? nope... Should they be enforced yes.
You should also have a cooldown period before you can re-dec the same corp/alliance. Such as a week long CD.

That way people don't just Constantly Harass a corp just for fun. It should be about cost effectiveness.

Therefore the costs should be increased to a point that you will be less likely to dec a corp of 8-12 people. You'll be more likely to go for the corp with 25-30 people.

---

And that was my Two-Cents.